# Another abortion referendum?



## The_Banker

At the risk of opening up a 30 page debate that will eventually be locked I am wondering what peoples opinion is in the abortion debate that seems to have kicked off in the media. 

Labour (from what I can make out) appear to be happy to legislate for abortion in limited circumstances i.e. the mothers health in in danger.
FG seem to have differing views with various TDs saying different things. They feel the church has a right to lobby politicians.
FF have been very vocal in protecting the churches right to speak out on the need for another referendum.  

Personally my opinion would be that the government should legislate for the right to abortion where the mother has been raped, health is in danger or there is no chance the child will survive after childbirth.

With abortion just a €19.99 flight away we have been exporting our problem with Ryanair acting as the spout, releasing the pressure that would build up on a social level if there were no facilities available to mothers with unwanted pregnancies. 

As for the Catholic Church I feel they have lost their moral authority to dictate/advise/lobby politicians that we elect on legislation in this country. They didn’t lose it when their priests raped and abused children (that happened in other institutions) but they certainly did when they covered it up.


----------



## truthseeker

This cant end well. The thread that is, not the possible referendum!

I believe in the right to choice.


----------



## T McGibney

The_Banker said:


> As for the Catholic Church I feel they have lost their moral authority to dictate/advise/lobby politicians that we elect on legislation in this country. They didn’t lose it when their priests raped and abused children (that happened in other institutions) but they certainly did when they covered it up.



Not for a second am I excusing any coverups, but basic freedom of expression concepts would suggest that clergy should not be muzzled either. No-one has any problem apparently with disgraced politicians lobbying for specific causes.


----------



## Knuttell

The_Banker said:


> Personally my opinion would be that the government should legislate for the right to abortion where the mother has been raped, health is in danger or there is no chance the child will survive after childbirth.



Its an issue that polarizes people yet isn't black and white.I would be against abortion except in the instances listed above.

As for the church's moral authority,it pains me to say it as a former practicing catholic but they no longer have any high ground from which to dictate or preach,their treatment of the abused both as children and as adults is sickening and despicable,the manner in which the current pope and senior clergy have behaved is beneath contempt,all they are concerned with is maintaining the wealth the church has accumulated both here and in rome.

They are as far removed from the Carpenters son and his preaching as is humanely possible,any resemblance betwixt the vatican and the Nazarene is purely lip service at this stage.


----------



## Leper

The abortion referendum will come again.   We can talk, walk, baulk and if the referendum is not passed there is always the UK and other near countries.  Ultimately, it is the woman who will decide whether to have an abortion or not.  I wonder if the referendum vote should be confined to women only?


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> Not for a second am I excusing any coverups, but basic freedom of expression concepts would suggest that clergy should not be muzzled either.


 +1 to that.



Knuttell said:


> Its an issue that polarizes people yet isn't black and white.I would be against abortion except in the instances listed above.


I agree. I can see strong arguments on both sides.



Leper said:


> I wonder if the referendum vote should be confined to women only?


 Why, should men have no say as to what happens to their unborn child?


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> Why, should men have no say as to what happens to their unborn child?



Would you agree with forced pregnancy? Sounds extremely barbaric!


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> Would you agree with forced pregnancy? Sounds extremely barbaric!



Yes, it does but so does aborting a baby without any input from the father.


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> This cant end well. The thread that is, not  the possible referendum!


I'd have to agree with  that.





Leper said:


> I wonder if the referendum vote should be  confined to women only?


Well that's just silly.  Abortion is not a women's issue, it's a societal issue.





T McGibney said:


> . . basic freedom of expression concepts would suggest that clergy should not be muzzled either.


Agreed. Rabbitte et al should not decide who can participate in the debate.

The FF/PD government fecked up the 2002 abortion (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) referendum - which was meant to undo the flawed x-case judgement - by including protection for destructive embryonic stem-cell research.  This compelled a sizeable cohort of pro-lifers to vote against, and it was narrowly defeated (<0.5%).  Otherwise we wouldn't be facing this again.  Labour want to legislate for that flawed judgement and more.   A new referendum makes more sense (to me anyhow).


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> Yes, it does but so does aborting a baby without any input from the father.



So you agree with forced pregnancy?


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> So you agree with forced pregnancy?



I don't agree that one parent should have no say in whether their baby lives or dies. 
If a woman is pregnant at the moment, or even after this referendum if it's passed, and there is no health issue, then she will not be allowed to have an abortion so she will be forced to carry the baby to term. That's a forced pregnancy so yes, I'm in favour of forced pregnancy if the alternative is to kill an unborn child.

This isn’t a religious issue for me; I’m an atheist. I don’t think a person has the right to kill an unborn child because they don’t want to be a parent. Adoption is always an option if that’s the case.


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> Would you agree with forced pregnancy? Sounds extremely barbaric!


A tad early in the thread for a  methinks.


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> I don’t think a person has the right to kill an unborn child because they don’t want to be a parent.



But its ok under certain circumstances? Like rape, the health of the mother being compromised etc?


----------



## Shawady

There are roughly 40 cases a year where an abortion was needed to save the life of the mother yet over 4,000 women travel to the UK annually to have an abortion so it does not appear that the vast majority seeking it are doing it for that reason. 

[broken link removed]


----------



## truthseeker

Shawady said:


> There are roughly 40 cases a year where an abortion was needed to save the life of the mother yet over 4,000 women travel to the UK annually to have an abortion so it does not appear that the vast majority seeking it are doing it for that reason.
> 
> [broken link removed]



The point is, the moral position of 'abortion under certain circumstances' is not tenable. Either the right to life is more important or it isnt. If a woman who is pregnant through rape or incest is allowed have an abortion because she doesnt want to be a parent then so should any other woman. Otherwise we are punishing women for the method under which they became pregnant. In that case its not about the life of the child anymore, its about the moral behaviour of the woman. 

Im ok with the position that someone does not agree with abortion, fine, I will never force them to have an abortion. But I dont like that they will force me to go through with a pregnancy. 

Incidentally, there is no way for a married woman to give a child up for adoption so a forced pregnancy for a married woman will result in a woman who doesnt want to parent raising a child - not a good outcome for either I dont think.

Anyway I am going to step out of this discussion because it goes nowhere except into the land of heated emotivism.


----------



## Sunny

This thread will not end well.....

The only contribution to the debate I will make is this. A relative of mine who spent more than four years trying to get pregnant finally managed it and was over the moon. A few months ago, she went for a routine scan where the foetus was diagnosed with a severe anomaly. The foetus had a strong heart beat but was severely deformed. Three medical opinions including one in the UK confirmed that there was a chance that the baby would survive and be born at full term, but that it would be in severe pain, have to undergo invasive surgeries and would more than likely only live for weeks if even that. There was zero chance of long term survival or decent quality of life. My relative was given the choice of carrying to full term or have a termination. She chose to have a termination and so being the caring society that we are, we made her pack a bag and sent herself and her husband skulking off to England to that they could get the procedure carried out over there. 

People may or may not agree with abortion and I don't really care if people think my relative is a murderer but making her feel like a criminal for trying to do the right thing by herself, her husband, her 7 year old son and her unborn child is disgusting and is a damning indictment on this Country's cowardice in dealing with this issue.


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> The point is, the moral position of 'abortion under certain circumstances' is not tenable. Either the right to life is more important or it isnt. If a woman who is pregnant through rape or incest is allowed have an abortion because she doesnt want to be a parent then so should any other woman. Otherwise we are punishing women for the method under which they became pregnant. In that case its not about the life of the child anymore, its about the moral behaviour of the woman.


 I agree that the absolutist position is not tenable but I don’t agree that the opposite absolutist position is tenable. Rape and incest are not voluntary acts and so have no bearing on the morality of the woman. If the life of the mother is in danger then it’s not a moral debate either, it’s a medical one.



truthseeker said:


> Im ok with the position that someone does not agree with abortion, fine, I will never force them to have an abortion. But I dont like that they will force me to go through with a pregnancy.


 If the alternative is you killing an unborn child then I think it is. 



truthseeker said:


> Incidentally, there is no way for a married woman to give a child up for adoption so a forced pregnancy for a married woman will result in a woman who doesnt want to parent raising a child - not a good outcome for either I dont think.


 Yes, there’s a case to be made for married parents being allowed to give children up for adoption. 

By the way, why do the father’s wishes not come into this debate at all? If the mother wants to about the child then that’s her right but if he wants to keep it he can’t. If he doesn’t want the child and she does he still has to support it for 18 to 23 years.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> This thread will not end well.....
> 
> The only contribution to the debate I will make is this. A relative of mine who spent more than four years trying to get pregnant finally managed it and was over the moon. A few months ago, she went for a routine scan where the foetus was diagnosed with a severe anomaly. The foetus had a strong heart beat but was severely deformed. Three medical opinions including one in the UK confirmed that there was a chance that the baby would survive and be born at full term, but that it would be in severe pain, have to undergo evasive surgeries and would more than likely only live for weeks if even that. There was zero chance of long term survival or decent quality of life. My relative was given the choice of carrying to full term or have a termination. She chose to have a termination and so being the caring society that we are, we made her pack a bag and sent herself and her husband skulking off to England to that they could get the procedure carried out over there.
> 
> People may or may not agree with abortion and I don't really care if people think my relative is a murderer but making her feel like a criminal for trying to do the right thing by herself, her husband, her 7 year old son and her unborn child is disgusting and is a damning indictment on this Country's cowardice in dealing with this issue.



Very good post. I agree 100%


----------



## jhegarty

truthseeker said:


> Would you agree with forced pregnancy? Sounds extremely barbaric!




Up to how many weeks would you allow abortions ?


----------



## liaconn

Everything in me just recoils against the idea of abortion. To me a child is a human being from the minute of conception and so every argument is subordinate to that.


----------



## truthseeker

jhegarty said:


> Up to how many weeks would you allow abortions ?



I dont want to be rude to you by not responding to a direct question, but I meant it about stepping out of this debate so apologies, but I will refrain from answering the question.


----------



## Time

I don't believe another referendum is needed. The government should just legislate as it is.

Just for the record it is not just abortions that are exported to the UK, people who have been divorced outside Ireland are now having to turn to the UK to get married again as the State here puts up so many blocks on previously divorced people in the unreasonable demands of paperwork. Same with bankruptcy as we all know here.


----------



## Sunny

Time said:


> I don't believe another referendum is needed. The government should just legislate as it is.


 
It probably does need a referendum because the of the Eight Amendment of the Constitution. Very hard to legislate without it throwing up Constitutional issues.


----------



## Firefly

I'm generally against abortion, but concede that there are many valid cases such as where the life of the mother is at stake or where the child will die soon after birth which may be valid reasons for abortion. The problem here, obviously, is where do you draw the line? Sadly, either one or both parents get to chose in a country where abortion is legal, but the very one who will be killed...the child, has no say. 

I remember this coming up as a subject for debate in 2nd year in school (religion class of all places) and someone made a point against abortion to someone who was in favour of it by saying something along the lines of "If your mother decided back in the day to have an abortion with you, the you yourself wouldn't even be here debating this". A bit simplistic but there's a point there somewhere.

Firefly.


----------



## dereko1969

liaconn said:


> Everything in me just recoils against the idea of abortion. To me a child is a human being from the minute of conception and so every argument is subordinate to that.


 
Are you opposed to the morning after pill also? And other types of contraception?


----------



## orka

Purple said:


> Yes, it does but so does aborting a baby without any input from the father.


But how does the 'input' work?

Scenario A
Female: I'm pregnant and after careful consideration I've decided I want to have an abortion
Male: I don't want you to have an abortion
F: Well, I do want to have an abortion. It's my body and my life.
M: I don't want you to have an abortion
F: Thanks for the input, I've booked my ticket

Scenario B
F: I'm pregnant and after careful consideration, I've decided to keep the baby
M: I don't want to be a father, I'd like you to have an abortion
F: I don't want to have an abortion, I want to have my baby
M: I don't want to be a father, please have an abortion
F: Thanks for the input, I'll be in touch about child support

Unless we have a legal system that allows a man to compel a woman to proceed (or not) with a pregnancy, any 'input' from a man can only ever be an expression of his wishes.


----------



## Purple

orka said:


> But how does the 'input' work?



Yea, I know. There's no simple answer but it seems wrong that a man has no say in the life or death of his unborn child.


----------



## liaconn

dereko1969 said:


> Are you opposed to the morning after pill also? And other types of contraception?


 
Yes, anything that ends life after it has been conceived.


----------



## Perplexed

Error


----------



## Leper

orka said:


> But how does the 'input' work?
> 
> Scenario A
> Female: I'm pregnant and after careful consideration I've decided I want to have an abortion
> Male: I don't want you to have an abortion
> F: Well, I do want to have an abortion. It's my body and my life.
> M: I don't want you to have an abortion
> F: Thanks for the input, I've booked my ticket
> 
> Scenario B
> F: I'm pregnant and after careful consideration, I've decided to keep the baby
> M: I don't want to be a father, I'd like you to have an abortion
> F: I don't want to have an abortion, I want to have my baby
> M: I don't want to be a father, please have an abortion
> F: Thanks for the input, I'll be in touch about child support
> 
> Unless we have a legal system that allows a man to compel a woman to proceed (or not) with a pregnancy, any 'input' from a man can only ever be an expression of his wishes.


 
Excellent Post, Orca


----------



## One

leper said:


> excellent post, orca


 
+1


----------



## One

firefly said:


> i'm generally against abortion, but concede that there are many valid cases such as where the life of the mother is at stake or where the child will die soon after birth which may be valid reasons for abortion. The problem here, obviously, is where do you draw the line? .


 
+1.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Excellent Post, Orca



The answer is "Yes, but it's a childs life as well so it's not just about you."


----------



## Firefly

I can imagine that the recent moves to amend the Constitution for children (Amendment 29) will have a significant implication if it is enshrined before on any referendum on abortion..


----------



## orka

Purple said:


> The answer is "Yes, but it's a childs life as well so it's not just about you."


To which, again, the reply will be 'thanks for the input'. What does saying "it's a childs life as well so it's not just about you" add to the conversation that the woman hasn't already thought about?


----------



## Purple

orka said:


> To which, again, the reply will be 'thanks for the input'. What does saying "it's a childs life as well so it's not just about you" add to the conversation that the woman hasn't already thought about?



I think the father of a child should have the right to access the courts to stop a woman having an abortion. It’s his child too. The “It’s by body” argument isn’t the primary concern. The primary issue is a child’s life and a women should not have the right to kill that child because she doesn’t want to carry it to term, just as she doesn’t have the right to kill it after it’s born because she doesn’t want to be a parent.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I think the father of a child should have the right to access the courts to stop a woman having an abortion.


 
I think legislating for this would be a nightmare though. 

Q: "Who's the father"
A: "Don't know" / "Some guy I met on my holidays in South America" 

etc


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I think legislating for this would be a nightmare though.
> 
> Q: "Who's the father"
> A: "Don't know" / "Some guy I met on my holidays in South America"
> 
> etc


Yes, it would only work where there was a stable relationship or marriage.


----------



## Firefly

purple said:


> yes, it would only work where there was a stable relationship or _stable_ marriage.


 
fyp


----------



## Leper

orka said:


> But how does the 'input' work?
> 
> Scenario A
> Female: I'm pregnant and after careful consideration I've decided I want to have an abortion
> Male: I don't want you to have an abortion
> F: Well, I do want to have an abortion. It's my body and my life.
> M: I don't want you to have an abortion
> F: Thanks for the input, I've booked my ticket
> 
> Scenario B
> F: I'm pregnant and after careful consideration, I've decided to keep the baby
> M: I don't want to be a father, I'd like you to have an abortion
> F: I don't want to have an abortion, I want to have my baby
> M: I don't want to be a father, please have an abortion
> F: Thanks for the input, I'll be in touch about child support


 
Let's not assume that everybody looking for an abortion is not married.

Scenario C
Wife: (Thinking to herself after confirming her pregnancy) I'm pregnant, I don't want another baby and blurts out to husband I'm off with the girls shortly on a girly break, couldn't resist the low airfares and I'm worth it.
Husband: Off you go, enjoy your break, you deserve it.

Abortion occurs and nobody is any the wiser. [Please dont take offence, I'm merely adding to previous posts].


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Let's not assume that everybody looking for an abortion is not married.
> 
> Scenario C
> Wife: (Thinking to herself after confirming her pregnancy) I'm pregnant, I don't want another baby and blurts out to husband I'm off with the girls shortly on a girly break, couldn't resist the low airfares and I'm worth it.
> Husband: Off you go, enjoy your break, you deserve it.
> 
> Abortion occurs and nobody is any the wiser. [Please dont take offence, I'm merely adding to previous posts].



That's quite possible and there's no way of legislating for it.

I find the whole topic difficult to square and I would certainly not judge anyone who has had an abortion; it is a massive decision and can have a life-long impact on people.


----------



## dereko1969

liaconn said:


> Yes, anything that ends life after it has been conceived.


 
So if someone you know, sister, daughter, mother was raped you would object to them using the morning-after pill?

My mind boggles.


----------



## T McGibney

dereko1969 said:


> So if someone you know, sister, daughter, mother was raped you would object to them using the morning-after pill?
> 
> My mind boggles.



She's still entitled to her opinion even if you disagree with it or can't understand it.


----------



## dereko1969

Yes of course, I just can't imagine being so stringent in my views that I wouldn't be able to see the greater good.


----------



## truthseeker

dereko1969 said:


> Yes of course, I just can't imagine being so stringent in my views that I wouldn't be able to see the greater good.



Perhaps her definition of 'the greater good' differs to yours.


----------



## dereko1969

truthseeker said:


> Perhaps her definition of 'the greater good' differs to yours.


 
Obviously it does. To my mind being forced to carry a zygote following a rape is tantamount to a double rape.

But this is a pointless thread anyway.


----------



## truthseeker

dereko1969 said:


> But this is a pointless thread anyway.



Absolute agreement.


----------



## liaconn

dereko1969 said:


> So if someone you know, sister, daughter, mother was raped you would object to them using the morning-after pill?
> 
> My mind boggles.


 
It's not something I've made a decision to feel. It's just an instinctive recoiling against what I see as taking a life. I'm really sorry if it offends people and I can understand that it must come across as unfeeling and harsh but to me a life is a life and I can't condone doing anything to end it. To me the guilty party in a rape is the rapist and even they don't get put to death.


----------



## dereko1969

liaconn said:


> It's not something I've made a decision to feel. *It's just an instinctive recoiling against what I see as taking a life*. I'm really sorry if it offends people and I can understand that it must come across as unfeeling and harsh but to me a life is a life and I can't condone doing anything to end it. To me the guilty party in a rape is the rapist *and even they don't get put to death*.


 
Interesting logic there, anti morning-after pill yet pro-death penalty.


----------



## Sunny

dereko1969 said:


> Interesting logic there, anti morning-after pill yet pro-death penalty.


 
That's not what she said. And that's why this is a pointless thread.


----------



## liaconn

dereko1969 said:


> Interesting logic there, anti morning-after pill yet pro-death penalty.


 
I'm not pro-death penalty. I meant it as 'even' the rapist doesn't get put to death.

ETA Just read my post. I actually stated it as above so I have no idea how you concluded I'm for the death penalty.


----------



## dereko1969

Apologies I mis-read your post as implying support for the death penalty, it's a common position taken by pro-lifers in the US which has always confused me.


----------



## michaelm

Although the Morning After Pill can act as  an abortifacient, it is licensed in Ireland on the basis that it can act to prevent fertilization.

Every necessary medical treatment/procedure is afforded to pregnant women  in Ireland, and sometimes this leads to the loss of the unborn.   Such treatments/procedures are not abortion.  Irish hospitals do not carry out  abortions (on the basis that they are neither legal nor ethical).  

I do not believe that the right to life of the unborn should be predicated on how conception transpired or the likely life-expectancy of the child.


----------



## T McGibney

michaelm said:


> i do not believe that the right to life of the unborn should be predicated on how conception transpired or the likely life-expectancy of the child.



+1


----------



## liaconn

michaelm said:


> I do not believe that the right to life of the unborn should be predicated on how conception transpired or the likely life-expectancy of the child.


 
I agree.


----------



## Sunny

And of the three of you, how many of you have had to decide between an abortion or inflicting pain and suffering on a baby while watching it die a slow and painful death? How many of you were raped and forced to carry that child? How many of you were given a choice between risking your life by going through with a pregnancy or terminating it? 

I presume all of you since you are comfortable passing judgement on other peoples choices.


----------



## Sunny

By the way and taking it away from abortion, how do people feel about inflicting painful procedures on terminally ill children that stand no hope of success apart from prolonging what could be a miserable existence?


----------



## Firefly

It would, IMO, be impossible to legislate for abortion on the grounds of rape, just like it would be impossible to legislate for the permission of the father as detailed above.


----------



## Firefly

Sunny said:


> By the way and taking it away from abortion, how do people feel about inflicting painful procedures on terminally ill children that stand no hope of success apart from prolonging what could be a miserable existence?


 
When you say terminally ill, do you mean that the child is certain to die immediately or soon after birth? If so then I would be in favour of ending the child's life.


----------



## T McGibney

Sunny said:


> And of the three of you, how many of you have had to decide between an abortion or inflicting pain and suffering on a baby while watching it die a slow and painful death? How many of you were raped and forced to carry that child? How many of you were given a choice between risking your life by going through with a pregnancy or terminating it?
> 
> I presume all of you since you are comfortable passing judgement on other peoples choices.



I passed judgement on nobody. I just indicated that I agreed with another poster's opinion. 

I've never shot anyone or anything nor have I been shot by anyone else. Does that disqualify me from having an opinion on gun control?


----------



## T McGibney

Sunny said:


> By the way and taking it away from abortion, how do people feel about inflicting painful procedures on terminally ill children that stand no hope of success apart from prolonging what could be a miserable existence?



How do people feel about inflicting painful procedures on terminally ill  adults that stand no hope of success apart from prolonging what could  be a miserable existence?


----------



## michaelm

Sunny said:


> And of the three of you, how many of you have had to decide between an abortion or inflicting pain and suffering on a baby while watching it die a slow and painful death?


I'm opposed to euthanasia.  You put a sick dog down, not a sick child.





Sunny said:


> How many of you were raped and forced to carry that child?


Come on, that's irrelevant.





Sunny said:


> How many of you were given a choice between risking your life by going through with a pregnancy or terminating it?


You risk your life when you cross the road.  Abortion is not a life saving procedure, it doesn't save lives, it takes them.





Sunny said:


> I presume all of you since you are comfortable passing judgement on other peoples choices.


If it's wrong, it's wrong.


----------



## Sunny

T McGibney said:


> How do people feel about inflicting painful procedures on terminally ill  adults that stand no hope of success apart from prolonging what could  be a miserable existence?



I think that it is wrong if it is forced on them because it makes the remaining family feel better.


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> I'm opposed to euthanasia.  You put a sick dog down, not a sick child.Come on, that's irrelevant.You risk your life when you cross the road.  Abortion is not a life saving procedure, it doesn't save lives, it takes them.If it's wrong, it's wrong.



Right, so we don't allow a dog to suffer a slow and painful death but we allow a baby to be born that is sure to suffer the same fate? And we are not talking about putting children down. We are talking about prolonging their suffering so we can feel better. 

Abortion is life saving in some circumstances and nobody can deny that. This is not about allowing abortion on demand and we need to remember that. 

It's wrong according to you.


----------



## liaconn

Sunny said:


> And of the three of you, how many of you have had to decide between an abortion or inflicting pain and suffering on a baby while watching it die a slow and painful death? How many of you were raped and forced to carry that child? How many of you were given a choice between risking your life by going through with a pregnancy or terminating it?
> 
> I presume all of you since you are comfortable passing judgement on other peoples choices.


 

That is the equivalent of me asking you if you've ever been a baby conceived through rape and knowing you're about to be killed even though you've done nothing wrong. An emotive argument that implies a total lack of compassion on behalf of the other person. I am well aware of the difficulties, trauma and conflict of emotions that people in the above situations must face - Whether they opt for abortion or to carry the baby to full term. Anti abortionists are also traumatised at times by the consequences of their beliefs. It's not a competition or about people 'passing judgment'.


----------



## liaconn

Sunny said:


> By the way and taking it away from abortion, how do people feel about inflicting painful procedures on terminally ill children that stand no hope of success apart from prolonging what could be a miserable existence?


 
There is a difference between intervening to prolong life, and intervening to terminate it.


----------



## Sunny

liaconn said:


> That is the equivalent of me asking you if you've ever been a baby conceived through rape and knowing you're about to be killed even though you've done nothing wrong. An emotive argument that implies a total lack of compassion on behalf of the other person. I am well aware of the difficulties, trauma and conflict of emotions that people in the above situations must face - Whether they opt for abortion or to carry the baby to full term. Anti abortionists are also traumatised at times by the consequences of their beliefs. It's not a competition or about people 'passing judgment'.



It's not the equivalent because it is simply none of your business if I choose to have an abortion. What trauma does it cause you? On the other hand, forcing someone to go through an unwanted pregnancy for certain reasons because you don't agree with it can cause someone trauma. Or forcing them to go to the UK because we can't deal with it.

Would you make your teenage daughter carry a child after rape? I know this is extreme but it happens. We need to admit it and deal it instead of closing our eyes and ears and brushing it under the carpet. That's what the x case is about.


----------



## Sunny

liaconn said:


> There is a difference between intervening to prolong life, and intervening to terminate it.



Really? So a new born baby is grateful for those days/weeks/months of pain and misery before passing away?


----------



## Leper

What was meant to be a short observation gathering post has turned into an obviously emotive subject with several entrenching themselves for warfare that probably will go nowhere. Perhaps can we reflect?

1. It is apparent that the father has little or no choice.
2. The pregnant mother has the choice.
3. The foetus or baby has no choice.

I ask again would it be prudent to confine the voting in the referendum to women?


----------



## Leper

I'm on a roll here so I will continue . . . 

Let's assume the abortion referendum is carried or is not carried.  Who will gain if the subject is carried?  Interesting question which I am not going to answer.  I reckon the cost of abortion in Ireland will far excede the cost of the same facility in the UK.  Therefore, the cheap flights will dictate where the abortions will occur.

If the referendum is not carried. . . will it make a difference to those going to the UK for abortions anyway?

So why have a referendum in the first place?  Why am I thinking those with a financial vested interest will be pushing for a vote?


----------



## truthseeker

Leper said:


> Who will gain if the subject is carried?  Interesting question which I am not going to answer.  I reckon the cost of abortion in Ireland will far excede the cost of the same facility in the UK.  Therefore, the cheap flights will dictate where the abortions will occur.



I think many women would prefer not to have to travel for an abortion. They would prefer to be close to family and friends at a traumatic time. There is an added stress in travelling. I think unless the price difference was huge, women in such a position would choose to stay at home. I would.


----------



## liaconn

Sunny said:


> It's not the equivalent because it is simply none of your business if I choose to have an abortion. What trauma does it cause you? On the other hand, forcing someone to go through an unwanted pregnancy for certain reasons because you don't agree with it can cause someone trauma. Or forcing them to go to the UK because we can't deal with it.
> 
> Would you make your teenage daughter carry a child after rape? I know this is extreme but it happens. We need to admit it and deal it instead of closing our eyes and ears and brushing it under the carpet. That's what the x case is about.


 
Sunny

I'm entitled to an opinion and, whether you like it or not, I'm also entitled to vote on any proposed amendments. As are you. 

In the same way that I'm sure many people agree with the death penalty for certain crimes and I do not. It's not just about how it affects you personally, it's about whether you think something consititues the  unjustified ending of a life or not. I've explained my thoughts and am not going to get into an acrimonious row about it.


----------



## liaconn

Sunny said:


> Really? So a new born baby is grateful for those days/weeks/months of pain and misery before passing away?


 
I'm not sure what your point is. If a person is ill and does not wish to be resucitated that is legal. It is not legal to give them a lethal injection to end their pain.


----------



## Leper

truthseeker said:


> I think many women would prefer not to have to travel for an abortion. They would prefer to be close to family and friends at a traumatic time. There is an added stress in travelling. I think unless the price difference was huge, women in such a position would choose to stay at home. I would.


 
Can anybody give me the breakdown on the price of having an abortion in the UK?


----------



## MrMan

Leper said:


> I ask again would it be prudent to confine the voting in the referendum to women?




It depends on whether you think the referendum affects women only, or society.


----------



## truthseeker

Leper said:


> Can anybody give me the breakdown on the price of having an abortion in the UK?



There are different prices depending on which option is relevant - there is a pricing list here for one of the UK clinics. 

Although I cant see it written there, I think that clinic offers discounted services for Irish women due to them having to pay travel expenses as well.

Add to the above, flights and an overnight stay in a hotel - both dependant on mid-week versus weekend - and presumably the cost of bringing a friend for support (flights plus overnight).


----------



## Yachtie

Is anyone here aware that abortion is one of the most traumatic experiences a woman can have, regardless of the origin of pregnanncy? It is also one of the most life-changing decisions one can make and can have enormous psychological and emotional consequences. I have learned this from a crisis pregnancy counsellor who guided me towards decision not to have an abortion. Still, many women use their right to travel and go through with it for reasons known only to them. In any case, I feel very strongly about this issue and don't think that anyone has the right to judge those who chose abortion as a last resort.

There are valid points and arguments on both sides of the debate. As somebody in favour of making abortion legal and widely available I can not speak for a rape victim, a pregnant mother whose joy was shattered by finding out that her baby hasn't a hope of surviving, a sixteen year old with great plans and positive pregnancy test or a frazzled mother of five who just can't go through it again. If we remove ourselves from the whole LIFE vs DEATH debate and take abortion for what it really is - a simple and reasonably safe medical procedure with an outcome, we may be able to look at pros and cons of it in a different light. 

We need to know the extent of the 'problem'. Do we need to educate, lower the cost of contraceptives,... We also need to ensure that those who chose an abortion are given proper medical care and emotional support. Does any 'pro-lifer' want their 16 year old daughter secretly and off her own bat flying to some filthy back street abroad for an abortion??? 

In my opinion, there should be a requirement for a certain amount of counselling to take place prior to the procedure and it should be cost-prohibitive in terms of it being understood as a form of contraception. That would to a point contribute that even an accidental pregnancy is taken with gravity and carefully considered before any kind of decision is made or forced on an individual.


----------



## Leper

Interesting post Yachtie, not many will talk from experience.  Then there is the wide public most of whom never did anything for any lady with an unwanted pregnancy other than gossip, point the finger, judge, criticize, condemn,  etc.

Your post would be paramount to my suggestion for the referendum to be confined to women only.


----------



## T McGibney

Leper said:


> Then there is the wide public most of whom never did anything for any lady with an unwanted pregnancy other than gossip, point the finger, judge, criticize, condemn,  etc.
> 
> .



It must be wonderful to feel such moral superiority over those with whom you disagree.


----------



## Leper

T McGibney said:


> It must be wonderful to feel such moral superiority over those with whom you disagree.



Forgive me, I don't know what you mean. Please elaborate.


----------



## liaconn

Yachtie said:


> Is anyone here aware that abortion is one of the most traumatic experiences a woman can have, regardless of the origin of pregnanncy? It is also one of the most life-changing decisions one can make and can have enormous psychological and emotional consequences. I have learned this from a crisis pregnancy counsellor who guided me towards decision not to have an abortion. Still, many women use their right to travel and go through with it for reasons known only to them. In any case, I feel very strongly about this issue and don't think that anyone has the right to judge those who chose abortion as a last resort.
> 
> There are valid points and arguments on both sides of the debate. As somebody in favour of making abortion legal and widely available I can not speak for a rape victim, a pregnant mother whose joy was shattered by finding out that her baby hasn't a hope of surviving, a sixteen year old with great plans and positive pregnancy test or a frazzled mother of five who just can't go through it again. *If we remove ourselves from the whole LIFE vs DEATH debate and take abortion for what it really is - a simple and reasonably safe medical procedure with an outcome, we may be able to look at pros and cons of it in a different light. *
> 
> We need to know the extent of the 'problem'. Do we need to educate, lower the cost of contraceptives,... We also need to ensure that those who chose an abortion are given proper medical care and emotional support. Does any 'pro-lifer' want their 16 year old daughter secretly and off her own bat flying to some filthy back street abroad for an abortion???
> 
> In my opinion, there should be a requirement for a certain amount of counselling to take place prior to the procedure and it should be cost-prohibitive in terms of it being understood as a form of contraception. That would to a point contribute that even an accidental pregnancy is taken with gravity and carefully considered before any kind of decision is made or forced on an individual.


 
But that's what's at the crux of the whole debate. Some people see it as a life and death issue. Some see it as a medical procedure that can be justified under limited or unlimited circumstances.


----------



## liaconn

Leper said:


> Interesting post Yachtie, not many will talk from experience. *Then there is the wide public most of whom never did anything for any lady with an unwanted pregnancy other than gossip, point the finger, judge, criticize, condemn, etc.*
> 
> Your post would be paramount to my suggestion for the referendum to be confined to women only.


 
This is always the cheap lazy argument that some pro choice people fall back on. Just because someone is anti abortion does not mean they go around condemning people with an unwanted pregnancy and refusing to give them any assistance or help. What a victorian unrealistic view of life. What about all the grandparents helping to bring up grandchildren in order that their teenage daughters can return to school/college? All the friends who help with babysitting, offer to be at the birth etc? All the workplace managers and colleagues who bend over backwards to accommodate and facilitate a young pregnant colleague with no partner to support them? Are you assuming all of these people are pro choice and none of them are anti abortion?


----------



## MrMan

Leper said:


> Interesting post Yachtie, not many will talk from experience.  Then there is the wide public most of whom never did anything for any lady with an unwanted pregnancy other than gossip, point the finger, judge, criticize, condemn,  etc.
> 
> Your post would be paramount to my suggestion for the referendum to be confined to women only.



Yachties post contained some very relevant points, but not all of the relevant points. If your view is so narrow that you can't see why men should have a say, then it really just reinforces why it shouldn't be confined to just women.


----------



## orka

liaconn said:


> This is always the cheap lazy argument that some pro choice people fall back on. Just because someone is anti abortion does not mean they go around condemning people with an unwanted pregnancy and refusing to give them any assistance or help. What a victorian unrealistic view of life.


Sadly it's not unrealistic.  Of course many people will rally around and help but many will gossip and judge and look down their noses.


----------



## orka

To an extent, I am bemused by the debates of right and wrong, when does life start, who has what rights etc. – as if it makes any difference to the overall outcome. The reality is that we effectively have the same abortion laws as our near neighbour, the UK, but women have to travel to avail themselves of the service. What would change if we actually allowed abortion in this country? Would there be more or fewer abortions? More or fewer unwanted pregnancies? 
I personally think there would be very little change in the number of abortions for Irish women – and I think many of the on-demand type abortions would still be carried out in the UK for privacy reasons as you can be sure that any clinic/establishment brave enough to offer abortions here would be targeted with permanent protests right outside their door. The big difference I would see would be more humane treatment of women having abortions for reasons of foetus viability or for their own medical treatment – they won’t be forced to skulk out of the country to abort a perhaps much-wanted pregnancy.
So to the NIMBY posters – what will be achieved by keeping abortion out of Ireland (other than the obvious ‘keeping abortion out of Ireland’...)? Will pregnancies be saved that otherwise wouldn’t? Do you think there will be many more abortions overall and if so from what source? Does campaigning against abortion in Ireland achieve anything practical (abortions prevented) or is it very much a not in my back yard thing?


----------



## liaconn

orka said:


> Sadly it's not unrealistic. Of course many people will rally around and help but many will gossip and judge and look down their noses.


 
A few people will do this, but they are not representative of the general anti abortion sector and it is not a valid argument to basically say that people who oppose abortion are judgmental and intolerant and gossipy. It is lazy stereotyping which some people seem to feel avoids the need for a deeper analysis of their stande on the issue.


----------



## liaconn

orka said:


> To an extent, I am bemused by the debates of right and wrong, when does life start, who has what rights etc. – as if it makes any difference to the overall outcome. The reality is that we effectively have the same abortion laws as our near neighbour, the UK, but women have to travel to avail themselves of the service. What would change if we actually allowed abortion in this country? Would there be more or fewer abortions? More or fewer unwanted pregnancies?
> I personally think there would be very little change in the number of abortions for Irish women – and I think many of the on-demand type abortions would still be carried out in the UK for privacy reasons as you can be sure that any clinic/establishment brave enough to offer abortions here would be targeted with permanent protests right outside their door. The big difference I would see would be more humane treatment of women having abortions for reasons of foetus viability or for their own medical treatment – they won’t be forced to skulk out of the country to abort a perhaps much-wanted pregnancy.
> So to the NIMBY posters – what will be achieved by keeping abortion out of Ireland (other than the obvious ‘keeping abortion out of Ireland’...)? Will pregnancies be saved that otherwise wouldn’t? Do you think there will be many more abortions overall and if so from what source? Does campaigning against abortion in Ireland achieve anything practical (abortions prevented) or is it very much a not in my back yard thing?


 
People who vote against the introduction of abortion in Ireland are not voting to 'keep abortion out of Ireland'. They are voting in accordance with their conscience. If they feel abortion is the taking of a life then they are not going to vote to make it legal because they feel that would be wrong.


----------



## Bronte

michaelm said:


> Every necessary medical treatment/procedure is afforded to pregnant women in Ireland, and sometimes this leads to the loss of the unborn. Such treatments/procedures are not abortion.


 
You may play with words but that is still an abortion.  

And the labelling of the morning after pill by the Irish authorities does not mean it magically is not an abortifacient.


----------



## Shawady

orka said:


> The reality is that we effectively have the same abortion laws as our near neighbour, the UK,


 
How do we have the same abortion laws as our next door neighbour? (genuine question)
It's illegal in this country, only in very rare cases when the life of the mother is at risk, isn't it?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I presume that after 89 posts, you can't have any more light to add to this topic.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Reopened in response to request from dereko

Brendan


----------



## dereko1969

Surely after the disgraceful treatment of Savita Halappanavar in Galway it is now time to legislate for the X case.

http://www.independent.ie/national-...d-after-hospital-denied-abortion-3293842.html

Would the consultant in this case have had to refer this issue to an ethics committee? It seems to me that in this instance the well being of a foetus that would not survive outside the womb in any event was given priority over a normally healthy woman, this on every possible level is wrong.

The Core Vision of GUH was not met here.

*Core Value*

*"The patient is our core reason for being"*

The only patient GUH had was the mother.


----------



## Time

The government won't legislate as it would be a kin to turkeys voting for xmas.
They would offend too many of their electorate.


----------



## michaelm

dereko1969 said:


> Surely after the disgraceful treatment of Savita Halappanavar in Galway it is now time to legislate for the X case.


Nothing that has been reported suggests, to me anyhow, that legislation reflecting the X case judgement would have made any difference in this unfortunate case.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> Nothing that has been reported suggests, to me anyhow, that legislation reflecting the X case judgement would have made any difference in this unfortunate case.



Under the 1992 X Case ruling, the Supreme Court found that abortion is permitted in Ireland under the Constitution in circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. However no government has yet introduced legislation to enact the ruling, creating a grey area for medical practitioners. source

Id say prolonging a miscarriage for 3 days would constitute a real and substantial risk to the life of a mother wouldnt you? Besides being weakened from pain, the cervix would be open during this time, allowing the opportunity for infection.


----------



## gianni

dereko1969 said:


> Surely after the disgraceful treatment of Savita Halappanavar in Galway it is now time to legislate for the X case.
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/national-...d-after-hospital-denied-abortion-3293842.html
> 
> Would the consultant in this case have had to refer this issue to an ethics committee? It seems to me that in this instance the well being of a foetus that would not survive outside the womb in any event was given priority over a normally healthy woman, this on every possible level is wrong.
> 
> The Core Vision of GUH was not met here.
> 
> *Core Value*
> 
> *"The patient is our core reason for being"*
> 
> The only patient GUH had was the mother.



Should we not wait for all the facts to be disclosed before concluding that the poor woman in this tragic case was treated disgracefully. The hospital has an awful lot of questions to answer but they should be allowed answer them first.


----------



## michaelm

gianni said:


> Should we not wait for all the facts to be disclosed before concluding that the poor woman in this tragic case was treated disgracefully. The hospital has an awful lot of questions to answer but they should be allowed answer them first.


Of course, that would make eminent sense.  No surprise, though, to see the usual suspects straight out exploiting this sad case to push their abortion agenda, via our malleable liberal media.


----------



## orka

michaelm said:


> Nothing that has been reported suggests, to me anyhow, that legislation reflecting the X case judgement would have made any difference in this unfortunate case.


If that is true, then any legislation should go as far beyond the X case as is necessary to ensure this doesn’t happen again. I think there would be a much higher acceptance of legislation (and/or a further referendum if needed) following this case.





truthseeker said:


> ...abortion is permitted in Ireland under the Constitution in circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. ..


The unfortunate aspect of this case is that there was a risk to the mother but it wasn’t substantial enough to warrant an earlier removal of the dying foetus – and I’m sure the doctors followed the medical guidelines and the law. Lots of women go through miscarriages every year and the management is often as reported here – wait for the foetus to die and then remove the uterus contents if necessary. Leaving the uterus open to infection for days increases the risk but in reality it is a very small risk to the mother’s life. In my view, once the foetus is no longer viable, the mother’s life, health and mental well-being should assume absolute 100% priority – even a 1 in a million chance of something bad happening should take precedence over a soon-to-die foetus.


----------



## SarahMc

orka said:


> In my view, once the foetus is no longer viable, the mother’s life, health and mental well-being should assume absolute 100% priority – even a 1 in a million chance of something bad happening should take precedence over a soon-to-die foetus.]



That might be your view, and the view of the Supreme Court, and the EU Human Rights Court, but it is not legislated for.

It's all down to O'Reilly now, and what he does with the Expert Groups report. I do think this tragic case has made the public at large think of this debate in less black and White terms, and there is a growing feeling that 20 years of sitting on our hands is unacceptable.


----------



## orka

SarahMc said:


> That might be your view, and the view of the Supreme Court, and the EU Human Rights Court, but it is not legislated for.


I think both courts refer to 'real and substantial risk to the life' only.  In this case there was no real and substantial risk (there was a real but small risk) so as michaelm points, legislating per the X case may not do enough.  As I said above, I would like to see an extension to 100% absolute priority of the mother's life, health and mental well-being when the foetus is no longer viable - so no risk, no matter how small, is acceptable.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> Of course, that would make eminent sense. No surprise, though, to see the usual suspects straight out exploiting this sad case to push their abortion agenda, via our malleable liberal media.


 
People are shocked, upset and genuinely outraged. For most people this is not exploiting the case, it is simply what many women have feared will happen and have said will happen. To suggest that when presented with an example of something they have feared is exploitation is grotesquely insensitive at the very least. We shouldn't cast stones on what sides used to exploit what argument as the "pro-life" (now seemingly a redundant term) has used extreme exploitative actions and its statements yesterday probably didn't help its reputation either. 

Having said that I do agree that we don't know the full facts just yet and from what we do know, it's likely that even if the details of the X-Case had been legislated for, the Constitution may have still been too unclear in talking about risk to life of the mother and not her health. But whether or not guidelines were followed, whether or not ethical codes of conduct would permit an abortion, whether or not a professional doctor uttered the term "this is a Catholic Country" is irrelevant because it wasn't even an option, she wasn't given the choice and no woman will be given the choice.

So whatever about religion or faith or lack of, whatever about morality and ethics why do people wish to deny any woman in Savita's position an abortion when it could save her life? Do you really think it would have been an easy decision for her? For any woman in her position? Why would people feel a country is more moral or righteous when it doesn’t even allow her the opportunity to make that decision? How can the death of both the mother and baby when at least one was easily preventable be ethically right?


----------



## Bronte

truthseeker said:


> Id say prolonging a miscarriage for 3 days would constitute a real and substantial risk to the life of a mother wouldnt you? Besides being weakened from pain, the cervix would be open during this time, allowing the opportunity for infection.


 
You should have a look at the results of a medical symposium held last September with about 140 of the 'healthcare' professionals attending. Check it out via the Telegraph. Read it and weep. I'm too upset at what was allowed to happen to the poor woman, now dead woman to go off on one here. I don't care what future cover up reports eminate from Galway, or more expert reports a Minister wants  or 'facts' people want to argue about. I know that a woman is dead, DEAD, because an Irish hospital would not induce labour in a woman whose baby was not viable, but who had a heartbeat. That they left a woman for 3 days in pain, begging for an abortion is just completly barbaric by any standard. 

And nobody be fooled, even if there was legislation for the X case, that woman would still be dead because miscarriage is generally not dangerous to the life of a pregnant woman.


----------



## Teatime

Good article here in my opinion


----------



## Latrade

To counter David Quinn, who let's face it is hardly independent in his views or qualified to comment on medical practices, here's an article based on what we do know (medically speaking) from an OB/GYN.


----------



## orka

Teatime said:


> Good article here in my opinion


I think it's a poor article -   the independent, its journalists and commentators have fewer facts (that they can use/print) than the Irish Times because the IT got the interview with the widower.  I was effectively banned from commenting on the independent website yesterday when I gave some details that were in the IT but not the indo (and made the mistake of referencing the source when asked by other posters) - my previous posts were deleted and no new ones were published, even ones that had no IT-specific information.  I agree we don't have all the facts but we have enough to draw some solid conclusions - unless people are doubting the widower's quite detailed recollection of many events over several days?


----------



## Teatime

orka said:


> .. unless people are doubting the widower's quite detailed recollection of many events over several days?



No but I would really like to get the Doctor's side of the story soon.


----------



## Firefly

I can already see the "defence" from the consultant in question - s/he doesn't want to be sued/struck-off for performing an abortion that could be argued unjust in a court of law and that's fair enough.

Perhaps there should be a list of specific medical conditions/situations where the woman is at risk, where the consultant can safely conduct an abortion and remain within the law?

As a country we certainly seem to have a knack for avoiding tough decisions:

Want to remain neutral but allow the US land in Shannon
Want to remain nuclear-free so we import nuclear energy from the UK
Want to remain abortion-free so we export our problem to the UK


----------



## Bronte

Firefly said:


> I can already see the "defence" from the consultant in question


 
If there is a possibility of medical malpractice wouldn't you think the doctor in question would have to stand down until the hospital has confirmed his/her care was in order. In what other job would you be allowed to continue if there was even a suspicion of improper behaviour. 

I wouldn't like to be a pregnant woman going into Galway hospital with any complication. 

Latrade your link to the Canadian specialist is most informative. Interesting that a doctor from the Galway hospital is linked to the 'symposium' I mentioned earlier. If I were pregnant and needing to make a decision on who to go to for treatment I would love to have a list of the 140 health care professionals who attended in order to make an informed choice.


----------



## truthseeker

Bronte said:


> If I were pregnant and needing to make a decision on who to go to for treatment I would love to have a list of the 140 health care professionals who attended in order to make an informed choice.



If I were pregnant and suffering a complication I would probably consider the drive to NI a safer option than going to the nearest Irish hospital.


----------



## orka

Bronte said:


> If there is a possibility of medical malpractice wouldn't you think the doctor in question would have to stand down until the hospital has confirmed his/her care was in order. In what other job would you be allowed to continue if there was even a suspicion of improper behaviour.


Doctors make mistakes all the time, sometimes leading to death.  They are very rarely stood down (innocent until proven guilty) – I suspect you would have to be an immediate danger to patients for that to happen.  

I’m sure the consultant in question has delivered many babies very safely, is admired and respected by his colleagues and patients and has dealt with many miscarriages in the same way and nothing bad happened.  He made his decisions based on current law and guidelines (or lack thereof) and there were terrible consequences.  The enemy here is not the doctor* (this could probably have happened to any doctor in any maternity hospital in the state) – but the current law and lack of clear guidelines.  

I hope the enquiries are public, independent and speedy and that the doctor is not made a scapegoat for the deficiencies in our legislation – changes to the legislation, with clear accompanying guidelines for doctors are what is required and I hope that is not lost in the furore.

[*That said, it was apparently the consultant who made the Catholic country comment – not medically or legally ‘a crime’ but very poor choice of words for whatever reason – yes he might have been a zealot but he may also have been trying to explain why the law/guidelines are what they are]


----------



## Firefly

Bronte said:


> If there is a possibility of medical malpractice wouldn't you think the doctor in question would have to stand down until the hospital has confirmed his/her care was in order. In what other job would you be allowed to continue if there was even a suspicion of improper behaviour.


 
Hi Bronte,

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The problem here is that without legislation and a list of specific conditions where an abortion/termination can be performed, the consultant/hospital is open to being sued for malpractice. 

Obviously, in this case, it seems reasonable to assume that this lady would still be alive today if an abortion/termination was performed. However, let's say that the lady, for some reason, was in a coma and she would never have wanted an abortion. What would be the result if the consultant/hospital went ahead with the abortion if the risk to the mother was subjective? Would it be malpractice? It certainly wouldn't look good - "Woman in coma wakes to learn her baby was aborted" or similiar...

Without a specific list of conditions backed by legislation I can't see another way around this.

Finally, re: the current malpractice, I would have thought the consultant would step down until this is resolved. Then again, perhaps the head of the hospital and/or HSE should also step down....


----------



## Bronte

orka said:


> Doctors make mistakes all the time, sometimes leading to death. They are very rarely stood down (innocent until proven guilty) – I suspect you would have to be an immediate danger to patients for that to happen.


 
I'm not suggesting that doctors should stand down in all cases of mistakes or even death. Just in those that: 1 necessitate at least two non normal enquiries, 2. question time in the Dail, 3 a response from the Health Minister 4. coverage in the world media, 5. Spontaneous protests in Dublin, Cork and London.


----------



## Bronte

Firefly said:


> Finally, re: the current malpractice, I would have thought the consultant would step down until this is resolved. Then again, perhaps the head of the hospital and/or HSE should also step down....


 
As I said earlier I don't want to go off on one here. But why on earth would I as a women have any faith in any enquiry. Enquiries by vested interests, enquiries by peers in the same profession. Just the name Neary scares me half to death. He was initially found by a review of his peers to be competant. 

Why on earth has the Irish Medical Council not submitted to the Heath Ministers their grounds and reasons for terminations. Why do they need to wait for the incompetant, spineless leglislators to act, they could have outlined the grounds underwhich they will agree to terminations. How come a Canadian doctor, and I'm assuming he knows of which he speaks, can clearly see that this case was apparently medically mishandled but every doctor I've heard or read in Ireland is falling over themselves about facts. Cowards. I do sincerely hope the staff in Galway hospital in this day and age are a lot braver, or as brave as the lone midwife in Drogheda.

I have listened to that tragic ladies husband.  It was on the radio yesterday.  I see no reason that any report from our emminent medical professionals will change my opinion on what happened.


----------



## Latrade

I've read three or four legal experts in various news outlets who have either said the law is absolutely clear or the law is unclear. So which is it? Based on the fact the those who are saying it is very clear then go onto argue that in this case it is unclear (because at the first instances of asking for an abortion, whiler her health was in danger, her life wasn't). So that's a problem.

But I think there's also muddying of the waters over what doctors can and can't do. She wasn't unconscious, she wasn't in a coma, the doctor wasn't making a decision on her behalf because she wasn't able to communicate. She, and the father, asked on umerous occasions for an abortion and they were refused. 

There was absolutely no chance of a claim or case against the hospital from the parents as they specifically asked for it, so why was it refused?


----------



## truthseeker

Latrade said:


> There was absolutely no chance of a claim or case against the hospital from the parents as they specifically asked for it, so why was it refused?



Probably because if she had died during the abortion the hospital and doctors involved would have been wide open to a legal case from her family for killing her while performing an illegal procedure.


----------



## Bronte

You wouldn't be liable for any claim by the family if you performed an operation that was authorised but unfortunately resulted in death. This happens all the time. But there are two issues in this situation Ethics and the Law

Ethics

My understanding of the refusal is that a medial person made an ethical decision, and because we have the Catholic church brought into it, it appears it was based on Catholic ethics which is against abortion in seemingly all circumstances 

(though they get around this 'abortion problem' sometimes by calling it something else other than abortion - this is probably what the symposium referred to above was about). 

The Law

As it stands abortion is allowed where the 'life' of the mother is at risk (including suicide) but where your health is at risk it is not allowed. In most cases of miscarriage your life is not at risk. But in this case it looks like the advanced stage of dilation and leaking of amniotic fluid would indicate that it had moved beyond health to life. A tricky distinction, but for an expert who didn't have ethical considerations not a problem.

Law and ethics in Doctors eyes

This is tricky I would say, when a doctor is brought up in the ethics of say the Catholic faith, then to them all life is sacred and equal weight given to both the mother and child's life, but in this particular case, the baby was not viable, so why is there an ethical problem.  

I've not fully developed the above, need more time to think about it. 

To AAM users: it's good this debate can be had on a reasonable level. Glad that it's with long term posters as we can I think freely debate it and that it has not been hijacked by vested interests. Yet.


----------



## orka

Latrade said:


> why was it refused?


Because an abortion is permitted only when there is a real and substantial risk to the mother's life - and that wasn't the case here when an abortion was still an option.  In this case, there was a real but small risk to her life for at least a couple of the days while there was still a heartbeat.  She didn't become really sick until after the heartbeat stopped and the dead foetus was removed - an infection undoubtedly caused by having been left with an open leaking uterus for 3 days.  But having an open leaking uterus doesn't always result in a deadly infection - hence the lack of reason for an abortion - tragically she wasn't in enough danger.


----------



## Bronte

And where is the most likely, indeed the worst place for lethal infection?


----------



## Latrade

orka said:


> Because an abortion is permitted only when there is a real and substantial risk to the mother's life - and that wasn't the case here when an abortion was still an option. In this case, there was a real but small risk to her life for at least a couple of the days while there was still a heartbeat. She didn't become really sick until after the heartbeat stopped and the dead foetus was removed - an infection undoubtedly caused by having been left with an open leaking uterus for 3 days. But having an open leaking uterus doesn't always result in a deadly infection - hence the lack of reason for an abortion - tragically she wasn't in enough danger.


 
Which is questionable based upon the article I referenced above from an OB/GY. In her opinion, it was a very foreseeable risk and wouldn't present itself so seriously so quickly. 

I had surgery recently, it presented a risk of infection (as all surgeries do) it was small (about 1%), but that small percentage risk didn't stop the hospital doing all it could ensure I didn't get an infection.  

But ultimately she wasn't allowed to have any decision on her body or her life.


----------



## orka

Bronte said:


> it's good this debate can be had on a reasonable level.


Except there's not much in the way of debate is there? - because what happened was absolutely inexcusable and indefensible. The anti-abortion people are unusually quiet - about the best they can muster is 'let's wait and get all the facts'. I think this case will be a real turning point in forcing people to face up to allowing abortion in some circumstances. My father is usually very anti-abortion but he is horrified that something like this could happen - I think a lot of people are thinking - that could have been my wife/daughter/sister/friend. And I don't think any reasonable person would want the status quo to remain so that this could happen again.


----------



## T McGibney

Latrade said:


> David Quinn, who let's face it is *hardly independent in his views*



What has this to do with anything?


----------



## Latrade

T McGibney said:


> What has this to do with anything?


 
Quite a lot. For someone who spends the vast majority of his time judging others and denying equal rights for others for a career, at minimum it's a bit much for him to be asking others to not rush into judgement. Then there's the bit where he skips over much of what is know (just so happens to be included in the IT not the Indo) in order to pretend that we don't know anything. Then there's the bit where he pretends the law is clear, when it isn't. The bit where he says these abortions happen all the time, they don't, and then the bit where he muddies the waters with facts about the safety of giving birth in this country and somehow implying that because other states with legalised abortion have higher rates (only just), that abortion is the cause of this.

Other than that I have absolutely no problem with having someone with a clear bias and personal view on no abortion law presenting themselves as providing "balance" in recent events. No problems at all.


----------



## Betsy Og

While I'm generally pro-life (if that's the pc term), it seems to me that the rules change completely when the foetus will not survive, be that either full term within the womb or outside the womb immediately on birth.

If there's the slightest risk to the mother it seems imminently sensible to "call time" that bit quicker than nature would act. What's the point in risking a viable life for one that is about the end anyway. 

One thing I'm wondering about, who exactly are the doctors afraid of when making the call? [I'm not making light of their fears, and I dont envy their position, just wondering from where do they see the threat], in the Galway case with both the pregnant woman and her partner wanted the termination, and there seemed to be reasonable medical grounds for it. So who exactly was going to make an issue out of it?

From my fairly limited knowledge of it it seemed to me that the Supreme Court judges had the right idea, and now is high time to spell out in legislation whatever provisos and protections are needed so that doctors are not left facing such a morass when trying to make a decision.


----------



## Teatime

orka said:


> The anti-abortion people are unusually quiet - about the best they can muster is 'let's wait and get all the facts'.



I think you are making a sweeping statement there. I am pro-abortion (with Ts&Cs obviously) but I also want to get all the facts on this case before I make any comment. And thus I agree with David Quinn that people have jumped to conclusions and some people are using this case to push their own agendas.


----------



## oldnick

I remember during threads on the child abuse scandal that I got quite angry and made statements that were offensive to posters of a certain religious persuasion, some of whom, based on their posts over the years, I like and respect.

It's so easy during a debate of such an emotional strength to offend and get offended by other posters, something that I forgot when I attacked,even mocked, others views.

A few posts in this thread are starting to verge on the offensive, probably unintentionally.  Understandable maybe, but comments made in heat may leave one feeling guilty for some time, as it did me.


----------



## T McGibney

Latrade said:


> Quite a lot. For someone who spends the vast  majority of his time judging others and denying equal rights for others  for a career.



Really?



Latrade said:


> Quite a lot. For someone who spends the vast majority of his time judging others and denying equal rights for others for a career, at minimum it's a bit much for him to be asking others to not rush into judgement. Then there's the bit where he skips over much of what is know (just so happens to be included in the IT not the Indo) in order to pretend that we don't know anything. Then there's the bit where he pretends the law is clear, when it isn't. The bit where he says these abortions happen all the time, they don't, and then the bit where he muddies the waters with facts about the safety of giving birth in this country and somehow implying that because other states with legalised abortion have higher rates (only just), that abortion is the cause of this.
> 
> Other than that I have absolutely no problem with having someone with a clear bias and personal view on no abortion law presenting themselves as providing "balance" in recent events. No problems at all.



I read Quinn in the Indo and find that he generally presents his arguments with logic and rigour. I don't agree with everything he says, sometimes I disagree profoundly with him, but I respect his opinion.  Much of what he has said in recent days in eminently reasonable, in my opinion. Even if it isn't, its a bit odd to see loads of so-called liberals on twitter today foaming at the mouth at himself and Ronan Mullan for having the temerity to disagree with them. Liberals indeed.


----------



## dereko1969

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/20...-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

From this blogpost by an experienced OB/GYN doctor, who in case anyone thinks she's a rabid babykiller has also published a book for parents of premature babies.

Not only do I know these scenarios backwards and forwards as an OB/GYN, I had ruptured membranes in my own pregnancy at 22 weeks, a rescue cerclage, and then sepsis. I know how bad it can be.
*As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice.* Infection must always be suspected whenever, preterm labor, premature rupture of the membranes, or advanced premature cervical dilation occurs (one of the scenarios that would have brought Ms. Halappanavar to the hospital).
*As there is no medically acceptable scenario at 17 weeks where a woman is miscarrying AND is denied a termination, there can only be three plausible explanations for Ms. Hapappanavar’s “medical care” :*
1) Irish law does indeed treat pregnant women as second class citizens and denies them appropriate medical care. The medical team was following the law to avoid criminal prosecution.
2) Irish law does not deny women the care they need; however, a zealous individual doctor or hospital administrator interpreted Catholic doctrine in such a way that a pregnant woman’s medical care was somehow irrelevant and superceded by heart tones of a 17 weeks fetus that could never be viable.
3) Irish law allows abortions for women when medically necessary, but the doctors involved were negligent in that they could not diagnose infection when it was so obviously present, did not know the treatment, or were not competent enough to carry out the treatment.
What we do know is that a young, pregnant, woman who presented to the hospital in a first world country died for want of appropriate medical care. Whether it’s Irish Catholic law or malpractice, only time will tell; however, no answer could possibly ease the pain and suffering of Ms. Halappanavar’s loved ones.
****
Since posting this piece I learned that Ms. Halappanavar’s widower reported that she was leaking amniotic fluid and was fully dilated when first evaluated. *There is no medically defensible position for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible.*


----------



## becky

oldnick said:


> I remember during threads on the child abuse scandal that I got quite angry and made statements that were offensive to posters of a certain religious persuasion, some of whom, based on their posts over the years, I like and respect.
> 
> It's so easy during a debate of such an emotional strength to offend and get offended by other posters, something that I forgot when I attacked,even mocked, others views.
> 
> A few posts in this thread are starting to verge on the offensive, probably unintentionally.  Understandable maybe, but comments made in heat may leave one feeling guilty for some time, as it did me.




Plus one.  One of the reasons I like this site is that for the most part posters are respectful.  I have not looked at p.ie but would bet it's into 100's of pages with posters shooting down posters because s/he doesn't agree with them.


----------



## annR

dereko1969 said:


> http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/20...-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/
> 
> From this blogpost by an experienced OB/GYN doctor, who in case anyone thinks she's a rabid babykiller has also published a book for parents of premature babies.
> 
> Not only do I know these scenarios backwards and forwards as an OB/GYN, I had ruptured membranes in my own pregnancy at 22 weeks, a rescue cerclage, and then sepsis. I know how bad it can be.
> *As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice.* Infection must always be suspected whenever, preterm labor, premature rupture of the membranes, or advanced premature cervical dilation occurs (one of the scenarios that would have brought Ms. Halappanavar to the hospital).
> *As there is no medically acceptable scenario at 17 weeks where a woman is miscarrying AND is denied a termination, there can only be three plausible explanations for Ms. Hapappanavar’s “medical care” :*
> 1) Irish law does indeed treat pregnant women as second class citizens and denies them appropriate medical care. The medical team was following the law to avoid criminal prosecution.
> 2) Irish law does not deny women the care they need; however, a zealous individual doctor or hospital administrator interpreted Catholic doctrine in such a way that a pregnant woman’s medical care was somehow irrelevant and superceded by heart tones of a 17 weeks fetus that could never be viable.
> 3) Irish law allows abortions for women when medically necessary, but the doctors involved were negligent in that they could not diagnose infection when it was so obviously present, did not know the treatment, or were not competent enough to carry out the treatment.
> What we do know is that a young, pregnant, woman who presented to the hospital in a first world country died for want of appropriate medical care. Whether it’s Irish Catholic law or malpractice, only time will tell; however, no answer could possibly ease the pain and suffering of Ms. Halappanavar’s loved ones.
> ****
> Since posting this piece I learned that Ms. Halappanavar’s widower reported that she was leaking amniotic fluid and was fully dilated when first evaluated. *There is no medically defensible position for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible.*



  I don't know why everyone has been so quick to assume that the reasons are either 1 or 2.  Surely 3 is just as likely if not more? There have been quite a few cases of medical malpractice in this country.  There have been mistakes at births, we see them in the news with settlements being paid.  I think everyone knows of some case where the hospital team for example didn't induce labour soon enough, or emergency caesareans which should have been done quicker etc.  I prefer to wait for the results of the enquiry to know whether this was anything to do with abortion law or Catholic beliefs etc.  If she was in trouble and miscarrying as far as I know (I'm not a doctor) the normal thing would be to do a D&C and that is done all the time in Irish hospitals or you know what, I think more women would be dead.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  Maybe an error in judgement with treating the infection was made which had nothing to do with abortion law.  I still agree that we should legislate, just don't know if this awful story has anything to do with it!  If it has not, I think it is wrong to link the two together.


----------



## mandelbrot

annR said:


> I don't know why everyone has been so quick to assume that the reasons are either 1 or 2.  Surely 3 is just as likely if not more? There have been quite a few cases of medical malpractice in this country.  There have been mistakes at births, we see them in the news with settlements being paid.  I think everyone knows of some case where the hospital team for example didn't induce labour soon enough, or emergency caesareans which should have been done quicker etc.  I prefer to wait for the results of the enquiry to know whether this was anything to do with abortion law or Catholic beliefs etc.  If she was in trouble and miscarrying *as far as I know (I'm not a doctor) the normal thing would be to do a D&C and that is done all the time in Irish hospitals* or you know what, I think more women would be dead.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  Maybe an error in judgement with treating the infection was made which had nothing to do with abortion law.  I still agree that we should legislate, just don't know if this awful story has anything to do with it!  If it has not, I think it is wrong to link the two together.



I doubt it's done while the foetus is still alive, and it's rarely done beyond 12weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_curettage


----------



## Bronte

oldnick said:


> I remember during threads on the child abuse scandal that I got quite angry and made statements that were offensive to posters of a certain religious persuasion, some of whom, based on their posts over the years, I like and respect.
> 
> .


 
You are so right, but it is so easy to get angry when we see what happened in Galway, but also anger is justified when as Irish women we've had to witness so many horrific examples down the years. What I think is interesting about the current debate is the anger and upset of the young women I've heard. It's like they didn't understand the reality of life in Ireland if you're a pregnant women and you have complications/issues. I have a sibling who had to go to England and a very Catholic in-law who went there for the down syndrome test, an aunt who had to go to a Protestant hospital for a hysterectomy etc. And all of this is hidden and shameful. We laugh now at Haughey's solution, imagine one had to get a prescription for a condom. Just imagine that. How on earth was it ever like that. When I had to get the pill I had to go to the family planning clinic and ask them which doctor I could go to. If you lived in a rural area you hadn't a hope as a woman. No family planning clinic, no knowledge of what the pill was, and no chance of getting it from your local GP. When I think of Joanne Hayes and poor poor Ann Lovett (probably being the worst example, no other is as shameful as that one) I think my anger is completely justified.

So now we are at 2012 and no pregnant female has any idea of their rights in the event of problems. For example if one has an ectopic pregnancy, will you be refused treatment, will you be told to go to England, does it depend on the hospital, the particular doctor. We know that women who do not have viable babies who will come to term must go to England. If they want to know this who do they go to. Apparently the 'clinics' who will help them have to operate 'slightly' outside the law in giving them advice. Only in the last month we see some of the extremists going after these clinics, a full witch hunt and setup is what it appeared to me, we see 15 Fine Gael backbenchers who appear to be anti-abortion in all circumstances, trying to get the party to go their way, we see Enda Kenny, dithering and obfuscating. I'd like to have some hope in Gilmore, but as a woman I've realised after all these years, and it has been many years that one rarely has hope, for goodness sake 3 referendum, a Supreme Court Judgement, a European deadline this month, a Time magazine interview with the Taoiseach. Maybe out of this awful tradgy something will be done.

I see the brother of this poor lady wants an independent enquiry and doesn't want the HSE involved. Methinks he'd be right. 

Does anyone on here know what rights you have as a pregant female in difficulty, is it outlined anywhere, what you can and cannot do. What you options are.


----------



## Bronte

annR said:


> . If she was in trouble and miscarrying as far as I know (I'm not a doctor) the normal thing would be to do a D&C and that is done all the time in Irish hospitals or you know what, I think more women would be dead. .


 
How do you know this is done all the time, do you know if it's done in all hospitals? And when, under what conditions is it done?  

This is a very hard subject but I think it's time we know exactly what we are talking about.  D&C is gross, but it has to be done.  But hell for some people giving birth is gross.  One of my pregnancies was a caesarian and that too was not a pretty sight. But it's nature, we were brought up with it all hidden, you were pregnant, you hid it, you went to hospital, nothing said about that, and you came home with a baby.  All very simplistic. As for breastfeeding, even that is taboo in Ireland.  I never saw a woman breastfeed until I was well into adulthood and abroad.  It stems from the Catholic upbringing of everything to do with women's bodies being dirty and rooted in original sin.  It's a very hard thing for Irish society to get rid of.  It isn't so long a go women had to be Churched after giving birth.


----------



## Firefly

Bronte said:


> As I said earlier I don't want to go off on one here. But why on earth would I as a women have any faith in any enquiry. Enquiries by vested interests, enquiries by peers in the same profession. Just the name Neary scares me half to death. He was initially found by a review of his peers to be competant.


Hi Bronte,
I never mentioned anything about an enquiry, but since you mention it, I totally agree with you. With the hospital itself along with the HSE performing this enquiry, the phrase "Nothing to see here" comes to mind.



Bronte said:


> Why on earth has the Irish Medical Council not submitted to the Heath Ministers their grounds and reasons for terminations. Why do they need to wait for the incompetant, spineless leglislators to act, they could have outlined the grounds underwhich they will agree to terminations.


I agree that the legislators have been sitting on their rear-ends for far too long on this. However, just because the Medical Council were to submit a list of grounds/reasons for conducting a termination, doesn't mean they are legal and that's correct IMHO - they could submit all sorts of things then..



Bronte said:


> How come a Canadian doctor, and I'm assuming he knows of which he speaks, can clearly see that this case was apparently medically mishandled but every doctor I've heard or read in Ireland is falling over themselves about facts. Cowards.



To be fair, I think the facts here are paramount. Whether we like it or not you are innocent until proven guilty as it were. As I mentioned earlier though, IMO, an inquiry by the hospital itself with the HSE does not make me feel confident that the true facts will emerge.


----------



## Firefly

Bronte said:


> I have a sibling who had to go to England and a very Catholic in-law who went there for the down syndrome test.


 
Where there is a real & substantive risk to the life of the mother or where it's guaranteed that the baby will not survive once outside of the womb, I don't think too many people would have an issue with a termination. However, in the case above ( and I presume you are inferring that if the baby was down syndrome that the sibling would seek an abortion, but apologies if not), this to me is "abortion on-demand" and is totally different. For the record I am against it. Also, where do you draw the line - we want a boy so we'll abort if it's a girl etc. 

Having said that though, it's only my opinion, and what I think we really need is referendum.


----------



## Latrade

T McGibney said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> I read Quinn in the Indo and find that he generally presents his arguments with logic and rigour. I don't agree with everything he says, sometimes I disagree profoundly with him, but I respect his opinion. Much of what he has said in recent days in eminently reasonable, in my opinion. Even if it isn't, its a bit odd to see loads of so-called liberals on twitter today foaming at the mouth at himself and Ronan Mullan for having the temerity to disagree with them. Liberals indeed.


 
That's what happens in debates; people disagree. Just because people don't agree with Quinn and Mullan, doesn't mean they can't voice their disagreement. They are the two most public apologists for the Catholic Church, every issue that has implied church involvement (and some of those implications were wrong), they come out, and in Quinns case get a lot of column inches and air time, to defend the church. 
So people may be suspicious of why a man who often judges homosexuals, athiests, women who have or wish to have the choice of having an abortion at the drop of a hat and fills numerous columns with very thinly hidden bile, is suddenly the voice of reason and calling for no rush judgements (in an article that itself judges and as you do has a dig at liberals and those who are genuinely upset at what has happened).
Quinn is an example of the media's love for extreme views to fuel "debate" and give a false sense of "balance" (and that is commentators on the left and right). Quinn's particular talent is misdirection and throwing "facts" in while shouting to give a sense of winning an argument. As I said, the specific article on Savita is rife with them, if he wanted to call for reason and for people to not rush to judgement, then he should have stopped there. Instead he filled it, again, with sly attacks and irrelevant statistics.
I'm happy to not be too rash to judge. My call is for legislation to clarify the constitution, like we've been waiting for 20 years for. And from my own experience that's exactly what everyone else is calling for. Most people seem to agree that the "it's a catholic country" statement could have been taken out of context (if it was said) and so their anger is at the legislators, not the church.
It is the church apologists who are claiming again the church is the victim of a liberal attack. Either they're paranoid, stupid, illiterate or vindictively using Savita's death to portray themselves as the victim in this case.


----------



## truthseeker

Firefly said:


> Having said that though, it's only my opinion, and what I think we really need is referendum.



Yes, this tragic case was just waiting to happen under the current lack of legislation and clarity. 

I also believe we need a referendum. Since the right to travel and the right to information (the thirteen and fourteenth amendments), successive governments *and* the electorate have largely ignored the issue - because it could be easily exported to the UK by women taking cheap flights. Unfortunately a women in hospital suffering a miscarriage is not in a position to take a cheap flight. We have approximately 4000 women a year going to the UK for abortions - why is this acceptable to anyone? There has been another thread recently where someone mentioned that the long wait to divorce in Ireland caused them to go to the UK to divorce quickly. Have we just become a country where we take flights to sort out all moral and legal decisions? Its disgraceful. 

Since the eighth amendment in 1983 (the constitutional ban on abortion) there have been four attempts to clarify it. Each of these attempts has resulted in a win for the pro-choice side. 

Im not really interested in legislation being enacted on a 20 year old case at this stage, Id like to see a referendum to fully clarify the issue in its entirety. Although I doubt this will happen.


----------



## truthseeker

Latrade said:


> My call is for legislation to clarify the constitution, like we've been waiting for 20 years for. And from my own experience that's exactly what everyone else is calling for.



Actually Latrade, Id prefer a referendum over legislation based on a 20 year old case.


----------



## Latrade

At least it's just the liberals who are capitalising and rushing to judgement: seen outside usual pro-life GPO spot (picture)


----------



## Latrade

truthseeker said:


> Actually Latrade, Id prefer a referendum over legislation based on a 20 year old case.


 
Oh I'd agree with you 100%. The legislation isn't nearly enough for what I believe should be a right of choice. However, my point was that the critics of those who are angry (calling them "so-called liberals") are trying to present an image of a group of people bashing the church when they are more-or-less in totality angry with a succession of governments that hasn't introduced the most basic legislation that the Supreme Court and European Court has instructed them to do on basis of a woman's individual right to life and well-being. 

We are free to speculate, and why not, on why that legislation hasn't been introduced as of yet and yes that may lead to anger to the influence of the church or influence of a catholic view on public policy, but that isn't where the anger and accusations are being laid. 

Quinn's position is to pretend to be the voice of reason asking for people to stop blaiming the church until we hear the full facts. This sounds reasonable, except no one is blaming the church, they're blaming the government(s). So now we can be angry at Quinn for being completely insensitive and vindictive enough to use this death to gain sympathy for the church.


----------



## Bronte

Latrade said:


> At least it's just the liberals who are capitalising and rushing to judgement: seen outside usual pro-life GPO spot (picture)


 
I am absolutely crying here at my computer.


----------



## Latrade

Bronte said:


> I am absolutely crying here at my computer.


 
I know. 

And it probably doesn't help that feeling any anger at that or any of the Choose Life statements, Youth Defence Statements, or any other pro-life forum means you are a "so-called" liberal trying to make capital out of Savita's death.


----------



## Bronte

You're so good Latrade thank you.  All my life this battle.  Why.


----------



## truthseeker

Bronte said:


> You're so good Latrade thank you.  All my life this battle.  Why.



Im going to try and make a difference right now today by emailing all the TDs for my constituency and telling them I want something done.

There is a form [broken link removed] that lets you email them all at once. Although I will be changing the content as I want a referendum not legislation on a 20 year old case.


----------



## Latrade

Now Marc Coleman is repeating the strawman of attacking the Catholic Church (and even linking it to inciting hatred). There are people out there who are making this about the CC, but they are loud-mouthed liberal equivallents of David Quinn who's opinions are worthless. Let's not let the fringe extremes dictate where this debate goes or to portray all those who are angry and/or protested the other day.

In my experience of protests, this was the most selfless and dignified protest I have ever witnessed. It wasn't about who was losing what benefit or subsidy, it wasn't taxi drivers angry that nasty "non-national" types can also get a licence and use satnavs. It was thousands of people who were angry with the government(s).

Yes that anger extends to the clear influence the CC has had in the policy on this area. But that isn't people saying that the CC has no right to air its views, but that:

a) the government has not had the guts to follw clear legal instruction on the clarity of abortion most likely due to this lobbying
b) the only attempts by the government since the X-Case as far as legislation is to try to make the abortion law more strict in order to "clarify". Both attempts failed, both times the people of Ireland spoke despite CC influence.

The state argued in the ECHR that the law is clear (despite the SC saying it wasn't). They said there was no breach of human rights because the constitution and its interpretation were absolutely clear to anyone. The ECHR said it wasn't. We now have a majority of Maternity Hopsitals confirming that the law and the guidelines are not clear too. Yet the state continues to say it is. 

People can be angry that employer's or financial interest groups or employee interest groups have too big an impact on policy to the extent that this policy negatively effects a majority. That anger is at the government for not having the guts to govern in the best interests of the people. It is not a hatred or incitement to hatred against those groups or proposal that people's rights to engage in consultation with the government to represent a "group" view should be abolished. It is anger at weak government. 

I can genuinely see the view of those of religion when it comes to abortion, I'm hardly easy with the morality or clear on the science arguments myself, but I believe in the tight of the individual to choose and see no reason why my (male, not medically qualified and never in a position to be pregnant) views should prevent a woman's right to determine what is best for her health and well-being. 

Legislating the X-case isn't enough, you can pretty much see from the results of the last few refs that the majority of the people also feel this way. Yet the state still thinks it is in a better position to judge whether a woman has a right to decide if she lives or dies. 

And as a complete aside(ish), I also see the hypocrasy of the main liberal commentators over the Saville case, especially as they defend the BBC and blame Murdoch for be behind an anti-BBC agenda. It seems likely that the BBC had knowledge of the allegations against Saville at the least and yet they continued to expose young children to him for decades. To me, those who rightly judged the CC wrong and immoral for its handling of child abuse should also judge the BBC to the same standards irrespective of if they like the progamming or not or know people who work there. 

So I can see how one might conclude there is a deliberate anti-CC agenda, especially in how the media treats relatively comparable cases, but I don't think you can apply it in these circumstances and I certainly am angry that there is an attempt to portray every one who is angry as an abortion loving opportunist capitalising on a completely preventable death for their own agenda.


----------



## Latrade

truthseeker said:


> Im going to try and make a difference right now today by emailing all the TDs for my constituency and telling them I want something done.
> 
> There is a form [broken link removed] that lets you email them all at once. Although I will be changing the content as I want a referendum not legislation on a 20 year old case.


 
I did that too days ago. I haven't had a single reply. I accept they may well have had a lot of emails, but I think the silence is sad.


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> If I were pregnant and suffering a complication I would probably consider the drive to NI a safer option than going to the nearest Irish hospital.


IMHO that would be an irrational knee jerk reaction for anyone to make.  Despite this tragedy, ROI is one of the safest places in the world for a expectant mother.  Safer than the UK which has abortion on demand.





Bronte said:


> Spontaneous protests in Dublin, Cork and London.


I think time will tell that these _spontaneous_ protests were organized prior to the story breaking in the media.





Bronte said:


> To AAM users: it's good this debate can be had on a reasonable level.


Perhaps because this thread has heretofore been dominated by a knot of pro-abortion posters agreeing with each other. 





Bronte said:


> Glad that it's with long term posters as we can I think freely debate it and that it has not been hijacked by vested interests. Yet.


Indeed, but that will depend on what you perceive to be vested interests.





Latrade said:


> . . the only attempts by the government since the  X-Case as far as legislation is to try to make the abortion law more  strict in order to "clarify". Both attempts failed, both times the  people of Ireland spoke despite CC influence.


The FF/PD  government fecked up the 2002 abortion (Protection of Human  Life in Pregnancy) referendum - which was meant to undo the flawed  x-case judgement - by including protection for destructive embryonic  stem-cell research.  This compelled a sizeable cohort of pro-lifers to  vote against, and it was narrowly defeated (<0.5%).


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> IMHO that would be an irrational knee jerk reaction for anyone to make.  Despite this tragedy, ROI is one of the safest places in the world for a expectant mother.



Unless you are a woman of child bearing age you simply cannot comprehend how frightening it is to know that in this country, you *could* lose your life because the law ties the hands of doctors. 

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but unless you would ever face that situation, its pretty irrelevant IMHO.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> The FF/PD  government fecked up the 2002 abortion (Protection of Human  Life in Pregnancy) referendum - which was meant to undo the flawed  x-case judgement - by including protection for destructive embryonic  stem-cell research.  This compelled a sizeable cohort of pro-lifers to  vote against, and it was narrowly defeated (<0.5%).



All 4 referendums about abortion in this country have been losses for the pro-lifers.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> dominated by a knot of *pro-abortion* posters agreeing with each other.



And just to clarify, there is no stance known as pro-abortion which suggests that people wish for every pregnancy to be aborted leading to the end of humanity as we know it. I am not aware of any poster who advocates this view.

If you mean pro-choice - why not just say so? Because using a term like pro-abortion is intended to tug on the emotive heartstrings? Or simply ignorance of the correct term of reference?


----------



## orka

michaelm said:


> Despite this tragedy, ROI is one of the safest places in the world for a expectant mother. Safer than the UK which has abortion on demand.


Ireland is also less than safe than many countries with liberal abortions laws.  There is no doubt in my mind that the mother in this case would still be alive if she had presented to a UK hospital instead of an Irish one.



michaelm said:


> Perhaps because this thread has heretofore been dominated by a knot of pro-abortion posters agreeing with each other.


The anti-abortion people only fell silent when the thread was re-opened after this case came to light.  Before the thread was closed, more than half the contributions were from anti-abortion people (it was about 60/40 excluding the neutrals/moderates) – the discussion of this case has been about 80/20 to the pro-choice people.  As I said in a previous post, this case is just so indefensible and inexcusable, it is hard for an anti-abortion poster to say anything other than falling back on ‘let’s wait and see what the reports say’.

I think we are seeing a big shift for a lot of people from an absolute ‘no abortion’ stance to a more moderate but still generally anti-abortion stance.  Betsy Og for me summed up what I reckon is a good reflection of the middle ground view of this case – neither rabidly anti-abortion nor rabidly pro-choice. 





Betsy Og said:


> While I'm generally pro-life (if that's the pc term), it seems to me that the rules change completely when the foetus will not survive, be that either full term within the womb or outside the womb immediately on birth.





Betsy Og said:


> If there's the slightest risk to the mother it seems imminently sensible to "call time" that bit quicker than nature would act. What's the point in risking a viable life for one that is about the end anyway.


----------



## Ceist Beag

michaelm said:


> Perhaps because this thread has heretofore been dominated by a knot of pro-abortion posters agreeing with each other.


Maybe you should read the post by oldnick (#125 in this thread) michaelm as that is a disgusting simplification of the views posted by many on this thread.


----------



## Time

I am of the opinion that any legislation enacted will be vigorously challenged in the courts by the pro life rabble.

The only viable solution would be to have a proper referendum asking a simple question of the people. Yes or no to abortion.


----------



## truthseeker

Time said:


> I am of the opinion that any legislation enacted will be vigorously challenged in the courts by the pro life rabble.
> 
> The only viable solution would be to have a proper referendum asking a simple question of the people. Yes or no to abortion.



+1

I totally agree Time. It doesnt really matter what my view on abortion is or what your view on abortion is, we need a referendum to find out what the majority view of the electorate is. Such a referendum would need to be carefully worded. A middle ground is likely to be the outcome of such a referendum.

Ireland has changed a lot culturally since 1983. The church does not have the hold it once did, many more people have had access to third level education, and society has changed with media international media influences.

Peoples attitudes and views have also changed with the times. An abortion referendum that simply asks yes or no is long overdue.


----------



## Betsy Og

Time said:


> The only viable solution would be to have a proper referendum asking a simple question of the people. Yes or no to abortion.


 
I suspect if you ask a Yes/No question you'd get a No answer (remember how tight the divorce referendum was - and I would have said that was a no-brainer, ok we've moved on etc etc but ....). If it was Yes/No I'd vote No, and that would mean no legislating for the Galway case, which would be a very bad thing.

Better to have a referendum to get agreement with the Supreme Ct ruling, or some version of it, possibly get a Yes (I'd vote Yes) and then legislate off the back of that.


----------



## T McGibney

truthseeker said:


> And just to clarify, there is no stance known as pro-abortion which suggests that people wish for every pregnancy to be aborted leading to the end of humanity as we know it.



Sorry this is a risible notion. 

There is a large and vocal lobby in the US that is supports the principle of judicial execution as a punishment for serious crimes. This lobby is generally, and accurately, described as being "pro-death 
penalty". 

However this description does not denote or imply that its supporters wish for every human being to be executed "leading to the end of humanity as we know it."

So, its quite reasonable to describe a position in favour of abortions as being "pro-abortion".


----------



## truthseeker

T McGibney said:


> So, its quite reasonable to describe a position in favour of abortions as being "pro-abortion".



Pro-choice is not in favour of abortions, it is in favour of individual choice.

Abortion is a very sad, sometimes necessary procedure. I dont know of anyone who would be blanket 'pro-abortion' - do you?

Its also clear to me that the poster used the term deliberately to reflect their views and to depict a particular stance, known commonly as pro-choice, as a negative thing.


----------



## T McGibney

Latrade said:


> So people may be suspicious of why a man who often judges homosexuals, athiests, women who have or wish to have the choice of having an abortion at the drop of a hat and fills numerous columns with very thinly hidden bile,



I have never seen much evidence of 'bile' (thinly hidden or otherwise) in David Quinn's articles.

And I would be interested in seeing some examples of him "judging homosexuals, atheists or women" as I can't recall any.


----------



## truthseeker

Betsy Og said:


> I suspect if you ask a Yes/No question you'd get a No answer (remember how tight the divorce referendum was - and I would have said that was a no-brainer, ok we've moved on etc etc but ....). If it was Yes/No I'd vote No, and that would mean no legislating for the Galway case, which would be a very bad thing.
> 
> Better to have a referendum to get agreement with the Supreme Ct ruling, or some version of it, possibly get a Yes (I'd vote Yes) and then legislate off the back of that.



A properly worded referendum that offered a proper set of choices would be the best thing IMO.

Something like:


> Are you in favour of:
> 
> Abortion on Demand
> Abortion in the case of rape, maternal life, health, mental health, socioeconomic factors, and/or fetal defects
> Other choices with a subset of the above
> No abortion at all


----------



## MrMan

You would also have to factor in the right to a fathers say whether or not an abortion would take place.


----------



## Teatime

truthseeker said:


> Its also clear to me that the poster used the term deliberately to reflect their views and to depict a particular stance, known commonly as pro-choice, as a negative thing.



I used the term pro-abortion (with terms and conditions of course) to describe my views. I was making a point that people were rushing to judgement without the medical side of this story but I was accused of being pro-life/anti-abortion and making excuses etc.

However I think I much prefer the terms "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion" rather than the vague terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

I suspect but I might be wrong that there would be few 100% "anti-abortion" people in the strict sense and that its about agreeing the legal/medical scenarios of where abortion should be allowed.


----------



## orka

T McGibney said:


> Sorry this is a risible notion.





T McGibney said:


> There is a large and vocal lobby in the US that is supports the principle of judicial execution as a punishment for serious crimes. This lobby is generally, and accurately, described as being "pro-death
> penalty".
> 
> However this description does not denote or imply that its supporters wish for every human being to be executed "leading to the end of humanity as we know it."
> 
> So, its quite reasonable to describe a position in favour of abortions as being "pro-abortion".


This is equally risible.  Pro-death penalty people actively want the death to take place.  Pro-choice people would be quite happy if there was no need for a single abortion – all pregnancies were planned and wanted, nobody got pregnant from being raped, no mothers or foetuses got sick etc.  

Unfortunately life is not perfect.  Pro-choice people want, strangely enough, choice.  If a 16 year girl is pregnant after being raped and wants to keep the baby, pro-choice people are not going to be marching in the streets screeching at her to abort the baby (which they presumably would if they were ‘pro-abortion’) – they are not pro-abortion but pro-choice (with one of the choices being abortion).  Even in a case similar to this week, if the mother wanted to keep going with the pregnancy until the heartbeat stopped in spite of increased infection risk, that is her choice – she could be strongly advised not to risk her health and life, but at the end of the day, it should be her choice.

I’m pro-choice but I’m not pro-abortion.  I would prefer if there was no need for abortions but I’m glad they are available when necessary.  The ‘when necessary’ part is the difficult bit.  I would also hope there could be some sort of scaled menu of options in any future referendum.


----------



## T McGibney

Sorry, I think you're playing with semantics here. Savita's need for treatment to save her life was not a choice but a necessity.

I haven't heard any "anti abortion" commentator say this week that she shouldn't have received the necessary treatment.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> You would also have to factor in the right to a fathers say whether or not an abortion would take place.



Im not sure how this could be done in the kind of menu I suggested, do you have any thoughts on this?

I cant see this being relevant in all cases such as, a womans life being in danger, a woman wanting an abortion due to rape, but certainly it is relevant in some cases.

Do you know how any other countries handle this MrMan?


----------



## truthseeker

Latrade said:


> I did that too days ago. I haven't had a single reply. I accept they may well have had a lot of emails, but I think the silence is sad.



Ive had 3 replies, one from Sinn Fein and two from Labour. Both reasonably stock responses promising (in the case of Sinn Fein) to continue to press government to legislate and from Labour assurances that they will not be the 7th government to fail to legislate on this.


----------



## Caveat

Latrade said:


> At least it's just the liberals who are capitalising and rushing to judgement: seen outside usual pro-life GPO spot (picture)



I never thought I'd say this, but this actually makes me ashamed and embarrassed to be Irish.


----------



## Betsy Og

Caveat said:


> I never thought I'd say this, but this actually makes me ashamed and embarrassed to be Irish.


 
Not wanting to go off topic, but why do we worry so much about how it makes us look?, the issue is serious on its only merits for us, I dont particularly give a hang about what the world thinks. 

Mr. Myers doing his usual rubbing it into us - just because there are problems shouldnt mean national shame at every turn. I'm annoyed with our politicians and our bankers, but I dont think we, or the nation as a whole, needs to don sackcloth and ashes - awful things happen in all countries, I dont know that other nations rush to collective shame like we do?


----------



## Firefly

Latrade said:


> At least it's just the liberals who are capitalising and rushing to judgement: seen outside usual pro-life GPO spot (picture)


 
That's hillarious  If there is a God and there is a Satan, then surely God could just nip down and say "Hey Satan buddy, gimme back me smallee".


----------



## orka

T McGibney said:


> Sorry, I think you're playing with semantics here. Savita's need for treatment to save her life was not a choice but a necessity.


In hindsight it was a necessity – but for the first few days while there was still a heartbeat, there was no indication that she was at risk of death – hence she did not qualify for a termination (do you really think the doctors knew her life was at risk and did nothing to save her? that her doctor-friend who visited her every day wouldn’t have raised a stink if he saw she was dying and nothing was being done?). Lots of women have waited for the heartbeat to stop and then had the foetus removed and no harm came to them. For women with a much-wanted pregnancy, it can be difficult to let go of the hope that the pregnancy might survive – so faced with waiting for nature to stop the heartbeat or terminating it medically, I can understand why some women would choose to wait. Savita’s outcome was very unusual – most women are fine with the waiting approach. But they should have the choice once the pregnancy is no longer viable.





T McGibney said:


> I haven't heard any "anti abortion" commentator say this week that she shouldn't have received the necessary treatment.


That’s what the anti-abortion commentators are hiding behind – that she should have got necessary treatment to save her life so therefore it’s not the law’s fault but the doctor’s. But as above, her life was not at enough risk to qualify for a termination before it was too late. 

The only thing that could have saved her was the termination that she asked for - are the anti-abortion commentators you refer to okay with the termination of a non-viable (but still live) pregnancy at the mother's request when her life is not in danger at that time but there's a very small risk that her life could be in danger if the pregnancy continues?


----------



## Firefly

truthseeker said:


> Ive had 3 replies, one from Sinn Fein and two from Labour. Both reasonably stock responses promising (in the case of *Sinn Fein*) to continue to press government to legislate and from Labour assurances that they will not be the 7th government to fail to legislate on this.


 
Anyone know what Sinn Fein's position on abortion is? (Pro-death? )


----------



## truthseeker

Firefly said:


> Anyone know what Sinn Fein's position on abortion is? (Pro-death? )



Heres what was said in the email:


> Sinn Féin supports legislation to provide for the right to termination in the case of a threat to the life of the woman, including through suicide, as laid down in the X Case.
> 
> To this end we supported the recent Medical Treatment Bill put forward by Clare Daly TD to introduce an extremely limited legal framework for termination in these cases. We also support a woman's right to termination in the case of rape or incest.
> 
> Sinn Féin are shocked and appalled at the recent death of Ms. Savita Halappanavar.


----------



## Caveat

Betsy Og said:


> Not wanting to go off topic, but why do we worry so much about how it makes us look?



Personally, I'd prefer if the country was portrayed as something half resembling a 21st century modern society.

It has taken us long enough to (mostly successfully) shake off the image of a superstitious, ultra conservative and disorganised backwater and this certainly doesn't help. 

I think most people, regardless of nationality,  would prefer that their country was viewed in a more positive light would they not?


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> Im not sure how this could be done in the kind of menu I suggested, do you have any thoughts on this?
> 
> I cant see this being relevant in all cases such as, a womans life being in danger, a woman wanting an abortion due to rape, but certainly it is relevant in some cases.
> 
> Do you know how any other countries handle this MrMan?



I would have thought that it would be an important aspect to your first point' abortion on demand', I agree and don't see how anyone could disagree that it has no relevance in the case of risk to mother, or rape. 

I don't know much about it in general, but I feel that if we are going to head towards referendum, then we need to ensure that side issues like the rights of the father are not used to oppose the whole matter. I think that if it was kept to just 'in cases of risk to mother and rape' then it would have a great chance of being passed.


----------



## truthseeker

Caveat said:


> Personally, I'd prefer if the country was portrayed as something half resembling a 21st century modern society.



I remember when I was a young lassie and I went off to see Amerikay on my J1 visa and being thoroughly shocked at what people abroad thought of Ireland. When I confirmed to them that we had no abortion, no divorce (then), that sale of condoms through a vending machine in my college had resulted in the arrest of the head of the students union and gay marriage wasnt even a concept Id heard of, they laughed long and loud and offered me ways to get a green card to get out of such a repressive country for good - oh how I wish Id taken them up on it!!!

Nearly 20 years on and no one seems to mind condoms being sold anywhere, divorce is allowed after a period of sufferance of 4 years, gay people still cant get married and abortion is still as contentious as it ever was. So, while we may partially resemble a modern 21st century society, we are a long way from catching up with other first world countries.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> *I think that if it was kept to just 'in cases of risk to mother and rape' then it would have a great chance of being passed.*



Thats why Id like to see a menu of choices to actually get a picture of what the electorate as a whole wants. I agree that a middle road has the greatest chance of being passed.


----------



## Latrade

truthseeker said:


> Ive had 3 replies, one from Sinn Fein and two from Labour. Both reasonably stock responses promising (in the case of Sinn Fein) to continue to press government to legislate and from Labour assurances that they will not be the 7th government to fail to legislate on this.



I can understand some who haven't replied: Minister for health and fellow FG, I think it's sad, but understand. But Clare Daley hasn't responded or even acknowledged the email. I'll admit I want the stock response like SF because I want to reply that as a TD who is so active in this why not have the bravery to introduce a bill? Why wait for the government if you believe in it so strongly?


----------



## truthseeker

Latrade said:


> I can understand some who haven't replied: Minister for health and fellow FG, I think it's sad, but understand. But Clare Daley hasn't responded or even acknowledged the email. I'll admit I want the stock response like SF because I want to reply that as a TD who is so active in this why not have the bravery to introduce a bill? Why wait for the government if you believe in it so strongly?



Did you email personally or through an online form? Any chance they didnt go through (if it was an online form for example).

Bit surprised at NO response from any!


----------



## MrMan

I would also agree that I am sick of hearing all this guff about being embarrassed to be Irish etc, can anyone point out a country from which we should model ourselves on?


----------



## Caveat

MrMan said:


> I would also agree that I am sick of hearing all this guff about being embarrassed to be Irish etc, *can anyone point out a country from which we should model ourselves on?*



Of course not. What kind of a question is that?


----------



## MrMan

An exasperated one


----------



## Firefly

truthseeker said:


> Sin Fein's quote "We also support a woman's right to termination in the case of rape or incest"



I can only imagine the pain and suffering that the woman in question my have gone through and will continue to go through. Going ahead with an abortion is yet another extremely stressful thing to have to consider and if the abortion is carried out then, this woman will have to think about this decision for the rest of her days. Having said all that...it's not the child's fault either, yet they are the ones paying the ultimate price. I'm not saying that I am against abortions in the case of rape/incest but just that it's such a difficult area...


----------



## Bronte

Latrade said:


> , but I believe in the tight of the individual to choose and see no reason why my (male, not medically qualified and never in a position to be pregnant) views should prevent a woman's right to determine what is best for her health and well-being.
> .


 
Latrade, you are a man ! I cannot believe this. I was so convinced you were female. My own husband is very very upset about this story. He cannot believe it. He tried to calm me down last week, he knows that this kind of issue really really upsets me and wanted me to stop reading about it but this weekend he changed his mind, he said for some reason that he realises now that it's too important for me and other women. You see we were together the last time there was this issue and I was much younger than and he thought I was just going off on one and he was probably anti abortion in all circumstances and just let me be myself then and basically ignored me and my crazy ideas on abortion/divorce/contraceptions etc but now he has children and he's thinking what if it were my daughter in that hospital, at the mercy of the beliefs of a medical professional. He read about it properly on Saturday in the Daily Mail of all places and it's rarely I've seen him so upset. This time he is now pro choice, he actually said to me that really men shouldn't have any say in this but we discussed it and I said that's a cop out from a man. And that men need to understand what it is to be female and to have to carry a child and to have to face up to hard choices sometimes. But most of all that when there is a debate to say what your beliefs are instead of ignoring it or avoiding it to avoid conflict. 

It is a shameful thing that has happened in Ireland. But more shameful is that in the last 20 years nobody has done anything about it. And each week we let terribly frightenend women make the cold hard trip to a foreign country to face that most gruesome of life's choices and we ignore it. We pretend it doesn't happen, sweep it under the carpet, we don't talk about it and the women don't talk about it. A minimum of 100,000 women, yes one hundred thousand Irish women, our mothers, sisters, cousins, daughters, aunts have gone in the last 20 years. In other words Irish people have only to look around them in their own families and there is someone who has made that trip that no one will discuss.


----------



## Bronte

truthseeker said:


> It doesnt really matter what my view on abortion is or what your view on abortion is, we need a referendum to find out what the majority view of the electorate is. Such a referendum would need to be carefully worded. A middle ground is likely to be the outcome of such a referendum.


 
We have to go back to the beginning here. Abortion has no place in the constitition. We need a referendum to remove it and instead let the laws on abortion be made by the Oireachtas. 

*Legislation for X*

This would not have saved Savita Halappanavar. Her health was at risk not her life, so even if there was legislation for the X case it would not have saved her. 

*Anti abortion versus pro choice*

I am pro choice, I am not pro abortion, I have never ever met anyone pro abortion and I will not be labelled as pro abortion because I believe in a women's right to choose. 

I will not dictate to any other women what she can or cannot do with her body in relation to this issue. I will not dictate to a rape victim, an incest victim, a women carrying a child with fetal defects, a women whose baby will die at term or a women whose choses for whatever reason to terminate the pregnancy. I will not judge her or condone her. I will accept her choice.

*Equal right to life between mother and the child she is carrying*

No this cannot be right, my life is more important. It's difficult but if we go down that route than the predictable result is what happened in Galway. 

*A doctors ethics*

I do not accept that a medical professional can make a choice for me or a choice between me and the baby I am carrying.  I want to have the right to know that as a women with a pregnancy I have the right to know the viewpoint of the doctor, where that view might impact me against my wishes.


----------



## T McGibney

truthseeker said:


> I remember when I was a young lassie and I went off to see Amerikay on my J1 visa and being thoroughly shocked at what people abroad thought of Ireland. When I confirmed to them that we had no abortion, no divorce (then), that sale of condoms through a vending machine in my college had resulted in the arrest of the head of the students union and *gay marriage wasnt even a concept Id heard of*, they laughed long and loud and offered me ways to get a green card to get out of such a repressive country for good - oh how I wish Id taken them up on it!!!



That's funny 'cos the yanks only heard of the concept of a gay marriage a few months before we did. 

There certainly was no visible lobby anywhere in the US  for gay marriage back in the days when condom vending machines were illegal in Ireland.


----------



## T McGibney

truthseeker said:


> Sinn Féin supports ... a woman's right to  termination in the case of rape or incest.



Says the party that until quite recently employed an alleged sex abuser, wanted in Northern Ireland for allegedly abusing a four year old, despite its own leadership knowing the full details of the allegations against him.

Only one of many, according to this:
[broken link removed]


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> Says the party that until quite recently employed an alleged sex abuser,
> [broken link removed]


 
What has this got to do with the debate on abortion.  In any case abusers are in every party and indeed are all over the place.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> What has this got to do with the debate on abortion.  In any case abusers are in every party and indeed are all over the place.



A party that* knowingly* harboured an alleged abuser amongst its top ranks tells us that abortion is okay for rape and incest victims.


----------



## michaelm

Bronte said:


> *Legislation for X* . . This would not have saved Savita Halappanavar. Her health was at risk not her life, so even if there was legislation for the X case it would not have saved her.


I agree fully with that, indeed I posted as much when this thread was reopened (#94).  This is why the clamour to legislate for X based on this case is misplaced.





Bronte said:


> I am pro choice, I am not pro abortion, I have never ever met anyone pro abortion and I will not be labelled as pro abortion because I believe in a women's right to choose.


Uncomfortable as it may be, this is just semantics . . pro-choice/pro-abortion are one and the same.





truthseeker said:


> Unless you are a woman of child bearing age  you simply cannot comprehend how frightening it is to know that in this  country, you *could* lose your life because the law ties the hands of doctors.
> 
> You are of course entitled to your opinion, but unless you would ever face that situation, its pretty irrelevant IMHO.


Attempts, in some quarters, to take ownership of the abortion issue notwithstanding, abortion is a societal issue. Irish maternity hospitals remain a safe place for both expectant  mothers and their babies; the scaremongering to the contrary should  stop.

IMHO many people are genuinely outraged regarding this case, others are more calculating as it serves their agenda (indeed some had prior knowledge that the story was to break and used that effectively).  In any event, we need the facts of the case and therefore we will have to await the report(s) of the various investigations.  In the interim, nothing will happen.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> Irish maternity hospitals remain a safe place for both expectant mothers and their babies; the scaremongering to the contrary should stop.


 
Scaremongering? You claim it's an agenda and scaremongering that women are genuinely upset and concerned that the choice over whether their lives and health is at the whim of a doctor and ethics panel? I would prefer the scaremongering over condescending trivialisation of genuine heartfelt concern to suit a religious agenda.

But let's focus on one key aspect that is trotted out by the government and the church and people on this forum. I'm confused because first I'm told that legislation in the X Case wouldn't have prevented the death. Just on that, it's almost said with some sense of smugness (not you personally) as in "take that liberal baby murderers, even if we hadn't aggresively faught against legislation for 20 years, even if we hadn't set up Choose Life in the face of the ABC case, she would have still died!". I'm not entirely sure that does much for the morality of the argument being made.

Second, if it is indeed irrelevant to this case, then perhaps you can explain the relevance of the Maternity Mortality rate to the abortion discussion. I keep hearing this and I keep hearing how we compare to the UK, what with it's buy-one-get-one-free abortions in the supermarket. But while you were the most recent to use the statistic, perhaps you could explain its relevance.

I'll give my perspective first. According to the [broken link removed] there are 14 countries that have better maternity mortality rates than Ireland. 

Of those, 10 allow abortions on request and 3 for health and other circumstances (which is where the UK would fit in). So every single country that is better at looking after pregnant women allows abortion. Of those the vast majority have 70% have the most liberal abortion laws. So how come the church and the government only mention the UK?

And if this really is a relevant statistic, surely the evidence suggest that liberalisation of abortion laws saves more lives, if we are to use the "rationality" of the church by using this statistic.

Look at it this way, for example, one of the few countries with a complete ban on abortion, the Dominican Republic has a MM of 150.00/100K, Estonia (abortion on request) is 2.00/100K. Ahhh, but, but, but, you see, that's not fair, you're not comparing, no, but, but, but.... Do. You. See. How. Irrelevant. And. Unrealted. To. Abortion. This. Statistic. Is? 

Perhaps we can stop using this, albeit impressive, Ireland is safe stat as it is meaningless. For one it doesn’t take into account the hundres of thousands of women who travel to the UK for abortions. That's another strike against promulgating this tripe. Second, the UK's and the USA's higer rates again have nothing to do with abortions, it is mostly to do with poverty and in particular that the maternal moratlity is usually skewed towards poor immigrants. In the USA's case, there are issues with affording prenatal care for immigrants (largely illegal). And in the UK, it tends to not get mentioned for fear of racism accusations, but again the maternity mortality higher rates are from women from poor areas, tend to be ethnic minority, tend to have not partaken in vaccination programmes, etc, etc, etc, and not at all related to abortion.

Where abortion does feature, "unsafe abortions" (note it is clearly stated "unsafe" not "abortion") is in those developing countries where, in some cases (like the Domincan Republic) where abortion is illegal, so women get unsafe abortions, or where overall medical care is not to the high, hygienic standards we expect and have grown accustomed to. 

So, from my perspective, the actual data says a lot, but if we apply the current pro-life logic to it, then the data actually supports abortion in order to save more lives. But I'm willing to hear your views on this as I assume that as you keep quoting the statement, you've also had a look at the data.



michaelm said:


> IMHO many people are genuinely outraged regarding this case, others are more calculating as it serves their agenda (indeed some had prior knowledge that the story was to break and used that effectively). *In any event, we need the facts of the case* and therefore we will have to await the report(s) of the various investigations. In the interim, nothing will happen.


 
So, to conclude. Everyone who is pro-choice needs to get their facts straight and wait for evidence before making any judgement. I agree. But pro-lifers can:

1. Judge people without any evidence by claiming that "others are more calculating as it serves their agenda"
2. Judge women as scaremongering despite evidence that they are genuinely concerned.
3. Twist a statistic that actually does not support their argument to pretend it does.

What's the point in getting facts when pro-life has demonstrated that it will just twist and turn and wriggle and resort to pretty low and dispicable name-calling in order to keep its rapidly diminishing argument relevant? What good will facts serve when those pro-life commentators will just lie?


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> A party that* knowingly* harboured an alleged abuser amongst its top ranks tells us that abortion is okay for rape and incest victims.


 
Well I guess then the Catholic church which is quite notorious in it's harbouring of abusers had better not speak on abortion either. Indeed, they are notorius in their treatment of pregnant women in the Magdelene laundries. And will we talk about their treatment of children born as a result of rape and incest that ended up in their industrial schools. 

They have been unusually silent on this issue, particularly when they've spent centuries trying to control women's bodies.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> Well I guess then the Catholic church which is quite notorious in it's harbouring of abusers had better not speak on abortion either. Indeed, they are notorius in their treatment of pregnant women in the Magdelene laundries. And will we talk about their treatment of children born as a result of rape and incest that ended up in their industrial schools.
> 
> They have been unusually silent on this issue, particularly when they've spent centuries trying to control women's bodies.



Firstly, you're trying to have it both ways here. You say the Catholic church "had better not speak on abortion" yet you complain "They have been unusually silent on this issue". 

As regards the Catholic Church, if they ever trot out abortion as a 'solution' for rape or incest victims, I will waste no time in giving them both barrels. They haven't done so, so we're back to Sinn Fein, the party that harbours rapists but will provide abortions to their victims.


----------



## Latrade

T McGibney said:


> As regards the Catholic Church, if they ever trot out abortion as a 'solution' for rape or incest victims, I will waste no time in giving them both barrels. They haven't done so, so we're back to Sinn Fein, the party that harbours rapists but will provide abortions to their victims.


 
Are you really saying the CC is ok to comment on abortion and pregnancy from rape and incest (while harbouring and facilitating rapists) because at least it is consistent, i.e. even if you're raped we don't support abortion and instead would confine you to an institution with institutionalised abuse, torture and humiliation?

Wow.


----------



## T McGibney

Latrade said:


> Are you really saying the CC is ok to comment on abortion and pregnancy from rape and incest (while harbouring and facilitating rapists) because at least it is consistent, i.e. even if you're raped we don't support abortion and instead would confine you to an institution with institutionalised abuse, torture and humiliation?
> 
> Wow.



Wow indeed.

What sort of loaded question is that? 

Where in this thread have I defended the Catholic Church's right to speak on anything? 

Go attack some other strawman, you won't get much change here.


----------



## Latrade

T McGibney said:


> Wow indeed.
> 
> What sort of loaded question is that?
> 
> Where in this thread have I defended the Catholic Church's right to speak on anything?
> 
> Go attack some other strawman, you won't get much change here.


 
Yup completely loaded and a complete strawman done because it is the exact same as when you asked the loaded question about SF.


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> . . perhaps you can explain the relevance of the Maternity Mortality rate to the abortion discussion. I keep hearing this and I keep hearing how we compare to the UK, what with it's buy-one-get-one-free abortions in the supermarket. But while you were the most recent to use the statistic, perhaps you could explain its relevance.


The relevance of Ireland's the Maternity Mortality Rate in this debate is that it debunks the notion that Irish maternity hospitals are unsafe because of our prohibition on abortion.  

Whatever about buy-one-get-one-free, although the UK introduced limited abortion in 1967, this has morphed into abortion-on-demand (up to term for minor defects) with a sizable abortion industry conducting 200,000 abortions every year (over 500 per day).


----------



## T McGibney

Latrade said:


> Yup completely loaded and a complete strawman done because it is the exact same as when you asked the loaded question about SF.



Exact same? No.

The Catholic Church, harbourer of rapists and abusers, *have not* called for abortion for victims of rape and abuse.

Sinn Fein, harbourer of rapists and abusers, *have* called for abortion for victims of rape and abuse.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> The relevance of Ireland's the Maternity Mortality Rate in this debate is that it debunks the notion that Irish maternity hospitals are unsafe because of our prohibition on abortion.
> 
> Whatever about buy-one-get-one-free, although the UK introduced limited abortion in 1968, this has morphed into abortion-on-demand (up to term for minor defects) with a sizable abortion industry conducting 200,000 abortions every year (over 500 per day).


 
All 14, Fourteen, States who are better than Ireland have legalised abortion. 10 of those have more liberal abortion laws than the UK. Again, how is it relevant when clearly the actual statistics show no link other than to show that abortion improves Maternity Mortality?

The reason women feel unsafe is that, and again confirmed by actual doctors who work in the area, in the rare event that their health is at risk that they do not have the right to choose an abortion to prevent any further health concerns because the current quasi-legal status is not clear nor strong enough in their favour as a human being. 

Ireland has a very good record, why can't it be better? Most maternity mortality in the Western World is related to infection and infection control, yes this is a rare occurrence, but if the lack of clear legislation prevents a rapid decision, can we actually say they are safe if those circumstances repeat themselves?


----------



## Latrade

T McGibney said:


> Exact same? No.
> 
> The Catholic Church, harbourer of rapists and abusers, *have not* called for abortion for victims of rape and abuse.
> 
> Sinn Fein, harbourer of rapists and abusers, *have* called for abortion for victims of rape and abuse.


 
I countered a loaded question with another loaded question. You're right it isn't exactly the same, because in the case of the Church we have a multitude of victims of abuse, yet for SF we've the one case that we know of. So on a scaling view it is massively different. But what are you trying to achieve by labouring this point? 

I still fail to see how your point on SF is relevant, I don't get what point or win you're trying to score by picking out one sentence from a larger point. And forgive me, but it does give the impression that you are saying the Church have more right to comment because they are consistent. If your message is that neither are completely free to comment without some element of hypocrasy then I agree 100%.  

Neither party can take any moral highground, but welcoming one political party to stop merely complaining and to take action is not the same as supporting the whole party.


----------



## T McGibney

Latrade said:


> I countered a loaded question with another loaded question. You're right it isn't exactly the same, because in the case of the Church we have a multitude of victims of abuse, yet for SF we've the one case that we know of. So on a scaling view it is massively different. But what are you trying to achieve by labouring this point?
> 
> I still fail to see how your point on SF is relevant, I don't get what point or win you're trying to score by picking out one sentence from a larger point. And forgive me, but it does give the impression that you are saying the Church have more right to comment because they are consistent. If your message is that neither are completely free to comment without some element of hypocrasy then I agree 100%.
> 
> Neither party can take any moral highground, but welcoming one political party to stop merely complaining and to take action is not the same as supporting the whole party.



Where did I say the Catholic Church have more right to comment? Everyone and anyone is free to comment, including Sinn Fein and the Catholic Church. 

However it is valid for me to criticise or question a position that is (or seems) hypocritical, as I did in relation to Sinn Fein.

And it is entirely valid for me to 'labour the point' when whataboutery is used in an attempt to misrepresent and misconstrue the point I made.


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> All 14, Fourteen, States who are better than Ireland have legalised abortion. 10 of those have more liberal abortion laws than the UK. Again, how is it relevant when clearly the actual statistics show no link other than to show that abortion improves Maternity Mortality?


Again, it's only relevant because it debunks a falsehood.  One would have to perhaps misinterpret the stats to find that abortion improves MMR. 

Looking at your link India, for example, had a MMR 33 times that of Ireland in 2010.  The MMR figure is in single figures per 100,000 for the best 30 or so countries.  All 14? - 3 seem to be better by virtue of reverse alphabetical order no less - There is far too small a variance in any given year (2010 in this case) to suggest that abortion makes one safer relative to another.


----------



## orka

Latrade said:


> But what are you trying to achieve by labouring this point?


Drag and keep the thread offtopic?


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> .
> 
> Sinn Fein, harbourer of rapists and abusers, *have* called for abortion for victims of rape and abuse.


 
No they have not called for abortion for such victimes. They have said that they agree that in the case of a women who has become pregnant as a result of rape or incest that that women should have the right to have an abortion. Which is the exact opposite of what you have written in that sentence. 

It was you that made the point that because Sinn Fein have (or may have) harbored a single rapist that they cannot speak about abortion and my point to you is that if you follow that logic the Catholic Church who covered up for many many members who were sexual abusers and who judged women and who made women slaves in laundries for money and who abused children born as a result of rape or incest and put them in industrial schools for money, then they too, to follow your logic, may not comment. 

I for one would be most interested to know the Catholic viewpoint on a women's right to choose whether to keep a child or terminate when she is carryring a child as a result of rape or incest. Indeed I'd like to know your viewpoint.


----------



## T McGibney

orka said:


> Drag and keep the thread offtopic?



Note that Sinn Fein's hyprocrisy was being discussed on this thread long before I made any comment about them.


----------



## orka

Bronte said:


> I for one would be most interested to know the Catholic viewpoint on a women's right to choose whether to keep a child or terminate when she is carryring a child as a result of rape or incest. Indeed I'd like to know your viewpoint.


Of more relevance, I would like to know the Catholic Church's (and the anti-abortion posters on here - I did ask a few pages back...) view on:

Faced with a 17 week pregnant woman miscarrying on a Monday morning but with a still live foetus; for every hour that passes in an active miscarriage, her risk of infection increases; infection can usually be managed and is very unlikely to lead to death: ~ May she have a termination if her life is not immediately at risk?


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> No they have not called for abortion for such victimes. They have said that they agree that in the case of a women who has become pregnant as a result of rape or incest that that women should have the right to have an abortion. Which is the exact opposite of what you have written in that sentence.
> 
> It was you that made the point that because Sinn Fein have (or may have) harbored a single rapist that they cannot speak about abortion and my point to you is that if you follow that logic the Catholic Church who covered up for many many members who were sexual abusers and who judged women and who made women slaves in laundries for money and who abused children born as a result of rape or incest and put them in industrial schools for money, then they too, to follow your logic, may not comment.
> 
> I for one would be most interested to know the Catholic viewpoint on a women's right to choose whether to keep a child or terminate when she is carryring a child as a result of rape or incest. Indeed I'd like to know your viewpoint.



When you won't even bother reading my earlier posts (as evidenced by the manner in which you spectacularly missed the point in paragraph 2 above, which I clarified earlier), I don't see why I should bother submitting myself to questioning by you.


----------



## orka

T McGibney said:


> Note that Sinn Fein's hyprocrisy was being discussed on this thread long before I made any comment about them.


Really?  I don't see it - unless you count a very obvious tongue in cheek 'Pro-death?' followed by a smiley?  Every other mention of SF that I can see was just factual - who emailed and what reply they got.  Maybe my scanning of the 9 or so pages missed the discussion of SF hypocrisy so could you let me know which number posts you're referring to?


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> Again, it's only relevant because it debunks a falsehood. One would have to perhaps misinterpret the stats to find that abortion improves MMR.
> 
> Looking at your link India, for example, had a MMR 33 times that of Ireland in 2010. The MMR figure is in single figures per 100,000 for the best 30 or so countries. All 14? - 3 seem to be better by virtue of reverse alphabetical order no less - There is far toio small a variance in any given year (2010 in this case) to suggest that abortion makes one safer relative to another.


 
This is where we agree. Unfortunately those who have been using this stat are really using it to say it is safe here for a pregnancy, they are implying it is safe because of a prohibition on abortion. Every single one who has used it has compared it to the UK with the note that the UK has liberal abortion rules.

If, and let's be honest most weren't, they were simply pointint out that it is safe to be pregnant here then fine...but why mention the UK? Of course they were countering a concern that it was unsafe for a pregnancy, but that was a concern regarding a position where the mother's health was in danger and would she have the say on whether or not an abortion would be performed. As we've learned we genuinely don't know, but the general impression is probably not and probably not until her condition really deteriorates.

People weren't saying this happens every day, or even every year, they were saying what they've argued for decades that it could happen. Whether or not there is a direct link in Savita's case remains to be seen, but the question still remains for women that if they are pregnant and their health of concern can they ask for an abortion? Do they have the right to determine their own lives and we have to honestly answer: probably not.

So they myth that is being debunked isn't a myth created by those who have protested or called for legislation, it's a myth created by those who oppose abortion because they are not listening to what people are saying. They're accusing them of having an agenda, they're accusing them of scaremongering, they're accusing them of not having the full facts. And then they dishonestly manipulate a statistic to counter the very myths they created in the first place. 

If they myth is are women scared that if they were in a similar circumstance and their health was in danger that the lack of law and lack of clarity could mean that their wish for an abortion could mean they die, then that's not a myth that's a reality for half the population of this country. They were not commenting on the maternity care in general.

So you're right you can't use those statistics to argue for or against abortion and I only did so tongue in cheek. But I do think that if you were to use the figures at all for pro or anti-abortion, then I certainly don't think they support the latter position in any way shape or form.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> When you won't even bother reading my earlier posts (as evidenced by the manner in which you spectacularly missed the point in paragraph 2 above, which I clarified earlier), I don't see why I should bother submitting myself to questioning by you.


 
Forgive me but really I don't understand what earlier posts you're referring to. Truthseeker posted the Sinn Fein response to an email she sent and you now bring in the fact that a member of Sinn Fein may or may not have been a sexual abuser to I think prove the point that they don't have any moral authority to speak on abortion, but I don't see what that fact has to do with Sinn Fein policy on abortion. 

You don't have to submit to any question of mine naturally enough, in the interest of this debate I was trying to elicite your viewpoint. It's a cop out if you won't give it, in my personal opinion. If you have a view point, which I assume you do why not share it. I would most welcome all viewpoints as I strive to understand this issue, I don't have to agree with them though. But it might help this debate and help us all to understand each other?


----------



## Betsy Og

orka said:


> Of more relevance, I would like to know the Catholic Church's (and the anti-abortion posters on here - I did ask a few pages back...) view on:
> 
> Faced with a 17 week pregnant woman miscarrying on a Monday morning but with a still live foetus; for every hour that passes in an active miscarriage, her risk of infection increases; infection can usually be managed and is very unlikely to lead to death: ~ May she have a termination if her life is not immediately at risk?


 
As a pro-lifer I did offer a perspective on this - not sure if pre or post your question - but basically if a woman is miscarrying (which is definitive to my limited knowledge - i.e. the pregnancy doesnt ever recover) the life of the foetus is lost (give or take some days) and for the safety of the mother a termination should take place - no point risking a viable life for an unviable one - or even the health of a viable life for an unviable one.

While I'm liberal on most things I do think the foetus, while viable, has rights, isnt ending the life of one for your own convenience a tad selfish?

Maybe this is contradictory but in the case of rape etc, why is the morning after pill not standard?, again limited knowledge but I gather it can prevent conception taking place at all (and fair enough maybe it can end life in the 2 cells goes to 4 stage, but we'll never know for sure in any given case and in the circumstances I think the woman deserves the benefit of the doubt).

I'm also curious about how people can be so het up about life before it exits the womb and not too bothered after that - e.g. awfully disappointing turnout in the childrens referendum. Lots of children suffer neglect or worse in Ireland and beyond, maybe better for all concerned if they'd never been conceived, which is why the CC view on contraception is so bonkers, especially in African contexts where the use of condoms could help a lot in the AIDS epidemic.


----------



## truthseeker

Betsy Og said:


> Maybe this is contradictory but in the case of rape etc, why is the morning after pill not standard?, again limited knowledge but I gather it can prevent conception taking place at all (and fair enough maybe it can end life in the 2 cells goes to 4 stage, but we'll never know for sure in any given case and in the circumstances I think the woman deserves the benefit of the doubt).



This would require all rapes to be reported and reported within 72 hours. Currently only 6%-8% of rapes are reported to the guards at all.

The argument for abortion after incest or rape doesnt really make any sense. Either abortion is murder or it isnt. If it is, then the method of conception should be irrelevant. Anyone who agrees with abortion after rape or incest is really just agreeing to a limited version of abortion on demand.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> Forgive me but really I don't understand what earlier posts you're referring to. Truthseeker posted the Sinn Fein response to an email she sent and you now bring in the fact that a member of Sinn Fein may or may not have been a sexual abuser to I think prove the point that they don't have any moral authority to speak on abortion, but I don't see what that fact has to do with Sinn Fein policy on abortion.
> 
> You don't have to submit to any question of mine naturally enough, in the interest of this debate I was trying to elicite your viewpoint. It's a cop out if you won't give it, in my personal opinion. If you have a view point, which I assume you do why not share it. I would most welcome all viewpoints as I strive to understand this issue, I don't have to agree with them though. But it might help this debate and help us all to understand each other?



I never said Sinn Fein should not speak on abortion. I did point out their position is hypocritical.  

I don't wish to outline my own views on abortion as unlike you I post using my real name and am easily identifiable. It is also a difficult subject for people to discuss dispassionately. Whether or not that's a cop out is for others to judge.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> I don't wish to outline my own views on abortion as unlike you I post using my real name and am easily identifiable. It is also a difficult subject for people to discuss dispassionately. Whether or not that's a cop out is for others to judge.


 
I forgot you use your own name and your reply is absolutely perfectly understandable.   And for that reason I'm sorry for saying it was a cop out for you.


----------



## Betsy Og

truthseeker said:


> This would require all rapes to be reported and reported within 72 hours. Currently only 6%-8% of rapes are reported to the guards at all.
> 
> The argument for abortion after incest or rape doesnt really make any sense. Either abortion is murder or it isnt. If it is, then the method of conception should be irrelevant. Anyone who agrees with abortion after rape or incest is really just agreeing to a limited version of abortion on demand.


 
But cant the morning after pill be bought over the counter now?, why wouldnt someone take it automatically? Re "method of contraception" - isnt the idea of contraception before conception, so I dont think abortion should be lumped in with contraception in that sense.


----------



## michaelm

Betsy Og said:


> - but basically if a woman is miscarrying (which is definitive to my limited knowledge - i.e. the pregnancy doesnt ever recover)


I don't believe that is correct; and I don't think 'miscarrying' is a medical term.





Betsy Og said:


> which is why the CC view on contraception is so bonkers, especially in African contexts where the use of condoms could help a lot in the AIDS epidemic.


The CC view on contraception is irrelevant in this regard;  the CC view would also be opposed to adultery and extra-marital sex, if people listened to such there would be no AIDS.





truthseeker said:


> The argument for abortion after incest or rape doesnt really make any sense.


I would agree with that.  I don't believe that the right to life of the unborn should be predicated on how conception transpired.





Betsy Og said:


> But cant the morning after pill be bought over  the counter now?, why wouldnt someone take it automatically? Re "method  of contraception" - isnt the idea of contraception before conception, so I dont think abortion should be lumped in with contraception in that sense.


The morning after pill is licenced in Ireland on the basis that it can prevent conception.


----------



## truthseeker

Betsy Og said:


> But cant the morning after pill be bought over the counter now?, why wouldnt someone take it automatically? Re "method of contraception" - isnt the idea of contraception before conception, so I dont think abortion should be lumped in with contraception in that sense.



I may have misunderstood your original post, when you asked why the morning after pill wasnt standard, I took it to mean a standard part of the process of reporting a rape - whether it be to a doctor or a guard. Yes, it is available over the counter, and presumably people dont just take it automatically because they are traumatised, dont think of it, dont want to have to say they need it in case someone asks why etc......

On method of contraception - I was talking about method of conception, not contraception. I was just meandering on about the fallacy of the argument that abortion is ok in cases of rape or incest.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> the CC view would also be opposed to adultery and extra-marital sex, if people listened to such there would be no AIDS.


 
This is great information. My nephew is looking to begin a career in medicine, but I think I might just advise him to pick up some CC docterine as it appears it qualifies you as an OB/GY and an epidemiologist.


----------



## orka

michaelm said:


> I don't believe that is correct; and I don't think 'miscarrying' is a medical term.


michaelm, what is your view on my question above? I have rephrased with the correct medical term.





orka said:


> Faced with a 17 week pregnant woman at the start of a clinical spontaneous abortion on a Monday morning but with a still live foetus; for every hour that passes in an active clinical spontaneous abortion, her risk of infection increases; infection can usually be managed and is very unlikely to lead to death: ~ May she have a termination if her life is not immediately at risk?


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> This is great information. My nephew is looking to begin a career in medicine, but I think I might just advise him to pick up some CC docterine as it appears it qualifies you as an OB/GY and an epidemiologist.


You're on a roll today .  My point was, on the off-chance you missed it, people don't listen to the CC.





orka said:


> michaelm, what is your view on my question above? I have rephrased with the correct medical term.


I'm not a medical person but your question may not be as clever as you think.  Like, what does 'at the start of a clinical spontaneous abortion' mean.  One cannot know such.  These are evolving situations, there may be a show or leaking fluid but this may abate or cease, allowing the pregnancy to continue or this may accelerate resulting in a premature delivery.  I would trust that the clinical team would endeavour to sustain the pregnancy where practical but that care for the mother would be paramount.  If the mother's life was considered to be at risk then delivery might be induced should that be deemed the best course.  In the event of possible infection a clinical diagnosis should be made to that effect and appropriate medication (broad-spectrum antibiotics, or whatever) should be administered.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> the CC view would also be opposed to adultery and extra-marital sex, if people listened to such there would be no AIDS.



Actually 





> Both HIV-1 and HIV-2 are believed to have originated in non-human primates in West-central Africa and were transferred to humans (a process known as zoonosis) in the early 20th century.


 source


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> Actually


Brilliant .  Not wanting to be further waylaid by pedantry I will choose my words more carefully in future. For clarity, the gist of my point was that it is silly to blame the spread of AIDS in Africa on the CC, that if people followed the CC line (and I'm not suggesting that they should) AIDS would never have gotten a foothold in the human population.  My point was, on the off-chance you missed it, people don't listen to the CC.


----------



## T McGibney

michaelm said:


> Brilliant .  Not wanting to be further waylaid by pedantry I will choose my words more carefully in future. For clarity, the gist of my point was that it is silly to blame the spread of AIDS in Africa on the CC, that if people followed the CC line (and I'm not suggesting that they should) AIDS would never have gotten a foothold in the human population.  My point was, on the off-chance you missed it, people don't listen to the CC.



The other relevant point of course is that only 17% of Africans are Catholics. (2005 figures) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Africa


----------



## orka

michaelm said:


> I'm not a medical person but your question may not be as clever as you think.


It was as clever as it needed to be to get your answer which I think is basically 'as long as there's a heartbeat and the mother's life is not obviously at risk, press on with the pregnancy'?


----------



## Betsy Og

T McGibney said:


> The other relevant point of course is that only 17% of Africans are Catholics. (2005 figures) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Africa


 
No-one is saying they are the cause of it, or that if they changed it would magically cure it, but their stance certainty aint helping. Its just another example of the dis-connect between CC and the real world, sure even their own clergy are starting to say it. I think the "fix" is more that their influence hold less sway than actually trying to talk them around to some pragmatism/realism.


----------



## michaelm

orka said:


> It was as clever as it needed to be to get your answer which I think is basically 'as long as there's a heartbeat and the mother's life is not obviously at risk, press on with the pregnancy'?


Of course; these are evolving situations.


----------



## T McGibney

Betsy Og said:


> No-one is saying they are the cause of it, or that if they changed it would magically cure it, but their stance certainty aint helping. Its just another example of the dis-connect between CC and the real world, sure even their own clergy are starting to say it. I think the "fix" is more that their influence hold less sway than actually trying to talk them around to some pragmatism/realism.




I agree that their stance isn't helping and to a large extent is nonsensical. However while you are correct in saying that the RCC policy is not the cause of Africa's AIDS woes, there are an awful lot of people out there who claim that it is.


----------



## Bronte

michaelm said:


> I would trust that the clinical team would endeavour to sustain the pregnancy where practical but that care for the mother would be paramount.


 
On what grounds could you trust the clinical team in an Irish hospital? In the particular situation of a decision having to be taken between two lives? It's the whole nub of the issue. I don't want to have trust, I want to know that if my life or indeed my mere health was at risk that a doctor would act in my best interest first. I don't want doctors who have an ethical issue with weighting up the choice between baby and mother to wait a second on the possible chance that both will survive, unless I was consulted and fully agreed with such a course of action. Me being a mere pregnant women in Ireland though gives me no decision making in the process at all. I'd be just a lamb to the slaughter as doctors take on the role of life decider based on their morals, not my morals. How frightened women must be in Irish hospitals when they have a clinical problem and they suddently realise they are at the mercy of the particular morals of a particular doctor. We heard from plenty of them last week on the airwaves to know that women have gone though the very same set of circumstances as Ms. Halappenaver.

It seems her husband not only doesn't trust the medical teams after his experience, but he doesn't even want one medical professional from all of Galway to assist the enquity, such is his lack of trust in the truth eminating from them now after the event.


----------



## Bronte

*George Hook interview with John Monaghan, Consultant, Portinucula Hospital Monday the 19th Nov*

I felt I was in a time warp yesterday when I heard this interview. Busy doing the kids dinner and listening to this, but I really felt we had gone back 30 years with two arrogant men talking down to us mere plebs. If anyone else heard it could they confirm that I have not misunderstood the programme. 

George launched into an attack on India, and an extraordinary outburst on Clare Daly, with radio clips to I think prove that she is some kind of crazy warrior for women - really brings one back to what went before when this all started 3 decades ago. 

I really sat up and listened when he interview John Monaghan, Gyn & Obe. George was at pains to point out that Portinucula, Co. Galway is in no way linked to Galway Hospital, but the name John Monaghan rang a bell with me as I had studied abortion last week and amazing enough John Monaghan was a speaker at a symposium on the 8th Sept held in Dublin. Here is a link to the Irish times article on the symposium (conference). 

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0910/1224323797477.html

The ostensible point of the interview was to prove that us women are well served by Irish doctors and have nothing to fear. That India is a 3rd world country in comparison with us and that we need to fear the likes of Clare Daly. It was brain washing of the highest order in my opinion. 

What was not pointed out is that there is indeed a link between John Monaghan and the Galway hospital. The Chair of the Symposium just happens to be Prof Eamonn O' Dwyer, Professor Emeritus Gynaecology & Obstetrics at of all places NUI Galway. They are both on the Irish Medical Council and both a member of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists. 

What was the conclusion of the conference:

_As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman._

Now come on George you can do better than that, you could have pointed out that John Monaghan is indeed linked to Galway Hospital via his relationship with Prof O' Dwyer and both according to the Irish times article are anti-abortion campaigners. When you're up against apparent spin in the national media and indeed hidden agendas would anyone be surprised that Mr. Haleppenavar doesn't want any medical professional from the county of Galway on the enquiry.


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> George was at pains to point out that Portinucula, Co. Galway is in no way linked to Galway Hospital


I think that is it responsible of him to point out that the two Hospitals are not linked; some could make that leap of the imagination and incorrectly label them as being at fault also.



Bronte said:


> The ostensible point of the interview was to prove that us women are well served by Irish doctors and have nothing to fear.


So women should fear going to hospital and that Irish Doctors are some sort of saw-bone quacks? What happened was a tragedy and should not have happened, however is this happening every week at a high rate?
Your ostensible point coming across is that women should go to Irish doctors in fear, to be judged, butchered and slung out the back door all because of their morals on that day.



Bronte said:


> What was not pointed out is that there is indeed a link between John Monaghan and the Galway hospital. The Chair of the Symposium just happens to be Prof Eamonn O' Dwyer, Professor Emeritus Gynaecology & Obstetrics at of all places NUI Galway. They are both on the Irish Medical Council and both a member of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists.


 
You haven’t shown a link between Mr. Monaghan and Galway Hospital; all you’ve pointed out is that they are members of a professional institute. I am a member of a few professional bodies but I don’t find myself in trouble or linked with the mistakes of other members. This is an illogical attempt to tar all with the one brush by association. 



Bronte said:


> What was the conclusion of the conference:
> _As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman._


 
No – the conclusion was - 
“We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.” 
And also 
“no treatment should ever be withheld from a woman if she needed it to save her life, even if that treatment resulted in the loss of life of her unborn child.”
You’ve just picked what you wanted to hear from that article and turned it against them for your on arguments sake. 
The statement you’ve selected doesn’t even make them out to be anti-abortion; they’ve just clarified that a quick abortion isn’t always a quick fix solution. 
The article even states that the conference was not linked to any pro-life/anti abortion group or campaign. It was a medical professional group. 



Bronte said:


> When you're up against apparent spin in the national media and indeed hidden agendas would anyone be surprised that Mr. Haleppenavar doesn't want any medical professional from the county of Galway on the enquiry.


 
What spin? George Hook isn’t the national media; it’s one independent station; George Hook isn’t a national representative.
What “hidden agenda’s”?
Mr Haleppenavar does not want anyone from Galway Hospital involved, and would be common practice from an impartiality point of view. Not due to hidden agendas you imagine on the air waves.


----------



## truthseeker

bullbars said:


> Your ostensible point coming across is that women should go to Irish doctors in fear, to be judged, butchered and slung out the back door all because of their morals on that day.



While the above might be putting it in a sensationalist manner, yes, women in Ireland do live in fear of moral judgement of doctors. Ask any woman over 35 you know if she feels she has been judged morally by a member of the medical profession in Ireland and most of them will tell you yes. Even today, many women do not like the idea of going to a Well Woman clinic due to the holdover of the days when they used to lecture and criticise young girls who came looking to go on the pill or for a pregnancy test. I had a male doctor refuse me the contraceptive pill and then went to another doctor who prescribed it immediately and claimed the first guy was just 'old fashioned' and wouldnt prescribe it to unmarried women.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> I think that is it responsible of him to point out that the two Hospitals are not linked; some could make that leap of the imagination and incorrectly label them as being at fault also.


 
So you think the Galway city hospital is at fault in some way?

What I mean by link is the following:

*Galway City Hospital*

Galway City hospital is known locally as the Regional, it's proper titles University Hospital Galway (UHG) or University College Hospital or University College Hospital Galway (UCHG) - take your pick

*Galway university*

Now known as NUI Galway. National University of Ireland, Galway, previously known as UCG, University College Galway. 

The hospital and the university are literally across the road from one another and in the West of Ireland NUIG is the medical training school for doctors/ nurses/etc having therefore a School of Medicine and that teaching takes place in the university and in the hospital. 

Both the hospital and the university are therefore completely intertwined. 

*Link between Portinucula hospital and Galway Hospital*

As I'm not a medical person I don't know of the medical links if any between the two. But Dr. Monaghan did not clarify on the radio yesterday that he is on the teaching staff of NUIG. That I think is amazing, why not just state there is no link between his hospital Portinucula and Galway hospital but there is a link between him and NUIG.

I doubt if Prof O' Dwyer is still lecturing etc due to his age but on the Symposium he lists himself as Professor Emeritus. He was Chair of the symposium and Dr. Monaghan was a speak at that symposium.

The two men are linked also on two different bodies. In addition and it was not pointed out on the radio yesterday, Dr. Monagan helped draft the 2009 medical guidelines on abortion. Some people might be surprised to learn, as I was that they amount to one solitary page. On my reading of them, and someone might correct me too on this, they amount to naugt. So we are basically left with the Supreme Court judgement etc. Not very helpful to women to know their rights or doctors their duty. I have been amazed in the past week with the medical professionalls telling us that the situation of what to do is absolutely cristal clear to them. How can it be if we have no legislation. No doctor has pointed out that their medical guidelines do not carry any legal weight (also open to correction on this)

*Catholic ethos of Hospital*

As far as I know there is no official Catholic ethos at Galway in the formal sense. It was never run by a religious order (I'm open to correction on this). But this does not mean that the staff of particularly Irish origin are statistically bound to be coming from traditional Catholic stock. I have no issue with anyone's religion but it is naive to assume that a hospital or indeed any insitution in Ireland is not 'Catholic' just because it is not officially so.

*Symoposium*

It is quite clear to me that this conference was run to a specific agenda. To prove that abortion is never necessary to save a pregnant women. So from my reading of it medical professionals who had an anti abortion agenda held a conference to prove this very 'fact'. 

Medically, and as previously stated I'm not medically, trained their 'Dublin Declaration' is nonsense. Abortion is absolutely sometimes necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. These occurances are rare.

*Fear of Irish doctors*

You may be assured that one should have a healthy respect for the power of doctors when you are in a life or death situation. I did not give birth in Ireland, and I've had both natural and caesarian. But I do have siblings and relations who have given birth in Ireland, including the Galway hospital. Like truthseeker I too was judged when young and to live it is to know it. Luckily for various reasons I knew where to go. So my fear is deeply held. I've seen what Neary did, I've seen what happened over the years in various horrific stories that I'm not going to go into on here. 

It's my belief that if Ms. Halappanavar had been Irish she would have had a better chance because they didn't 'get it' about Catholic Ireland. Her husband should have screamed blue murder or called in another professional or called in a relation who was a doctor to get on the case or got in a taxi and gone to another hospital. That's what an educated Irish person would have done. They were probaby too polite or trusting to do so. 

Most unfortunately for him, and he's being helped by a good Irish solicitor, he gets it now. But it's too late. But maybe not too late for the rest of us. 30 years is too long. So I support him every step of the way.

This is an extremely contentious issue and I want everyone who speaks on this matter to declare their agenda before they speak. Out of respect for Ms. Halappanavar. And I think I've a right as an Irish women who has given birth to know what agendas other people have for me and other Irish women. 

Newstalk broadcasts to the nation so to me it is the national airwaves


----------



## truthseeker

An interview with Mr Halappanavar will be broadcast on Primetime tonight.


----------



## Bronte

I've not seen Primetime but I did hear part of the interview. 

What must it be like to lose your wife and unborn child, believing that if the doctors had intervened earlier she, your beloved wife, could have been saved. Believing maybe that you'd done something wrong, believing maybe if you'd taken her to another hospital she could have been saved. After the trauma of that, after being comforted by the hospital staff, after having to arrange to transport your wife's body back to India. After having to get a death certificate to allow transportation of the body, a death certificate that was difficult to obtain, and then arriving in India to your parents and family and your wife's family. How would you explain that you were in a first world country and that your wife had died for lack of basic medical attention. How for two weeks you were questioned by your own family and hers on every minutiae of every detail of every moment of your one week of hell, of your life ahead without her and what might have been and of your exhaustion and trauma of bringing her body home. And you were sure before you left Ireland that something would be done about what happened and you had been assured it would be so, and you told this every day to your family and to hers and every day nothing. So finally you cracked, you realised actually they are going to do nothing, and actually those that are telling you they would have an inquiry, have while you were gone done nothing, and you'd slowly realise that those who told you there would be an inquiry, they were actually the ones responsible for what happened. What would you do, what could you do. What should you do. What is one man against a whole establishment and against forces of which you know nothing about. 

Well then Ireland and the HSI has underestimated poor brave Praveen Halappanaver. He had kept his dignified silence in the midst of his grief and he in memory of his wife spoke to the only outlet he had, the Irish Times. And was he right, oh so right as been proved by the actions of the HSE, the Minister for Health, James Reilly, the Department of Health, even to our eternal shame our Taoiseach Enda Kenny, who in a most unedifying manner yesterday in the Dail appealed over his chosen mode of communication via his solicitor, directly to the man himself. How insulting that the leader of our country could make such a spectacle of himself. That he should say to that poor grieving man, 'I know you are a decent man.' What is wrong with politicians that they would do such a thing. How ashamed I was yesterday to be Irish. 

How ashamed I've been to see comments about India, most grievous comments made about the grieving husband and his motives. Unprintable comment. Shocking comment. Insulting comment. It is true, we are medieval and barbaric. And until we stand up to this we have progressed not one jot from the mind-set that went before.

Last night I kissed my lovely Irish children in their beds and thought how has it come to this. How again have our leaders failed us. How have we failed by allowing that failure to continue. That's why I've commented on here, but I guess I'm talking to myself.


----------



## orka

I saw most of the interview (missed the start) and I thought he came across extremely well - not in any way aggressive or demanding - just very calm and measured (he praised the midwives and nurses for their excellent care of his wife), seeking to understand how this could possibly have happened and wanting assurance that it can't happen again. 
I thought the panel discussion wasn't great (too much long-winded, not very convincing discussion of how the inquiry should be done) and I have to say if I was one of the Galway doctors I would feel hung out to dry by the anti-abortion side who seem to be pinning their hopes on this being medical negligence.


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> So you think the Galway city hospital is at fault in some way?




Have you misread my answer? I was not trying to apportion blame/fault; clearly what happened at UCHG was not linked to Portiuncla hospital. It is responsible journalism to ensure that the two are not confused as the same hospital.




bullbars said:


> I think that is it responsible of him to point out that the two Hospitals are not linked; some could make that leap of the imagination and incorrectly label them as being at fault also.


 



Bronte said:


> What I mean by link is the following:
> *Galway City Hospital*
> Galway City hospital is known locally as the Regional, its proper titles University Hospital Galway (UHG) or University College Hospital or University College Hospital Galway (UCHG) - take your pick



OK, I’ll pick.....em......UCHG...is this the right answer? Not sure what your point is.



Bronte said:


> *Galway university*
> Now known as NUI Galway. National University of Ireland, Galway, previously known as UCG, University College Galway.



Fascinating.



Bronte said:


> The hospital and the university are literally across the road from one another



Should google maps fail me in an emergency I shall rely on this little nugget of info. Thank you.



Bronte said:


> and in the West of Ireland NUIG is the medical training school for doctors/ nurses/etc having therefore a School of Medicine and that teaching takes place in the university and in the hospital.



Wait ...so teaching...and...medical training....being taught..in...in...a..UNIVERSITY??!! Are you sure? This sounds like madness, madness I tell you.



Bronte said:


> Both the hospital and the university are therefore completely intertwined.


 
Yes, I figured that one out all by myself. I’ll tell you how I deciphered the clue – It’s hidden in the name – “University College Hospital Galway”



Bronte said:


> *Link between Portinucula hospital and Galway Hospital*
> As I'm not a medical person I don't know of the medical links if any between the two.



Thank you for confirming my suspicions and admitting you have no evidence proving that they are linked. 




Bronte said:


> But Dr. Monaghan did not clarify on the radio yesterday that he is on the teaching staff of NUIG. That I think is amazing, why not just state there is no link between his hospital Portinucula and Galway hospital but there is a link between him and NUIG.


Teaching at a University does not mean Dr. Monaghan has any say or influence on hospital procedures. He teaches a set syllabus at the University. 

What you forget to mention is that he was trained in Trinity College - known locally as ‘Trinners’) or as TCD , Trinity College Dublin;formally known as the *College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth – Take you pick (although I’m not sure why we’re picking but I don’t want you feeling left out)*

*He also worked in the U.K. and Nigeria. Should the links to these places be also held accountable and possible links brought to light? I note that the specialist Dr. *Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, an eminent obstetrician, practices at St George's hospital, University of London*. Surely there is a link between Dr. Monaghan and Dr. Sabaranam – BOTH of them practiced in the U.K.!*



Bronte said:


> I doubt if Prof O' Dwyer is still lecturing etc due to his age but on the Symposium he lists himself as Professor Emeritus. He was Chair of the symposium and Dr. Monaghan was a speak at that symposium.




So two professionals, albeit one retired but we shall hold him with equal scepticism none-the-less, were speaking at a conference. Is this now a sinister act, frowned upon? If so I must cancel my participation in these henceforth. I’m not in the medical profession but I just wanted to stay on the safe side of things.



Bronte said:


> The two men are linked also on two different bodies.



I am a member of some professional bodies should I await the same bar stool jury judgement if another members firm makes mistake? 



Bronte said:


> In addition and it was not pointed out on the radio yesterday, Dr. Monagan helped draft the 2009 medical guidelines on abortion. Some people might be surprised to learn, as I was that they amount to one solitary page.



Ah so it’s an inside job; he gave his medical expertise for guidelines but obviously this means they didn’t consult anyone else and listened to his moral rather than medical facts. (Adjusts tin foil hat in case Dr. Monaghan has adapted telemetry)
In your medical opinion, or lack thereof, should the guidelines be 10 pages, 20 pages or 1000 pages. I only ask about the page numbers because you haven’t really addressed what is in the guidelines – quantity not quality right, what was the font size used by the way? 



Bronte said:


> On my reading of them, and someone might correct me too on this, they amount to naugt.



Thankfully they don’t really on members of the public to yay or nay medical guidelines. I, for one, am thankful for that. What did you expect, Dr. Monaghan and his evil cronies to go re-write the guidelines off their own bat, ignoring the legal status of the matter. Again I am thankful they can’t do that.




Bronte said:


> So we are basically left with the Supreme Court judgement etc. Not very helpful to women to know their rights or doctors their duty. I have been amazed in the past week with the medical professionals telling us that the situation of what to do is absolutely cristal clear to them. How can it be if we have no legislation. No doctor has pointed out that their medical guidelines do not carry any legal weight (also open to correction on this).


I do wish the courts would stop interfering in our lives. Why yesterday I caught my neighbour cycling with no light, now the courts say I shouldn’t have knocked him down to teach him a lesson him but again here’s where we disagree.
If doctors don’t know the legal parameters that they are to work within I think they would be hesitant to even address an in-grown toe nail, let alone a complicated procedure. 





Bronte said:


> *Catholic ethos of Hospital*





Bronte said:


> As far as I know there is no official Catholic ethos at Galway in the formal sense. It was never run by a religious order (I'm open to correction on this). But this does not mean that the staff of particularly Irish origin are statistically bound to be coming from traditional Catholic stock. I have no issue with anyone's religion but it is naive to assume that a hospital or indeed any institution in Ireland is not 'Catholic' just because it is not officially so.



Crafty beggers’ the Catholics, It’s not a Catholic Hospital, never was a Catholic hospital, never shown aspirations to be perceived as a Catholic hospital but the Catholics are in there on the ground really running the show unbeknownst to hospital management, in fact it’s not a hospital at all its a catholic indoctrination centre.
Questions asked prior to consenting to a child to be born include;
“Is this an immaculate conception or the regular kind?”
“If regular; did conception occur whilst parties were in the missionary position, lights off to avoid eye contact and the radio on full blast do the 14 other blessed children in the house didn’t know what sins are being committed”
“Or was it FORNICATION that caused this mess you find yourself in”



Bronte said:


> *Symoposium*
> It is quite clear to me that this conference was run to a specific agenda. To prove that abortion is never necessary to save a pregnant women.



What is quite clear is that you’re so emotionally wrapped up in this that you can’t see you’re wrong even when it’s printed in black and white.
They presented new research on issues surrounding maternal healthcare, with a focus on high-risk pregnancies, cancer in pregnancy, foetal anomalies, mental health and maternal mortality. Have you looked at what research they presented? 
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman”
They’ve clarified that hitting the abort button won’t cure all that ails and that there are other options now available. Perhaps you’d prefer if they stopped all this research nonsense and just shot the little deformities as they popped out.



Bronte said:


> So from my reading of it medical professionals who had an anti abortion agenda held a conference to prove this very 'fact'.



Medical professionals held a conference, 2 out 140 there ( less than 1%) you state as being anti-abortion, despite stating this was not a prolife etc. gathering but rather a gathering of medical professionals including experts in obstetrics and gynaecology, mental health and molecular biology.




Bronte said:


> Medically, and as previously stated I'm not medically, trained their 'Dublin Declaration' is nonsense.


I’m glad to see you’re medical training trumps the training of those 140 professionals and you can just summarise their expertise, experience research and conclusions in one word.




Bronte said:


> Abortion is absolutely sometimes necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. These occurances are rare.


They haven’t denied that. You are just spelling out that subsequent to further research, there are now other options. Again doctors can’t really make up their own rules and laws as they go, they do have to consult with the applicable laws of the land etc. Frankly I think we’re better to stay with this. If something needs changed then consult with all of us. I know this doesn’t fit well with your argument but why let the facts get in the way eh. Just keep shouting “nonsense, with fingers in ears and it’ll be fine. 



Bronte said:


> *Fear of Irish doctors*
> You may be assured that one should have a healthy respect for the power of doctors when you are in a life or death situation. I did not give birth in Ireland, and I've had both natural and caesarian. But I do have siblings and relations who have given birth in Ireland, including the Galway hospital. Like truthseeker I too was judged when young and to live it is to know it. Luckily for various reasons I knew where to go. So my fear is deeply held. I've seen what Neary did, I've seen what happened over the years in various horrific stories that I'm not going to go into on here.




I’ve suffered at the hands of teachers, therefore all teachers are bullies
I’ve met some of the most obnoxious members of An Garda Siochana, therefore all members show the same level of insolence. 
I’ve met some of the most inconsiderate undertakers et. Etc. 

I don’t accept these leaps in to exaggeration. People are different, you meet some good some bad in every walk of life. You’re portraying every Irish doctor as an old fashioned judgemental abortionist. That is wrong.  



Bronte said:


> It's my belief that if Ms. Halappanavar had been Irish she would have had a better chance because they didn't 'get it' about Catholic Ireland.



That’ll be the Catholics again, so they are racists now as well then in the hospital.
Again your assumption here is way off reality; she was constantly monitored, even a friend of hers who is a doctor was checking in on her. 



Bronte said:


> Her husband should have screamed blue murder or called in another professional



You are assuming he knew something that the medical staff did not; if that’s the case is he not equally culpable for not acting sooner himself as you put it?



Bronte said:


> or called in a relation who was a doctor to get on the case



Nothing like a bit of racism to add to it; they are Indian, must have a few members of the family that are doctors, well the ones that didn’t open up a corner shop or curry house anyway.



Bronte said:


> or got in a taxi and gone to another hospital.



Like Portiuncla hospital...but wait there’s a link there. 
Another Irish hospital operates under the same Irish law regarding abortion.




Bronte said:


> That's what an educated Irish person would have done. They were probably too polite or trusting to do so.


You’re just being patronising now. The little uneducated Indian was put in the cupboard and told not to speak?
Both he and his wife were well educated. 
You state that “That is what an educated Irish person would’ve done” does that mean because they were educated they again should’ve know what was going on and magically done something about it. Are they then not culpable in some form?




Bronte said:


> Most unfortunately for him, and he's being helped by a good Irish solicitor, he gets it now.


And how is he a good solicitor in your legal opinion. If legal training is the same as medical, I’ll just ignore that comment.




Bronte said:


> But it's too late. But maybe not too late for the rest of us. 30 years is too long.


Unfortunately, laws guidelines, rules etc. usually arrive from necessity after the fact. Countries are rarely formed with a full set of guidelines that will never have to be re-addressed according to changes in society. Otherwise we’d still be in the dark ages.




Bronte said:


> So I support him every step of the way.


I’m sure he’ll appreciate your medical opinions – research = nonsense.




Bronte said:


> This is an extremely contentious issue and I want everyone who speaks on this matter to declare their agenda before they speak.


 
So we must declare what side of the fence we are on before we dare speak? Why do we have to answer to you on this?
I don’t have an agenda. It is an important debate that will have long lasting social implications. 




Bronte said:


> Out of respect for Ms. Halappanavar. And I think I've a right as an Irish women who has given birth to know what agendas other people have for me and other Irish women.


 



Bronte said:


> Newstalk broadcasts to the nation so to me it is the national airwaves


It’s an independent station with a Journalist expressing and opinion; As that differs from your opinion it is to be considered “spin” and “Hidden agenda’s”. To add to that because they are male, they are arrogant and talking down to you. 




Bronte said:


> I've not seen Primetime but I did hear part of the interview.





Bronte said:


> What must it be like to lose your wife and unborn child, believing that if the doctors had intervened earlier she, your beloved wife, could have been saved.



What if it wasn’t a beloved wife, does that make a difference? What relevance has it, or are you just setting the mood for a good story line to accompany the pro-abortion agenda.




Bronte said:


> Believing maybe that you'd done something wrong, believing maybe if you'd taken her to another hospital she could have been saved. After the trauma of that, after being comforted by the hospital staff, after having to arrange to transport your wife's body back to India.


Again the relevance of this? It’s as if you are trying to ghost write for the gentleman to add weight to your argument.




Bronte said:


> After having to get a death certificate to allow transportation of the body, a death certificate that was difficult to obtain,


This was mentioned in the media, and if true, was wrong, very wrong. 




Bronte said:


> and then arriving in India to your parents and family and your wife's family. How would you explain that you were in a first world country and that your wife had died for lack of basic medical attention. How for two weeks you were questioned by your own family and hers on every minutiae of every detail of every moment of your one week of hell, of your life ahead without her and what might have been and of your exhaustion and trauma of bringing her body home.


You know nothing of what happened. Do you think this is some sort of novella you’re conjuring up here? It’s more disrespectful than anything else.




Bronte said:


> And you were sure before you left Ireland that something would be done about what happened and you had been assured it would be so, and you told this every day to your family and to hers and every day nothing.


Do you know he expected a resolution in the space of a few weeks? This is not the type of legislation we need knee-jerk reaction on. 



Bronte said:


> So finally you cracked


So Mr. Hallappanavar has cracked now? I was actually admiring his dignified and calm response to all of this. You are insulting the man now.



Bronte said:


> you realised actually they are going to do nothing, and actually those that are telling you they would have an inquiry, have while you were gone done nothing, and you'd slowly realise that those who told you there would be an inquiry, they were actually the ones responsible for what happened.



This is new to me. So we’ve just closed the book on this and there will be no enquiries? 




Bronte said:


> What would you do, what could you do. What should you do. What is one man against a whole establishment and against forces of which you know nothing about.


Or get a solicitor on board, a good solicitor by your accounts. Realise that the inquiry will take more than a week and a quick fire ‘hang ‘em all’ at dawn inquisition. I’d prefer if the right people were installed on the panel with careful consideration, records compiled, witnesses etc. etc. you know to ensure the truth was uncovered.




Bronte said:


> Well then Ireland and the HSI has underestimated poor brave Praveen Halappanaver.


How exactly? I think the outpouring of emotion by the public alone has shown that this has also greatly affected the populace.




Bronte said:


> He had kept his dignified silence in the midst of his grief


Wait, I thought he cracked in the last chapter of this shocking tale you’ve conjured.




Bronte said:


> and he in memory of his wife spoke to the only outlet he had, the Irish Times.


Hold on, in chapter 1, the national media had hidden agendas and spin etc. now they are in cahoots? I smell a mackerel.




Bronte said:


> And was he right, oh so right as been proved by the actions of the HSE, the Minister for Health, James Reilly, the Department of Health,


Right about what now??




Bronte said:


> even to our eternal shame our Taoiseach Enda Kenny, who in a most unedifying manner yesterday in the Dail appealed over his chosen mode of communication via his solicitor, directly to the man himself.


Is it not more sincere for the leader of the country to express his sympathy directly or should he also have gone through the Irish Times, as that was the only outlet he had.




Bronte said:


> How insulting that the leader of our country could make such a spectacle of himself. That he should say to that poor grieving man, 'I know you are a decent man.' What is wrong with politicians that they would do such a thing. How ashamed I was yesterday to be Irish.


It’s more insulting that you’ve drafted this tale of woe out of thin air. You seem to think that by conjuring this tale, this emotional diatribe, you somehow have a kinship with the victim? It’s deplorable. Ashamed to be Irish over this, pray tell which nation without sin will you profess love for tomorrow so?




Bronte said:


> How ashamed I've been to see comments about India, most grievous comments made about the grieving husband and his motives. Unprintable comment. Shocking comment. Insulting comment.


Your ‘tale of woe’ has been up there with the most insulting comments I have seen. 




Bronte said:


> It is true, we are medieval and barbaric.


Yes of course we are. This one incident has sent us right back to the dark ages. 
Hysterics have no place in a debate. Nice choice of words though, barbaric really lends toward you argument that any other argument is something from the dark side, ill-thought out, out dated etc. 




Bronte said:


> And until we stand up to this we have progressed not one jot from the mind-set that went before.


Well why didn’t you bring it up sooner so?




Bronte said:


> Last night I kissed my lovely Irish children in their beds and thought how has it come to this.


What has being Irish got to do with it? How has it come to what exactly? It isn’t then end of the world. Hyperbole of the highest order.




Bronte said:


> How again have our leaders failed us. How have we failed by allowing that failure to continue. That's why I've commented on here, but I guess I'm talking to myself.


Who installed those leaders? Why aren’t you one of the ‘leaders’ so if they have failed us. Also who installs these leaders? 

I wrote a paper many years ago on euthanasia – very similar to this topic – on emotional and social levels; it boils down to whether society accepts it is willing to play “God” in deciding life. But what is life? Some maintain life is the heartbeat from a 3month old foetus. Others maintain life is jumping from planes at 15,000 feet/climbing vertical rock faces with no rope and anything else is merely existence. 

Is a child with severe motor-neuron deficiencies including mental deficiencies, requiring 24hr care really life or is it an existence that they have no escape from?

All these questions must be answered. Not just a quick fix  to suit the recent events. 
I also note the women going for abortions in these are always making it under severe stress/duress or in dire medical needs – It never get’s floated that Some women might just be too damn naive and irresponsible and only too happy to get rid of the life they’ve created. Doesn’t really fit the bill for pro-abortionists that it might be a facility used and abused by some. Not a statement but something that should be brought in to consideration.


----------



## truthseeker

bullbars said:


> I also note the women going for abortions in these are always making it under severe stress/duress or in dire medical needs – It never get’s floated that Some women might just be too damn naive and irresponsible and only too happy to get rid of the life they’ve created. Doesn’t really fit the bill for pro-abortionists that it might be a facility used and abused by some. Not a statement but something that should be brought in to consideration.



tldr - except the last bit.

There is really no debate to be had with someone who actually thinks that a woman would blithely be only too happy to get rid of the life they have created (btw they didnt create it on their own, there would have been a man involved too).

Seriously - is this what you think? Do you think any woman chooses to pay the financial, emotional and physical cost of travelling to another country to undergo a medical procedure easily and as though its no big deal?

If thats really what you think, I can only conclude you really dont know anything about women or abortion at all. 

On the notion of the facility being used and abused by some (btw the correct term is pro-choice, pro-abortion is an inaccurate term which implies that abortion is the correct choice in all circumstances), there is no element of use and abuse if something is a choice. Its only when you are trying to make someone feel that they are morally wrong that that term is relevant. And really, what I choose to do with my body and how I conduct my private morality, is no one elses business but my own.


----------



## Latrade

Bronte said:


> The Chair of the Symposium just happens to be Prof Eamonn O' Dwyer, Professor Emeritus Gynaecology & Obstetrics at of all places NUI Galway. They are both on the Irish Medical Council and both a member of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists.


 
Broadsheet.ie has a little something special from Prof O'Dwyer here . I suppose you could argue his quotes were taken out of conext or in reference to a 14 year-old girl being raped by her neighbour and becoming pregnant he actually called it "consensual, an act of unlawful carnal knowledge".


----------



## Bronte

truthseeker said:


> tldr - except the last bit.


 
I had to look up tldr.  It means that when something is too long it's very hard to follow.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> All these questions must be answered. Not just a quick fix to suit the recent events.


 
Thank you for your comments bullbars,they are very interesting, and as I said earlier it's important that there is debate on this issue. As your reply was very long it's exceedingly difficult for me to answer but here is my attempt in any case. 

*Medical guidelines*

Dr. Monaghan is medical expert not a legal expert, so the medical guidelines he helped draft are not the law in Ireland. That's what I mean about them amounting to naught legally. The 1800's act, the constitutional amendment and the Supreme court judgement are the law on abortion in Ireland. 

Two Masters at two of Ireland leading maternal hospitals have confirmed that this *is* a grey area. The anti- abortions have been very clear that it is in fact *not* a grey area. Who do you think is correct?

*You comment*

“Or was it FORNICATION that caused this mess you find yourself in”

My reply to this is :

In fact I have absolutely nothing to say to that comment, it makes its own comment quite adequately.

*My emotions on this topic*

- Savita Halappanavar, refused termination, dead in the leading maternal hospital in the west of Ireland

- Grainne, audience of Primetime this week, 7 weeks pregnant, physically appeared as though she was 6 months pregnant due to major internal problems, refused medical tests due to being pregnant, finally they went in, if they didn't she too would be dead

- Joe Duffy's Liveline, too many real women's stories to list

- Michelle Harte, pregnant, ill with cancer, refused cancer treatment due to pregnancy, her consultant wanted to abort but couldn’t due to the grey area, so an 'ad hoc' ethics committee was formed to decide, abortion refused, she had to be physically helped onto a plane to the UK to get an abortion. She too is dead as is her unborn child. 

- Anne Lovett, pregnant young teenager, died giving birth alone in a cold graveyard, no one knew she was pregnant

- Joanne Hayes, hiding a shameful pregnancy, gave birth probably alone, buried baby in garden, Gardaí found another baby a few miles away, accused her of murdering the second baby, initially they wouldn't look where she said her actual baby was buried, and later when they did tried to 'medically' prove they were twins. Result 2 dead babies that were found and a women left traumatised forever. There were of course many other dead babies all over the Irish countryside. As far as I recall the infamous Kerry babies tribunall didn't go into that.

I am not emotional I am ashamed of the above, and ashamed of myself for not having done more on this issue and ashamed of Irish people who continue to allow it to happen. Exporting the problem to the UK is shameful. Even if I were emotional on this topic, so what, I'm an emotional woman. Why is that thrown at me as though there is something wrong with being emotional. Do you think that being emotional means I'm not rational?

*Social abortions*

I recognise that some women are not careful and get themselves pregnant. I note that you never once mentioned that it was a man that got them pregnant. Where is the man's responsibility in this 'fornication' as you refer to it as. There is nothing going to stop people getting pregnant and having an abortion to deal with that. 

There is no solution to this but this is not a justification for not allowing abortion in rape, incest, foetal abnormality, cancer/illness etc. in a pregnant woman. 

Do you think that because some women are as you put it 'too damn naïve and irresponsible', that is an answer to the women I listed above. Was Anne Lovett too damn naïve and irresponsible? Or Michelle Harte, or Savita Halappanavar. 

*Society playing God*

Isn't that what the doctors in Ireland do when they weight up the life of a mother versus the life of the unborn?

*Symposium*

Can you tell me who the 140 experts at this conference were ?

Can you show me the 'Dublin Declaration' signed by all the leading medical experts at this conference?

Can you show me where the new medical findings have been peer reviewed?

Can you show me where the 'medical findings' that abortion is *never* necessary to save a mother's life is documented as fact in a leading medical publication such as the Lancet?


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> *George Hook interview with John Monaghan, Consultant, Portinucula Hospital Monday the 19th Nov*
> 
> I felt I was in a time warp yesterday when I heard this interview. Busy doing the kids dinner and listening to this, but I really felt we had gone back 30 years with two arrogant men talking down to us mere plebs. If anyone else heard it could they confirm that I have not misunderstood the programme.
> 
> George launched into an attack on India, and an extraordinary outburst on Clare Daly, with radio clips to I think prove that she is some kind of crazy warrior for women - really brings one back to what went before when this all started 3 decades ago.
> 
> I really sat up and listened when he interview John Monaghan, Gyn & Obe. George was at pains to point out that Portinucula, Co. Galway is in no way linked to Galway Hospital, but the name John Monaghan rang a bell with me as I had studied abortion last week and amazing enough John Monaghan was a speaker at a symposium on the 8th Sept held in Dublin. Here is a link to the Irish times article on the symposium (conference).
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0910/1224323797477.html
> 
> The ostensible point of the interview was to prove that us women are well served by Irish doctors and have nothing to fear. That India is a 3rd world country in comparison with us and that we need to fear the likes of Clare Daly. It was brain washing of the highest order in my opinion.
> 
> What was not pointed out is that there is indeed a link between John Monaghan and the Galway hospital. The Chair of the Symposium just happens to be Prof Eamonn O' Dwyer, Professor Emeritus Gynaecology & Obstetrics at of all places NUI Galway. They are both on the Irish Medical Council and both a member of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists.
> 
> What was the conclusion of the conference:
> 
> _As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman._
> 
> Now come on George you can do better than that, you could have pointed out that John Monaghan is indeed linked to Galway Hospital via his relationship with Prof O' Dwyer and both according to the Irish times article are anti-abortion campaigners. When you're up against apparent spin in the national media and indeed hidden agendas would anyone be surprised that Mr. Haleppenavar doesn't want any medical professional from the county of Galway on the enquiry.



I'm not a fan of George Hook (in the same way I'm not a fan of being burned alive) but I agree with him on this. I think that's a first for me.


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> I'm not a fan of George Hook (in the same way I'm not a fan of being burned alive) but I agree with him on this. I think that's a first for me.


 
What is it you agree with him about?  India's abortion record being relevant to the Galway case and his opinion of Clare Daly ?


----------



## Bronte

Latrade said:


> Broadsheet.ie has a little something special from Prof O'Dwyer here . I suppose you could argue his quotes were taken out of conext or in reference to a 14 year-old girl being raped by her neighbour and becoming pregnant he actually called it "consensual, an act of unlawful carnal knowledge".


 

That's quite an extraordinary document. Prof O' Dwyer has actually written that the infamous rape victim Ms. X got pregnant 'after consensual intercourse with a grown man.' The perpetrator in that case was jailed for rape, how can he write that it was consensual. After all she went though he would tell untruths about what happened to her. Has he no morals about writing such an untruth. 

What is even more amazing is the end paragraph on page 5 which states that no doctor in Ireland can ever do an abortion. Following the Supreme Court judgment legally one can but because it would be against Medical Council guidelines. Therefore if any doctor were to do so they would be guilty of professional misconduct and that doctor would be erased from the Medical Registar (and you cannot practice without that)

Doctors therefore have to ignore the law and abide instead by the medical council guidelines instead. So in a case such as the one in Galway, if a doctor decided to do an abortion and thought he was within the law, and was actually within the law, he still could notcarry out an abortion because he would be struck off. That's not a grey area for doctors that's a nightmare scenario for them.

Does O' Dwyers interpretation of the Guidlines still apply I wonder. Someone ought to ask the Medical Council.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> Ah so it’s an inside job; he gave his medical expertise for guidelines but obviously this means they didn’t consult anyone else and listened to his moral rather than medical facts.
> 
> Thankfully they don’t really on members of the public to yay or nay medical guidelines. I, for one, am thankful for that. What did you expect, Dr. Monaghan and his evil cronies to go re-write the guidelines off their own bat, ignoring the legal status of the matter. Again I am thankful they can’t do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Again doctors can’t really make up their own rules and laws as they go, they do have to consult with the applicable laws of the land etc.


 

Maybe it's high time the public were consulted on what goes into the Medical guidelines. And to answer your question on whether the doctors who wrote the guidelines ignore the law.  Prof O' Dwyer seems to think so.  And of course he has nothing to do with Dr. Monaghan, who just happens to be one of those who did write the guidelines.


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> *Medical guidelines* Dr. Monaghan is medical expert not a legal expert, so the medical guidelines he helped draft are not the law in Ireland. That's what I mean about them amounting to naught legally. The 1800's act, the constitutional amendment and the Supreme court judgement are the law on abortion in Ireland.


I never said he was a legal expert. I stated clearly that he, along with other medical professionals could only draw up guidelines within the current legal standing on abortion, not change it. You seem confused on this, please read my comment again. 



Bronte said:


> Two Masters at two of Ireland leading maternal hospitals have confirmed that this *is* a grey area. The anti- abortions have been very clear that it is in fact *not* a grey area. Who do you think is correct?


Whats your point here? Are you still trying to get me to pin my colours to a mast and as you put it “I want everyone who speaks on this matter to declare their agenda before they speak”
I don’t have an agenda. I would like to hear both sides put forward informed coherent arguments before jumping in both feet first. And I don’t recall signing an oath to declare all to you before I speak on this matter



Bronte said:


> *You comment*





Bronte said:


> “Or was it FORNICATION that caused this mess you find yourself in”
> My reply to this is :
> In fact I have absolutely nothing to say to that comment, it makes its own comment quite adequately.



You have misrepresented what I said. It wasn’t a factual comment. Please don’t resort to childishness.



Bronte said:


> *My emotions on this topic* - Savita Halappanavar, refused termination, dead in the leading maternal hospital in the west of Ireland


You have assumed that termination would’ve saved her despite, by your own admission, you are not a medical expert. Despite the contorted and insensitive tale you tried to spin in post #231; you don’t know the facts of this case. Nobody does and I think we should wait the results of the relevant investigations prior to jumping to conclusions. 



Bronte said:


> - Grainne, audience of Primetime this week, 7 weeks pregnant, physically appeared as though she was 6 months pregnant due to major internal problems, refused medical tests due to being pregnant, finally they went in, if they didn't she too would be dead


She was refused medical tests or abortion? And the fact that the tests then went ahead and she is not dead shows that they did consider the life of the mother. I don’t see how this adds weight to your argument?


Bronte said:


> - Joe Duffy's Liveline, too many real women's stories to list



Real women stories as opposed to what? The fake ones – how do we decipher who is telling the truth, or do you do that based on whether or not it suits your argument.


Bronte said:


> - Michelle Harte, pregnant, ill with cancer, refused cancer treatment due to pregnancy, her consultant wanted to abort but couldn’t due to the grey area, so an 'ad hoc' ethics committee was formed to decide, abortion refused, she had to be physically helped onto a plane to the UK to get an abortion. She too is dead as is her unborn child.


 
This is a good example of what is being debated. The right to life of the unborn or the right of the mother to choose to terminate so that she will live. 



Bronte said:


> - Anne Lovett, pregnant young teenager, died giving birth alone in a cold graveyard, no one knew she was pregnant


 an unfortunate case I think this highlights more the social stigma at the time of being pregnant so young and out of wedlock. However, if I recall correctly (and I’m open to correction on this), her life wasn’t in danger from the pregnancy, it was due to exposure and lack of medical supervision.



Bronte said:


> - Joanne Hayes, hiding a shameful pregnancy, gave birth probably alone, buried baby in garden, Gardaí found another baby a few miles away, accused her of murdering the second baby, initially they wouldn't look where she said her actual baby was buried, and later when they did tried to 'medically' prove they were twins. Result 2 dead babies that were found and a women left traumatised forever.


 
This highlights the point I made previously; abortion being used as a get out for a “shameful pregnancy”. The mothers’ life was in no danger; it was a murder of convenience for her. If the first child had not been found on the beach, it is quite possible that she would’ve gotten away with murder. Plain and simple.
Obviously I can’t comment for the case of the other unknown mother in this instance, but then again no one can. The actions and attitude of the Gardai are a separate issue.



Bronte said:


> There were of course many other dead babies all over the Irish countryside. As far as I recall the infamous Kerry babies tribunall didn't go into that.


 This is hyperbole; you seem to suggest the country was awash with dead babies all over the country now? 



Bronte said:


> I am not emotional I am ashamed of the above, and ashamed of myself for not having done more on this issue and ashamed of Irish people who continue to allow it to happen.


You can be ashamed of yourself for whatever reasons all you want, but as an Irish person I don’t you to parade around as being ashamed on my behalf thank you.
The Irish people recognise the right to life of the unborn currently; To change this is a huge social issue that you don’t seem to take cognisance of, just throw around a few unfortunate cases to shove your point across. 



Bronte said:


> Exporting the problem to the UK is shameful


We don’t export this issue. That is a false and misleading phrase. The UK is the nearest country that happens to permit terminations up to a certain stage.



Bronte said:


> Even if I were emotional on this topic, so what, I'm an emotional woman. Why is that thrown at me as though there is something wrong with being emotional. Do you think that being emotional means I'm not rational?


 Judging by post #231, no I don’t think you are being rational. You seem to want a quick fix turn around to somehow save face an appease Mr. Halappanavar.





Bronte said:


> *Social abortions*





Bronte said:


> I recognise that some women are not careful and get themselves pregnant.





Bronte said:


> There is nothing going to stop people getting pregnant and having an abortion to deal with that.


Well at least you can recognise that is a reality; I’m afraid truthseeker finds that an unbelievable situation.


truthseeker said:


> There is really no debate to be had with someone who actually thinks that a woman would blithely be only too happy to get rid of the life they have created







truthseeker said:


> (btw they didnt create it on their own, there would have been a man involved too).


I would’ve thought that was a given at this stage. Did you recently discover this and feel it had to be shared with the group?



Bronte said:


> I note that you never once mentioned that it was a man that got them pregnant.


Well it was hardly a pack of wild donkeys or couple of prawns that went down the wrong way now was it. 



Bronte said:


> Where is the man's responsibility in this 'fornication' as you refer to it as.


 I did not refer to it as fornication in that sense, please don’t contort my words. It was clearly a acerbic statement I made.
Where is the man’s responsibility? That is the point that Purple(?) had previously made; this isn’t just a women’s issue. Men should be included in this to ensure that they are definitely equally responsible for the life they have created, and have a say on what can happen to that life. Hence this is not a women only issue. I’m not sure what point you were making? 



Bronte said:


> There is no solution to this but this is not a justification for not allowing abortion in rape, incest, foetal abnormality, cancer/illness etc. in a pregnant woman.


But the line between a social abortion and abortion to preserve the life of the mother is not as clear cut as you make it. On the other thread you highlight this yourself- your friend who was 15 and pregnant wanted abortion, feigned suicidal thoughts and got the result she wanted. 



Bronte said:


> Do you think that because some women are as you put it 'too damn naïve and irresponsible', that is an answer to the women I listed above.


Yes frankly, some were. Obviously they were, you even referred to them as shameful pregnancies. These women did not intend to have children with their sexual partner yet found themselves pregnant.



Bronte said:


> Was Anne Lovett too damn naïve and irresponsible? Or Michelle Harte, or Savita Halappanavar.


Anne Lovett possibly. It was an unwanted pregnancy, she was very young and it was obviously also a case of statutory rape. You have accepted above that social abortions (is this the correct phrase?) are a part of society, this was an unfortunate example of this.
Michelle Harte was a clear cut medical intervention required to preserve the mothers life at the detriment to the life of her unborn child.
In the recent case of Savita Halappanavar, you have again jumped to the conclusion that a termination earlier would have saved her; you don’t know this.



Bronte said:


> *Society playing God*





Bronte said:


> Isn't that what the doctors in Ireland do when they weight up the life of a mother versus the life of the unborn?


 At present abortions are permitted as the result of a medical intervention performed to save the life of the mother. At present the Irish people also value the life of the unborn and attempt to preserve both.



Bronte said:


> *Symposium*





Bronte said:


> Can you tell me who the 140 experts at this conference were ?
> Can you show me the 'Dublin Declaration' signed by all the leading medical experts at this conference?
> Can you show me where the new medical findings have been peer reviewed?



I don’t see why I have to answer this for you; you are the one who denounced this as having some sort of anti-abortion agenda yet have shown no facts to prove it. You are the one who conjured an incorrect link between two medical experts and then decided for yourself that it had an anti-abortion agenda. You go and find out who the 140 medical experts are before you accuse them of having an agenda and prioritising it over medical findings. You go do the research before you think things are “clear to you”.



Bronte said:


> Can you show me where the 'medical findings' that abortion is *never* necessary to save a mother's life is documented as fact in a leading medical publication such as the Lancet?


This sentence makes no sense. 
I can’t show you that because that is not what I, or in fact the symposium conclusion had stated. 
Again - the conclusion was - 
_“We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.” 
_And also
_“no treatment should ever be withheld from a woman if she needed it to save her life, even if that treatment resulted in the loss of life of her unborn child.”_
Seeing as you are (now conveniently after one article) such an _avid reader_ of The Lancet, please feel free to share all the articles you have read throughout your non-existent medial history that will confirm that abortion will solve all problems and the life of the mother shall be preserved.

You are hearing hooves, seeing horses but still want to see zebras.


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> Maybe it's high time the public were consulted on what goes into the Medical guidelines. And to answer your question on whether the doctors who wrote the guidelines ignore the law. Prof O' Dwyer seems to think so. And of course he has nothing to do with Dr. Monaghan, who just happens to be one of those who did write the guidelines.


 
Can you please prove where the law has been ignored by both parties as you are prepared to level such an accusation?


----------



## bullbars

truthseeker said:


> tldr - except the last bit.


Thank you, I will ensure to inform you when I don't bother to read your response.



truthseeker said:


> tldr - except the last bit.


There is really no debate to be had with someone who actually thinks that a woman would blithely be only too happy to get rid of the life they have created (btw they didnt create it on their own, there would have been a man involved too).[/QUOTE]
If you don't think some women have abortions of convenience, then it is you who is being naiive.



truthseeker said:


> Seriously - is this what you think? Do you think any woman chooses to pay the financial, emotional and physical cost of travelling to another country to undergo a medical procedure easily and as though its no big deal?)


I never said this. The fact is some women do not want to continue a pregnancy, not for medical reasons but for their own reasons. May be social stigma, maybe they won't be able to tell who the father was etc. You don't honestly accept me to believe that everyone of the women who "had" to go to England to avail of abortion facilities there do so for purely medical reasons.



truthseeker said:


> If thats really what you think, I can only conclude you really dont know anything about women or abortion at all.


 What sort of argument is this? You are tryin to tell me that no woman has ever just wanted rid of her unborn due to personal situation - result of an affair / possibility of not knowing the father / financial insecurity etc. Am I insinuating that this is the case for every woman? Not at all. The sad reality is, this happens. One may see it as choosing to do with ones body as one pleases, but to counter that one is also choosing to end the life of another body.



truthseeker said:


> btw the correct term is pro-choice, pro-abortion is an inaccurate term which implies that abortion is the correct choice in all circumstances), there is no element of use and abuse if something is a choice. Its only when you are trying to make someone feel that they are morally wrong that that term is relevant.


My apologies, that phrase is incorrect. I was not using it as some sort of "morality mallet" to beat either your or Bronte with; merely refering to it (incorrectly) as the opposite of the pro-life choice.


----------



## bullbars

Latrade said:


> Broadsheet.ie has a little something special from Prof O'Dwyer here . I suppose you could argue his quotes were taken out of conext or in reference to a 14 year-old girl being raped by her neighbour and becoming pregnant he actually called it "consensual, an act of unlawful carnal knowledge".





Bronte said:


> That's quite an extraordinary document. Prof O' Dwyer has actually written that the infamous rape victim Ms. X got pregnant 'after consensual intercourse with a grown man.' The perpetrator in that case was jailed for rape, how can he write that it was consensual. After all she went though he would tell untruths about what happened to her. Has he no morals about writing such an untruth.


 
Was the adult convicted of rape or Statutory rape? 
If it was the latter then she may have "consented" to the sexual conduct but due to her age this "consent" was not legal consent -therefore Statutory rape.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> This highlights the point I made previously; abortion being used as a get out for a “shameful pregnancy”. The mothers’ life was in no danger; it was a murder of convenience for her. If the first child had not been found on the beach, it is quite possible that she would’ve gotten away with murder. Plain and simple.
> .
> This is hyperbole; you seem to suggest the country was awash with dead babies all over the country now?


 
You are referring to the infamous case of the Kerry babies and Joanne Hayes.  Maybe if Ms. Hayes had access to sex education or indeed contraception (she wasn't married) or abortion she need not have given birth in a field, because that what lots of women did then.  Her own GP knew of 7 cases of women giving birth and the baby being buried.  Amazing in that small area 2 babies were discovered at this time.  So yes I do think there were a lot of dead babies buried all over the place.  But no again I cannot prove it because it's not something that anyone would talk about never mind collect statistics on. 

Just to clear up this story, you said it was a murder of convenience.  No court in Ireland ever convicted Joanne Hayes for murder and she served no time for same, nor was she tried for murdering her child.  The Kerry babies tribunal was not set up to decide she killed her baby, though the judge decided she did, despite there being no medical evidence that she did.  

For those that want to know, the tribunal was actually set up to work out how come nearly 7 people in one family could write down detailed confessions that they all were involved in the death of the Cahirciveen baby.  And just for the record I remember this story, I remember what happened at that tribunal and I'm ashamed of that too.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> Michelle Harte was a clear cut medical intervention required to preserve the mothers life at the detriment to the life of her unborn child.


 
If this case was so clear cut why was the lady denied an abortion in Ireland?


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> If this case was so clear cut why was the lady denied an abortion in Ireland?


 
Because her life was not in immediate danger. I say it was clear cut in that it is a clear case whereby this debate is relevant; Some others you'd listed were not.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> Because her life was not in immediate danger. I say it was clear cut in that it is a clear case whereby this debate is relevant;


 
Do you not think she should have been allowed an abortion?


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> Do you not think she should have been allowed an abortion?



That is the crux of what is being debated.


----------



## Bronte

And Bullbars do you think she should have been allowed an abortion?


----------



## Bronte

I see that Hilary Clinton has mentioned abortion while giving a speech in Dublin last week.  I cannot find the speech anyone have a link?

I must say I commend Gabriel Byrne and other Irish ex pats for lobbying her on this issue:

[broken link removed]

Meanwhile Irish Bishops are claiming we don't need legislation and that we should have another referendum, something that I agree with.  They were apparently marching on the streets.  Interesting that they chose to do that on this issue but did not march for the clerical abuse victims.  Nor have they brought pressure to bear on the last Papal Nuncio and the Vatican to release the church files on that abhorrent story.  Says a lot about how much they actually care for real people.


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> And Bullbars do you think she should have been allowed an abortion?


 
I don't know enough of her story to fully comment;
Was she terminally ill?
what was the reason she sought an abortion?
Was she diagnosed prior to concieving?


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> I see that Hilary Clinton has mentioned abortion while giving a speech in Dublin last week. I cannot find the speech anyone have a link?
> 
> I must say I commend Gabriel Byrne and other Irish ex pats for lobbying her on this issue


 
Does Gabriel Byrne know something we don't? Does he have information that an abortion would have saved her?


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> Does Gabriel Byrne know something we don't? Does he have information that an abortion would have saved her?


 
Maybe he's just concerned about the treatment of pregnant Irish women in Ireland where it's not legally clear to a woman when and if and where she can have an abortion despite waiting 20 years for legal clarity.  Nor is it clear who will perform abortions nor is it clear who can make that decision, other than the fact that it is clear the women herself cannot make any decision on it.  

Do you think if an abortion would have saved her life that she should have been entitled to one?


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> Maybe he's just concerned ..


If he's concerned that's one thing. Piggy backing on the latest tragedy even though the details are not clear is a dicgrace and he shouldn't be given a pat on the back for it.



Bronte said:


> .... women in Ireland where it's not legally clear to a woman when and if and where she can have an abortion despite waiting 20 years for legal clarity?


 
Abortion is not permitted in Ireland. There are circumstances whereby this rule can be surpased; like when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.




Bronte said:


> Nor is it clear who will perform abortions nor is it clear who can make that decision, other than the fact that it is clear the women herself cannot make any decision on it.


 
Society should decided on whether or not abortion should be permitted.



Bronte said:


> Do you think if an abortion would have saved her life that she should have been entitled to one.


 
Answer my previous questions before I will answer that.
Was her life in jeopardy due to the pregnancy?
Was the cancer terminal irregardless of an abortion?

It's not a yes and no answer


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> Answer my previosu questions before I will answer that.
> Was her life in jeoparfy due to the pregnancy?
> Was the cancer terminal irregardless of an abortion?
> 
> It's not a yes and no answer


 
Women need it to be a yes or no answer. 

You will not answer my question because I think I have not answered your two questions above, is that correct? But you've posted two questions that cannot be answered. Why would you do that? Nevertheless I'll do my best as I don't have a problem answering questions, where I think I can, doesn't mean I'm right but I'll try anyway. 

The first question is about Savita in Galway. It's not actually relevant whether her life was in jeopardy due to the pregnancy, even if the medical finding now are that she would have died from an infection anyway is not the point. 

What is important is that any women in Ireland, whose pregnancy may or may not be causing her a risk to her life, and it's nearly impossible to be 100% accurate that it is a risk to her life in certain circumstances, even a minute risk of less than 1%, does not know if she can get a termination, does not know who will decide, who can decide, does not know if the doctor deciding will not ever decide in her favour because of his own moral code or because he's afraid firstly of the law and secondly of the medical council guidelines. Furthermore the woman has no say whatsoever in the termination decision, she has a say over not terminating but has no say whatsoever about what she considers best for herself. The expert groups report never mentions a woman's choice for termination. It doesn't exist in any circumstances in Ireland unless her life is at risk but in some cases not even then because where do you measure 'risk to life.' 

Put it another way. If in all the births in Ireland in the last 10 years that only one woman was at that risk, how would you put that into law. Who would I as another human being be allowed to judge that because that risk is so low that it is statistically non existant. Indeed why should I as a woman who may be at risk ever have to run that risk. And why on earth should other people actually make that decision for me. 

For your second question what are you referring to? And then I'll try and answer that. Knowing that I cannot answer either question fully, because maybe no one can actually. But if that means you won't answer my question I find that a cop out from you if you don't mind me saying so.


----------



## dereko1969

Methinks bullbars may have some jesuitical training.....


----------



## Bronte

What do you mean by that dereko?

My OH returned from Ireland yesterday, very depressing, relations mentioning that 'Savita's husband is in it for the money.' I suspect if Savita's husband were Irish we wouldn't be hearing this. 

It's like a time warp now in Ireland with the actions of nameless people putting up posters in Dublin to intimidate Minister Alan Shatter. Why not have the honesty to put your name to a poster if you believe that putting up posters is the right thing to do. If you believe in your convictions in your actions, why on earth would you sneak around with posters.

Could anyone tell me where one can find accurate information on who is behind Youth Defence and who funds them.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Completely agree on that Bronte, some sinister groups are coming to the fore again with ads in the papers, cold calls, billboard posters and so on. The WIKI page on Youth Defence doesn't paint a very favourable picture of the founders (brother of one of the founders was in a Republican paramilitary group). Also another member (presumably daughter of the founders)  Íde Nic Mhathúna is a member of Coir. I would also be interested in who funds both these organisations. Interesting article [broken link removed] on the Nic Mhathúna clan.


----------



## bullbars

dereko1969 said:


> Methinks bullbars may have some jesuitical training.....


 
You can go ahead and delete this nonsense and think before you post about me again in future.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> My OH returned from Ireland yesterday, very depressing, relations mentioning that 'Savita's husband is in it for the money.' I suspect if Savita's husband were Irish we wouldn't be hearing this.



I hope I'm not being too smart but he (your OH) must have some fairly strange relations.  I have discussed the Savita case with quite a range of people so far and I haven't heard anyone saying or implying anything bad about Praveen or his motives.


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> Women need it to be a yes or no answer.


It is not an issue for women, it is a decision for society to make. At present that answer is no, but exceptions for medical reasons can be made.
It is not a yes and no answer. Your demanding a quick fix for a very complicated subject. If it was a “Yes” answer up to what point in the pregnancy do we (society) approve of terminations for example.



Bronte said:


> You will not answer my question because I think I have not answered your two questions above, is that correct? .


Correct. I don’t know the details that case therefore it is not a yes/no answer.



Bronte said:


> But you've posted two questions that cannot be answered. Why would you do that?


You’ve used that case, and others, as an argument to permit abortion but can’t give simple details on the case, why would you do that indeed.



Bronte said:


> The first question is about Savita in Galway. It's not actually relevant whether her life was in jeopardy due to the pregnancy, even if the medical finding now are that she would have died from an infection anyway is not the point.


 It is relevant. That case is what started this debate and is what some in the pre-choice groups have latched on to as a case for permitting abortion without knowing the details.



Bronte said:


> What is important is that any women in Ireland, whose pregnancy may or may not be causing her a risk to her life,.., does not know if she can get a termination.


If the pregnancy is not a risk to her life then she cannot have a termination. How is this still confusing to you? 
If it is a risk a termination may be permitted.



Bronte said:


> ..does not know who will decide, who can decide, does not know if the doctor deciding will not ever decide in her favour because of his own moral code or because he's afraid firstly of the law and secondly of the medical council guidelines....





Bronte said:


> And it's nearly impossible to be 100% accurate that it is a risk to her life in certain circumstances, even a minute risk of less than 1%.


Is this a fact or just your “medical” opinion.



Bronte said:


> Furthermore the woman has no say whatsoever in the termination decision, she has a say over not terminating but has no say whatsoever about what she considers best for herself.


Correct, she cannot act outside the law off her own bat. Emotion and rationality do not good bedfellows make. 



Bronte said:


> The expert groups report never mentions a woman's choice for termination. It doesn't exist in any circumstances in Ireland unless her life is at risk but in some cases not even then because where do you measure 'risk to life.'


What on earth do you mean by “where do you measure 'risk to life.”



Bronte said:


> Put it another way. If in all the births in Ireland in the last 10 years that only one woman was at that risk, how would you put that into law. Who would I as another human being be allowed to judge that because that risk is so low that it is statistically non existant. Indeed why should I as a woman who may be at risk ever have to run that risk. And why on earth should other people actually make that decision for me.


Could you rephrase this as it makes no sense.



Bronte said:


> For your second question what are you referring to? And then I'll try and answer that. Knowing that I cannot answer either question fully, because maybe no one can actually. But if that means you won't answer my question I find that a cop out from you if you don't mind me saying so.


It’s not a cop out, I’m looking for further detail on cases you’ve thrown up as clear reasons we should permit terminations in Ireland, yet you can’t answer basic details on them so I can make an informed answer on the case YOU demanded (twice) and answer on.


----------



## delgirl

Thank goodness for strong, articulate women like Bronte and Truthseeker on this forum.



Bronte said:


> Women need it to be a yes or no answer.
> 
> The first question is about Savita in Galway. It's not actually relevant whether her life was in jeopardy due to the pregnancy, even if the medical finding now are that she would have died from an infection anyway is not the point.


Even apart from the fact that her life was in jeopardy, which in itself is reason enough for termination, Savita's cervix, according to her husband, was completely dilated and the pregnancy was not viable, therefore a termination should have been undertaken immediately instead of allowing her to suffer awaiting a spontaneous abortion.



Bronte said:


> What is important is that any women in Ireland, whose pregnancy may or may not be causing her a risk to her life, and it's nearly impossible to be 100% accurate that it is a risk to her life in certain circumstances, even a minute risk of less than 1%, does not know if she can get a termination, does not know who will decide, who can decide, does not know if the doctor deciding will not ever decide in her favour because of his own moral code or because he's afraid firstly of the law and secondly of the medical council guidelines. Furthermore the woman has no say whatsoever in the termination decision, she has a say over not terminating but has no say whatsoever about what she considers best for herself. The expert groups report never mentions a woman's choice for termination. It doesn't exist in any circumstances in Ireland unless her life is at risk but in some cases not even then because where do you measure 'risk to life.'
> 
> Put it another way. If in all the births in Ireland in the last 10 years that only one woman was at that risk, how would you put that into law. Who would I as another human being be allowed to judge that because that risk is so low that it is statistically non existant. Indeed why should I as a woman who may be at risk ever have to run that risk. And why on earth should other people actually make that decision for me.


Couldn't agree more.



bullbars said:


> It is not an issue for women, it is a decision for society to make.


It is an issue for women and it's not for society to decide where the pregnancy is not viable or the mother's life is at risk.


----------



## MrMan

delgirl said:


> It is an issue for women and it's not for society to decide where the pregnancy is not viable or the mother's life is at risk.


 
So men should have no say on this topic?


----------



## oldnick

Mr Man asks whether men should have any say on this topic.

They should -  but it should be proportionate to the time and pain that a man has creating a child compared to the amount of time and pain a woman goes through.


----------



## bullbars

oldnick said:


> They should - but it should be proportionate to the time and pain that a man has creating a child compared to the amount of time and pain a woman goes through.


 
Can that be applied to child support after the fact also?


----------



## bullbars

delgirl said:


> Even apart from the fact that her life was in jeopardy, which in itself is reason enough for termination, Savita's cervix, according to her husband, was completely dilated and the pregnancy was not viable, therefore a termination should have been undertaken immediately instead of allowing her to suffer awaiting a spontaneous abortion.


This is according to what you have heard through the media what her husbands opininion is. You or I do not know this. 
If it was possible to preserve both her life and that of her unborn then I think the doctors had a duty to preserve life.
If/when however the facts of the case are released and if it is proven that a termination at an earlier stage would have saved her life, then yes, wihout doubt a termination should have been carried out, never have I said otherwise.
What I have been striving to get through to some is that media hype from one case without the correct details known is no reason to try to paper-mache over the issue in some half hearted attempt to save face.
Currently the Irish people value the life of the unborn, but also recognise that if the life of the mother is in jeopardy she should not be forced to carry the child to full term.



delgirl said:


> It is an issue for women and it's not for society to decide where the pregnancy is not viable or the mother's life is at risk.


That is not the issue I would like to see debated/voted on by society. The issue that soceity, I think, should have a say on is pro-life V pro choice.


----------



## bullbars

Ceist Beag said:


> Completely agree on that Bronte, some sinister groups are coming to the fore again with ads in the papers, cold calls, billboard posters and so on. The WIKI page on Youth Defence doesn't paint a very favourable picture of the founders (brother of one of the founders was in a Republican paramilitary group). Also another member (presumably daughter of the founders) Íde Nic Mhathúna is a member of Coir. I would also be interested in who funds both these organisations. Interesting article [broken link removed] on the Nic Mhathúna clan.


 
Those signs were a disgrace. Those groups are starting to go a bit "westboro-baptist -church-esque".


----------



## Leper

We're firing reasons for this and reasons for that like confetti at a 60's wedding. If this were a Men's issue only, it would have been resolved years ago. Abortion is a Woman's issue. The Woman has a right to choose what happens to her body and perhaps her mind. Let's have this referendum asap. It should not take too long and  please confine the voting to Women.

It is a terrible pity that so-called interest groups and our governemnt have used this issue to redirect people's mind from other issues.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> I have discussed the Savita case with quite a range of people so far and I haven't heard anyone saying or implying anything bad about Praveen or his motives.


 
It was most definitely said, and I'll come back to you with the wording of the conversation later. 

I find it interesting that you've not encountered anyone who has said Praveen has a monetary motive, but apart from my OH, 4 different people said it to my mother on four separate occasions and this would be in a different county.  

Maybe someone else on AAM can confirm that they too have heard this.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> It is not an issue for women, it is a decision for society to make.
> 
> .


 
Yes I'd like society to make the decision but it still needs to be a yes or no for women only.  

Personally I don't see why we need to debate on whether men should have a say at all on the issue.  It's just clouding the debate.  What is important is that we as a society debate on whether women can have one, under what circumstances and whether it's ok that 12 Irish women a day go to the UK for an abortion.  It is absolutely hypocritical of the Irish people to have voted to allow women to travel for abortion and to have information on abortion but not allow abortion.  

If we don't allow abortion then we actually should prevent women travelling to have an abortion.  Funnily enough we argued this issue 20 years ago, because actually some groups would like us all tested as we boarded planes.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> Currently the Irish people value the life of the unborn,
> 
> . The issue that soceity, I think, should have a say on is pro-life V pro choice.


 
I value the life of the unborn, I think that Savita valued the life of her unborn child, I am pro life and pro choice.  But I value the life of the mother more.   And I'm not pro abortion either.  I wish that abortions weren't necessary but they are.  

It is not a choice of pro life versus pro choice.  It never has been.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> Can that be applied to child support after the fact also?


 
I wonder how many Irish men have paid for abortions.  I wonder how many men would gladly pay for an abortion instead of child support.  And no doubt would vote against abortion in Ireland too.


----------



## delgirl

bullbars said:


> This is according to what you have heard through the media what her husbands opininion is. You or I do not know this.


This information came from the interview with Praveen broadcast on 14th November on RTE's Primetime during which *he states, *that the medical staff confirmed she was miscarrying 17 weeks into her pregnancy, her cervix was completely dilated, thus making the pregnancy unviable.

I can't find the link at the moment on the RTE player, looks like it's been removed?


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> If the pregnancy is not a risk to her life then she cannot have a termination. How is this still confusing to you?
> If it is a risk a termination may be permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth do you mean by “where do you measure 'risk to life.”
> 
> .


 
Bullbars I have never demanded you answer my questions. I've just asked you the question that's all. Now you've answered thank you. 

In relation to measuring risk to life. From what you've posted it seem clear that you think the issue is clear cut on risk to life. If I'm wrong on that I apologise. But this risk to life it is not at all clearly measurable. Doctors can have different medical opinion, if you look at the expert group report on legislation for the X case, they realise that it is not an easy thing to judge. For suicide it would be nearly impossible to make a correct risk assessment because the only way to know for sure if if the woman goes ahead and commits suicide and I think no matter how medically experienced a doctor would have great difficulty in 'measuring risk.' 

Apart from suicide there are medical situations where the doctors have to make a judgment call on whether the risk is too great or not. And where they err on the side of the unborn it can be at the price of losing two lives, which I believe is what happened in Galway, that they were obsessed with the foetal heartbeat and the fact there was one meant for a reason we awaiting the results of they would not do the abortion. And most tragically because the unborn from what I've read, that unborn, was going to die anyway.

As a women I do not want any Irish woman to ever have doctors make those judgements for me and for those doctors own medical ethics or medical guidelines mean that they will chose to let even a slight risk to me to mean that they allow me no say, but they will allow me take the risk. No problem if as a pregnant woman I choose to continue with a pregnancy where there is some risk, that is only right and proper, and indeed Irish women can and do make those choices, sometimes with happy endings. I could not in all conscience say to a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape that she must have the baby, I could not say to a woman whose baby is going to die after birth that she must continue with the pregnancy, or as a doctor direct here to the UK, I could not tell a woman suffering from cancer, that I will not treat her until she take the plane and comes back after an abortion and will then treat her. These are hard choices and hard decisions to make. But Irish women cannot in Ireland make those choices. 

This is an extraordinarily difficult topic. There are no easy answers. But avoiding it and not debating it and having an Irish solution in the UK is wrong. Also it is wrong of the medical fraternity to allow themselves be hijacked and not even use the word abortion when they do carry them out but instead hide behind words such as 'medical procedure.'


----------



## truthseeker

bullbars said:


> Can that be applied to child support after the fact also?



What an utterly ridiculous statement.


----------



## bullbars

truthseeker said:


> What an utterly ridiculous statement.


 
Why. If the male populace have no say in the life of the child why should they be compelled to make an input after.


----------



## MrMan

oldnick said:


> Mr Man asks whether men should have any say on this topic.
> 
> They should -  but it should be proportionate to the time and pain that a man has creating a child compared to the amount of time and pain a woman goes through.



what about the pain a man feels when he knows that his unborn will be terminated and he has absolutely no say on the matter. 

So we should only really let women capable of child birth have a say on this matter to follow your logic?


----------



## truthseeker

bullbars said:


> Why. If the male populace have no say in the life of the child why should they be compelled to make an input after.



Do you understand biology?

Women and men have an equal stake in the creation of a pregnancy, an unequal stake in the process of pregnancy and childbirth and an equal financial and moral responsibility to a child if it is born.

Its shocking to think that an adult would not understand these basic facts.


----------



## MrMan

Bronte said:


> It is absolutely hypocritical of the Irish people to have voted to allow women to travel for abortion and to have information on abortion but not allow abortion.
> 
> If we don't allow abortion then we actually should prevent women travelling to have an abortion.  Funnily enough we argued this issue 20 years ago, because actually some groups would like us all tested as we boarded planes.



Women have a freedom to travel, and that is what they do when they leave Ireland to have an abortion, it has no bearing on the discussion.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> Women have a freedom to travel, and that is what they do when they leave Ireland to have an abortion, it has no bearing on the discussion.



Well it does have a bearing on the discussion because only women who can afford to travel for an abortion can have a safe one.

It is also hypocritical for people to say that they do not want safe abortion available in this country but they dont mind if women travel. Surely if someone thinks abortion is wrong, its wrong regardless of geography.


----------



## bullbars

truthseeker said:


> Do you understand biology?.


No please enlighten us all, and don't spare the details. 



truthseeker said:


> Women and men have an equal stake in the creation of a pregnancy, an unequal stake in the process of pregnancy and childbirth and an equal financial and moral responsibility to a child if it is born.


So men should vote on male topics and women to vote on womens only - not very equal.
The choice of termination may not include the male co-creator, (also known as 'the father'- learned that in JC biology btw) but society, including males and females should decide together. Not as independent groups.
Shall we exclude infertile females also? 
Or "some" women who cannot fathom why people want children in the first place?


truthseeker said:


> Its shocking to think that an adult would not understand these basic facts.


It's shocking that you resort to this childishness.


----------



## Bronte

MrMan said:


> Women have a freedom to travel, and that is what they do when they leave Ireland to have an abortion, it has no bearing on the discussion.


 
And do you think it's ok that they can travel for abortion?


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> Yes I'd like society to make the decision but it still needs to be a yes or no for women only.


It's not going to be a "yes" women can but "no" men can't have a termination vote now is it. 



Bronte said:


> Personally I don't see why we need to debate on whether men should have a say at all on the issue. It's just clouding the debate. What is important is that we as a society debate on whether women can have one, under what circumstances and whether it's ok that 12 Irish women a day go to the UK for an abortion.


Agree- but you've missed the point that society includes both men and women. 



Bronte said:


> It is absolutely hypocritical of the Irish people to have voted to allow women to travel for abortion and to have information on abortion but not allow abortion.


women are free to travel for whatever pupose they wish, as far as I'm aware nobody has recommened some Gestapo like checks as you board. 



Bronte said:


> If we don't allow abortion then we actually should prevent women travelling to have an abortion.


Ridiculous. women and men travel for a variety of reasons, some of which are illegal here; trying to curtail this is farcical.


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> Do you understand biology?
> 
> Women and men have an equal stake in the creation of a pregnancy, an unequal stake in the process of pregnancy and childbirth and an equal financial and moral responsibility to a child if it is born.
> 
> Its shocking to think that an adult would not understand these basic facts.


If women and men have equal financial and moral responsibility to a child if it is born then why should men have no say in the matter?
The facts of the biology of the matter have little bearing on the moral issue. 
I know that you are against late term abortions so can I therefore take it that in your view at some stage the life of the unborn child takes precedence over the woman’s right to choose? If this is the case then the woman’s right to choose is not absolute and the right to life of the child kicks in eventually.   





Bronte said:


> I wonder how many Irish men have paid for abortions.  I wonder how many men would gladly pay for an abortion instead of child support.  And no doubt would vote against abortion in Ireland too.


Bronte, I’m sure you are aware that I have great respect for you but that’s an awful post. You are implying that men would rather kill their unborn child than support it financially. Why is it that women want abortions for the best of reasons but men want them for selfish and hypocritical reasons? Your post is deeply sexist and utterly heartless.



If this is a women’s issue only because they are the ones that carry the children then only fertile women should be allowed to vote. 
Using the same logic only people who are net contributors to the exchequer should be allowed to vote on financial and taxation issues and only property owners (local property tax payers) should be allowed to vote on local issues. 
I’m against the above because I believe in democracy and the right of all adults in society to decide what sort of society we live in.


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> I wonder how many Irish men have paid for abortions. I wonder how many men would gladly pay for an abortion instead of child support. And no doubt would vote against abortion in Ireland too.


 
I'm not sure what your geting at with this? 
I do not doubt that some men would be glad if abortion facilities were available in Ireland, to save face and/or financial support. 
Why would you have "No doubt" they'd vote against it then?


----------



## bullbars

delgirl said:


> This information came from the interview with Praveen broadcast on 14th November on RTE's Primetime during which *he states, *that the medical staff confirmed she was miscarrying 17 weeks into her pregnancy, her cervix was completely dilated, thus making the pregnancy unviable.
> 
> I can't find the link at the moment on the RTE player, looks like it's been removed?


I've no doubt that is what he said, with or without the link, I wasn't implying you made it up or heard it from your neighbours,daughters husbands dog walker who's sister is a nurse etc etc. 

All I would like to wait for is the facts no knee jerk reactions.
I've said before, If a termination could have saved her life, then she should have been permitted to have one.


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> If women and men have equal financial and moral responsibility to a child if it is born then why should men have no say in the matter?
> The facts of the biology of the matter have little bearing on the moral issue.
> I know that you are against late term abortions so can I therefore take it that in your view at some stage the life of the unborn child takes precedence over the woman’s right to choose? If this is the case then the woman’s right to choose is not absolute and the right to life of the child kicks in eventually.



Purple, I do think men should have a say, and I have discussed it further back in the thread, with MrMan and perhaps others - however, practically speaking it is difficult to see how it could be enforced - because of biology.

I mentioned biology because a poster seems to think that unless men have a say over what happens to womens bodies while they are pregnant then men should not support their children - its a ridiculous misogynistic notion that women get no say over their own bodies but men do otherwise they dont pay child support. 

As far as I am concerned, the right to life of the child becomes equal when it is no longer dependant on the womens body (I am happy for science/medicine to determine that point).


----------



## bullbars

truthseeker said:


> I mentioned biology because a poster seems to think that unless men have a say over what happens to womens bodies while they are pregnant then men should not support their children - its a ridiculous misogynistic notion that women get no say over their own bodies but men do otherwise they dont pay child support.


 
thats not what I said or meant. Have another go.


----------



## T McGibney

truthseeker said:


> I mentioned biology because a poster seems to think that unless men have a say over what happens to womens bodies while they are pregnant then men should not support their children - its a ridiculous misogynistic notion that women get no say over their own bodies but men do otherwise they dont pay child support.



I think you missed the rather obvious point that this question was posed rhetorically.


----------



## truthseeker

T McGibney said:


> I think you missed the rather obvious point that this question was posed rhetorically.



Do you think so? Given the tone and content of other posts from the same source? I have my doubts.


----------



## T McGibney

truthseeker said:


> As far as I am concerned, the right to life of the child becomes equal when it is no longer dependant on the womens body (I am happy for science/medicine to determine that point).



Equal to what?
The mother's right to life?
The mother's right to health?
The mother's "right to choose"?


----------



## truthseeker

T McGibney said:


> Equal to what?
> The mother's right to life?
> The mother's right to health?
> The mother's "right to choose"?



The mothers right to life. This is old ground, I have been very specific about my views further back in the thread.


----------



## T McGibney

truthseeker said:


> Do you think so?



Yes, actually.



truthseeker said:


> Given the tone and content  of other posts from the same source? I have my doubts.



Given the overall tone of the discussion, and not singling out anyone in particular, I think the thread should now be closed.


----------



## truthseeker

T McGibney said:


> Given the overall tone of the discussion, and not singling out anyone in particular, I think the thread should now be closed.



That is the objective of some posters here. They are posting deliberately inflammatory posts in order to get the thread shut down. It is a typical response because some people want all discussion of abortion censored. Not singling out anyone in particular.


----------



## T McGibney

truthseeker said:


> That is the objective of some posters here. They are posting deliberately inflammatory posts in order to get the thread shut down. It is a typical response because some people want all discussion of abortion censored. Not singling out anyone in particular.



If you think any post or poster has been "deliberately inflammatory", use the Report Post facility.

I don't think there much evidence here that anyone wants to censor discussion of abortion.

I still think the thread should be closed.


----------



## truthseeker

T McGibney said:


> I don't think there much evidence here that anyone wants to censor discussion of abortion.
> 
> I still think the thread should be closed.



You and I will have to disagree on the above on the points above.


----------



## bullbars

truthseeker said:


> They are posting deliberately inflammatory posts in order to get the thread shut down.


When one, misquotes and lables other misogynistic for no valid reason, that too could be deemed inflammatory, but as long as they're on your side of the argument it's ok.



truthseeker said:


> It is a typical response because some people want all discussion of abortion censored. Not singling out anyone in particular.


I don't see any evidence of wanting it censored, can you show me where you've gotten that from?


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> Bronte, I’m sure you are aware that I have great respect for you but that’s an awful post. You are implying that men would rather kill their unborn child than support it financially. Why is it that women want abortions for the best of reasons but men want them for selfish and hypocritical reasons? Your post is deeply sexist and utterly heartless.
> 
> 
> 
> .


 Goodness me Purple I didn't mean to be sexist or heartless. And I certainly do not think that all women want abortions for the best of reasons. There are women who use abortion as a contraception and all sorts of myriad other reasons. I would wish that such abortions didn't have to happen in the first place but that doesn't change the fact that they do. I wish both women and men always used contraception, that contraception was always fail safe, that people would take care, but depending on the circumstances this does not always occur. I also wish every Monday morning so many women didn't go looking for the morning after pill. 

And I do think that both women and men would chose abortion for financial reasons. I'm sure there are many Irish couples who have chosen so. I have limited my family partly for financial reasons. I assume most other people do so. And I do not think that men only want abortion for selfish and hypocritical reasons. They do so for many varied reasons. Same as women. Sorry if my post implied otherwise.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> I do not doubt that some men would be glad if abortion facilities were available in Ireland, to save face and/or financial support.
> Why would you have "No doubt" they'd vote against it then?


 
I should have used the word *some* men. I did not mean to imply that all men would pay for an abortion and then vote against abortion. Equally there are presumably women who've had abortions who have voted against abortion.

In relation to Gestapo like questioning of women going to the UK, why did we vote on the right to travel for abortion? 

Do you think groups like Youth Defense would like to ban travel also? And that they actually probably believe women should be checked on whether one is pregnant or not if they are travelling. The reason we have the right to travel for abortion was brought about because of the X case. The Irish people by constitutional amendment voted to allow women freedom to travel for abortion. If they had not what would the state have to do to prevent women travelling for abortion?


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> Well it does have a bearing on the discussion because only women who can afford to travel for an abortion can have a safe one.
> 
> It is also hypocritical for people to say that they do not want safe abortion available in this country but they dont mind if women travel. Surely if someone thinks abortion is wrong, its wrong regardless of geography.



It has no bearing in that we are talking about the laws of our pwn country. People keep bringing up how hypocritical it is that we have women crossing the water every week to have abortions, but that is their choice; it has no bearing on whether or not Ireland chooses to allow abortion to be readily available. I hope I am being clear now.
I agree on the hypocrisy in your second paragraph.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> It has no bearing in that we are talking about the laws of our pwn country. People keep bringing up how hypocritical it is that we have women crossing the water every week to have abortions, but that is their choice; it has no bearing on whether or not Ireland chooses to allow abortion to be readily available. I hope I am being clear now.
> I agree on the hypocrisy in your second paragraph.



I understand what you are saying.


----------



## MrMan

Bronte said:


> And do you think it's ok that they can travel for abortion?




I do, and I'm not against the right to choose in Ireland either, I'm just hoping that a reasonable debate on the subject can be had, because it is an important subject for all, and should be considered as such.


----------



## delgirl

Has anyone who has been an ardent 'right to life' advocate been swayed by the Savita case and others into believing that legistation and regulation on this issue is needed?

On speaking to a relative, who has always been totally anti-abortion for any reason, he is now of the mindset that it should be legislated for and permitted in certain circumstances.


----------



## Firefly

delgirl said:


> Has anyone who has been an ardent 'right to life' advocate been swayed by the Savita case and others into believing that legistation and regulation on this issue is needed?


 
I wouldn't be an _"ardent 'right to life' advocate"_ or anythiing, but legislating for suicide just doesn't sit comfortably with me as I think it could be open to abuse by the woman or subjectivity by the doctor..


----------



## Bronte

delgirl said:


> Has anyone who has been an ardent 'right to life' advocate been swayed by the Savita case and others into believing that legistation and regulation on this issue is needed?
> 
> .


 
Yes, my mother.  She was anti abortion and Savita's case made her say enough is enough.  I wouldn't think she was an ardent 'right to life' advocate though.


----------



## T McGibney

Funny how the Government is now rushing to legislate *before* the facts of the Savita case have been established.


----------



## michaelm

Firefly said:


> . . legislating for suicide just doesn't sit comfortably with me as I think it could be open to abuse by the woman or subjectivity by the doctor..


It is patent nonsense to suggest that abortion is an appropriate treatment for mental health issues.


----------



## Bronte

Firefly said:


> but legislating for suicide just doesn't sit comfortably with me as I think it could be open to abuse by the woman


 
Would it be more important to know why a woman would be willing to lie? To go through the hoops that the government will decide on in order to prove that one is suicidal. 

Why do the anti abortion groups believe that many many Irish women will lie. Are we women such awful human beings that we will lie in order to procure an abortion. 

Are we different to men in that respect.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> Funny how the Government is now rushing to legislate *before* the facts of the Savita case have been established.


 
Funnily enough I've heard many people say the Savita case had nothing to do with it, that every medical treatment is available to women in Ireland.  Why do we need the facts of her story to legislate, is 20 years not long enough, is a European judgement not enough? What rush? I see no rush? Don't you think we should legislate for what Irish people decided by constitutional amendments.


----------



## Firefly

Bronte said:


> Would it be more important to know why a woman would be willing to lie? To go through the hoops that the government will decide on in order to prove that one is suicidal.
> 
> Why do the anti abortion groups believe that many many Irish women will lie. Are we women such awful human beings that we will lie in order to procure an abortion.
> 
> Are we different to men in that respect.


 
Hi Bronte,

All valid questions and I don't know the answer. I'm just saying that IMO it could be abused by even 1 woman looking for an abortion and therefore why should we legislate for something where we know this in advance? The current system is bad enough without introducting more ambiguity and subjectivity.

Firefly.


----------



## Firefly

michaelm said:


> It is patent nonsense to suggest that abortion is an appropriate treatment for mental health issues.


 
How do you know?


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> Would it be more important to know why a woman would be willing to lie? To go through the hoops that the government will decide on in order to prove that one is suicidal.
> 
> Why do the anti abortion groups believe that many many Irish women will lie. Are we women such awful human beings that we will lie in order to procure an abortion.
> 
> Are we different to men in that respect.



A minority of men and women will lie to get what they want. I don’t think anyone thinks anything other than a tiny proportion of women would do what you suggest.  That’s not the point though; laws have to take such scenarios into account.


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> I don’t think anyone thinks anything other than a tiny proportion of women would do what you suggest.



Rather than bother lying the current exportation of the problem to the UK will carry on. There may be some genuine cases where women pass the suicide test guidelines, and there may be some cases where women try it because they can not easily afford to go to the UK. But ultimately it wont change much.


----------



## michaelm

Firefly said:


> How do you know?


Studies confirm that abortion is linked to an increased risk of suicide.  The argument of 'let me take the life of my unborn child or else I'll take my own life' doesn't stand up.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> Studies confirm that abortion is linked to an increased risk of suicide.  The argument of 'let me take the life of my unborn child or else I'll take my own life' doesn't stand up.



According to other studies


> For women with unplanned pregnancies, the risk of mental-health problems is equal whether they carry the pregnancy to term or undergo an abortion.



There are numerous links, but the main ones are available from that wikipedia page I linked to.

From the same page 





> A 2008 systematic review of the medical literature on abortion and mental health found that high-quality studies consistently showed few or no mental-health consequences of abortion, while *poor-quality studies were more likely to report negative consequences*.



and 



> In December 2011, the U.K. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health published a systematic review of available evidence, similarly concluding that abortion did not increase the risk of mental-health problems.



Of course 





> *Despite the weight of medical opinion on the subject, some pro-life advocacy groups have continued to allege a link between abortion and mental-health problems.*


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> Funnily enough I've heard many people say the Savita case had nothing to do with it, that every medical treatment is available to women in Ireland.  Why do we need the facts of her story to legislate, is 20 years not long enough, is a European judgement not enough? What rush? I see no rush? Don't you think we should legislate for what Irish people decided by constitutional amendments.



No, I see no pressing need to legislate on the basis of a 20-year old Supreme Court judgment, nor on the basis of a concocted interpretation of previous constitutional amendments.


----------



## oldnick

As a slight aside...

Perhaps those who wish to deny a woman's right to choose could advise me on the following...

Looking at the fifty USA states - some have quite strict anti-abortion regimes  whereas some are quite liberal. Generally, the most liberal are in the North-East and on the West Coast.

Looking at those USA states that have abolished  legally killing people (or capital punishment) it's almost the other way round.

Again, gun-control . Most anti-abortion states tend to have the most liberal gun-control laws.

It seems odd that those who are so much in favour of "life" also favour of capital punishment and no gun control. I think most of us already know that the most "conservative" Americans hold these views.  I believe that many of them hold other views that makes their strong pro-life stance surprising.

I'm not suggesting that so-called pro-life posters on AAM (mainly men?) are  those most likely to be Tea Party believers in death penalties, liberal gun controls, racist and homophobic tendencies which many pro-lifers in USA seem to have.

Looking world-wide: In those Latin American, Middle-Eastern and African states  with anti-abortion laws, the position of women -both culturally and often legally- takes a second place to that of men,   there are often horrific anti-gay laws, and, often, respect for human rights is minimal.

So, looking at the USA and more world-wide it appears that those with this "pro-life" attitude are really very much the opposite.

It's just an observation and very general one. I'm not talking about Ireland where most pro-life champions such as the Roman Catholic clergy are,of course, very much in favour of equal rights for women ,gays and such basic rights as,say, contraception. It's the other countries that have this hypocritical attitude,not here.

I just can't get my head around the contradication of  those who scream about the sanctity of human life tending to show so little regard for it.


----------



## T McGibney

To be blunt I think that's a risible, and rather insulting, correlation. Someone else might as well claim that the Irish pro-choice lobby all wish to oppress women on the basis that certain countries with pro-abortion lobbies and policies have very poor women's rights and a particularly creepy taste for aborting female babies.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> Would it be more important to know why a woman would be willing to lie? To go through the hoops that the government will decide on in order to prove that one is suicidal.
> 
> Why do the anti abortion groups believe that many many Irish women will lie. Are we women such awful human beings that we will lie in order to procure an abortion.
> 
> Are we different to men in that respect.



Women are no different to men, but please don't tell me that you believe that Irish people are so honourable and principled that they will never, ever lie in order to gain an advantage or obtain a bureaucratic concession for themselves.


----------



## Firefly

michaelm said:


> Studies confirm that abortion is linked to an increased risk of suicide.


 
I'm sure you have a link for this. In any case, Truthseeker has provided opposing references, which, for me, is clear proof that legislating for suicide is madness....not only is determining whether a woman is suicidal or not a subjective matter, and open to abuse, we now have conflicting evidence on whether unplanned pregnancies or abortions are linked to suicide. This is a major can of worms.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> Would it be more important to know why a woman would be willing to lie? To go through the hoops that the government will decide on in order to prove that one is suicidal.
> 
> Why do the anti abortion groups believe that many many Irish women will lie. Are we women such awful human beings that we will lie in order to procure an abortion.
> 
> Are we different to men in that respect.



This is worth reading.
http://www.independent.ie/national-...ice-that-could-put-lives-at-risk-3276226.html


> By Gemma O'Doherty
> 
> Saturday October 27 2012
> 
> STAFF at some taxpayer-funded pregnancy counselling services  are putting women's lives at risk and breaking the law, an undercover  probe has revealed.
> The investigation was carried out over  several months by a team of women, some from the pro-life movement, who  secretly recorded counsellors at 11 locations around the country.
> Some  of the advice they gave about abortion was illegal, according to a  leading lawyer, and some was medically dangerous, a top doctor says.
> In  several instances, women were told to hide their abortions from their  doctors, a course of action that could endanger life if post-surgery  abortion complications remain undiagnosed.
> A small percentage of  women suffer perforation of the womb following terminations, which can  remain undetected but can cause problems in later pregnancies.
> [broken link removed] has viewed and listened to the investigation tapes.
> Following a five-hour examination of the material, the HSE has launched an investigation.
> A spokesperson said that any potential breaches of the legislation will be pursued.
> [broken link removed] at Dublin's Store Street station are also looking into the findings of the probe.
> At  the Dundalk office of the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA), a  client was told she could lie to her doctor about having had an  abortion, advice that could put a woman's life at risk, Professor Sam  Coulter Smith, the master of Dublin's [broken link removed], has warned.


----------



## orka

I suppose it is worth reading but what it primarily says to me is that we would be better off for women’s health to have our own abortion regime here where it wasn’t treated as sinful, shameful and something that should be hidden and lied about – where women could be open with their medical providers about what they had done and wanted to do.


----------



## orka

Bronte said:


> Why do the anti abortion groups believe that many many Irish women will lie. Are we women such awful human beings that we will lie in order to procure an abortion.


  


Purple said:


> I don’t think anyone thinks anything other than a tiny proportion of women would do what you suggest.


I am pro-choice but come on – of course many many women will lie to get an abortion – they do it all the time in the UK where, contrary to popular opinion, abortion is not legally available on demand. The main reason for abortion there is that there is a risk to the woman’s physical or mental health, greater than if the pregnancy continued. Now, who thinks that 150,000+ women a year would be risking their physical or mental health by continuing with a function that many other women go through and come through with no major consequences? A lot of abortions in the UK are purely for social reasons (got pregnant, inconvenient, get abortion) – but the women have to jump through the hoops of getting two doctors to certify that, most likely, their mental health will be affected by going through with the pregnancy. I have a relative who is a GP in the UK and she would get women coming in saying they wanted abortions: ‘why?’ – ‘I don’t want it’ – ‘would you be able to cope’ – ‘yes, but I just don’t want it’ – ‘well, you have to tell me you can’t cope or I can’t sign off on this’ – ‘okay, I can’t cope’. Anytime she didn’t sign, the woman would always be able to get sign-offs elsewhere.
I don’t agree with the hoop jumping or pretending there is no demand for on-demand abortion – far better to just be honest about motivations.


----------



## michaelm

Firefly said:


> I'm sure you have a link for this. In any case, Truthseeker has provided opposing references, which, for me, is clear proof that legislating for suicide is madness....


I wouldn't over rely on wikipedia, that best that page says is that the difference ranges from none to some.  There are many reputable studies showing that abortion is detrimental to mental health.  Hard figures also show that suicide rates for women in the year after birth are lower than for women in general, with rates among those who abort being higher (six times higher in comprehensive study in Finland).  

Abortion should either be legalised, or not, but not brought in on the pretence that it is a positive step for the prevention or treatment of suicide.


----------



## dereko1969

T McGibney said:


> This is worth reading.
> http://www.independent.ie/national-...ice-that-could-put-lives-at-risk-3276226.html


 
It's not worth reading, the Independent presented this as if they'd done the research - they hadn't, they were shown edited out of context material presented by a group with an agenda. I'm not saying that some of the things weren't said but I wouldn't trust the source.



michaelm said:


> I wouldn't over rely on wikipedia, that best that page says is that the difference ranges from none to some. There are many reputable studies showing that abortion is detrimental to mental health. Hard figures also show that suicide rates for women in the year after birth are lower than for women in general, with rates among those who abort being higher (six times higher in comprehensive study in Finland).
> 
> Abortion should either be legalised, or not, but not brought in on the pretence that it is a positive step for the prevention or treatment of suicide.


 
So that would be a no then to the question about giving examples of these studies?


----------



## T McGibney

dereko1969 said:


> It's not worth reading, the Independent presented this as if they'd done the research - they hadn't, they were shown edited out of context material presented by a group with an agenda. I'm not saying that some of the things weren't said but I wouldn't trust the source.



Gemma O'Doherty stands over her story and has since reinforced it in separate articles. Are you saying its untrue?


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> To be blunt I think that's a risible, and rather insulting, correlation. Someone else might as well claim that the Irish pro-choice lobby all wish to oppress women on the basis that certain countries with pro-abortion lobbies and policies have very poor women's rights and a particularly creepy taste for aborting female babies.



I agree.
I'm a social liberal and an atheist. I am in favour of gay marriage, equal rights, a secular state etc.
If I lived in the USA I would be in favour of gun control and I’m against capital punishment in all circumstances.

My views on abortion have nothing to do with religion or conservative views. They are based on my atheist view that there’s no afterlife and so the life we have here is all the more precious and therefore the life of the unborn is also precious.


----------



## michaelm

dereko1969 said:


> So that would be a no then to the question about giving examples of these studies?


Well, I'm not sure I was asked.  Google is your friend, although I suppose people will find what they want to find, like my quick search which found . . 

A 1995 study by A.C. Gilchrist in the British Journal of Psychiatry  found that in women with no history of psychiatric illness, the rate of  deliberate self-harm was 70 percent higher after abortion than after  childbirth.
A 1996 study in Finland by pro-choice researcher Mika  Gissler in the British Medical Journal found that the suicide rate was  nearly six times greater among women who aborted than among women who  gave birth.
A 2002 record-linkage study of California Medicaid  patients in the Southern Medical Journal, which controlled for prior  mental illness, found that suicide risk was 154 percent higher among  women who aborted than among those who delivered.
By 2003, the  data was so compelling that a team of researchers published in the  Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey (OGS), one of the top three  obstetrical journals in the United States, identified a number of  studies that found that “induced abortion increased … [the incidence] of  mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts at self-harm” and  concluded that, as a matter of medical ethics, “any woman contemplating  an induced abortion should be cautioned about the mental health  correlates of an increased risk of suicide or self-harm attempts as well  as depression.”
A 2005 study by Mika Gissler in the European  Journal of Public Health found that abortion was associated with a  six-times-higher risk for suicide compared to birth.
A 2006 study  by New Zealand researcher David M. Fergusson in the Journal of Child  Psychology and Psychiatry, which controlled for a prior history of  depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation (wanting to take one’s own  life or thinking about suicide), found that 27 percent to 50 percent of  women after abortion reported suicidal ideation. Mr. Fergusson found  that the risk of suicide was three times greater for women who aborted  than for women who delivered.
A 2010 study by Natalie P. Mota in  the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry found that “abortion was associated  with an increased likelihood of several mental disorders - mood  disorders … substance abuse disorders … as well as suicidal ideation and  suicide attempts.”
A 2011 meta-analysis in  the British Journal of Psychiatry found an 81 percent increased risk of  mental trauma after abortion.

Arguments as to whether or not abortion is detrimental to mental health  notwithstanding, I've yet to see a study which claims that it is  beneficial to those with mental health problems.

​


----------



## oldnick

Purple -I know many of your views and know that you would have nothing in common with many of those who call themselves pro-life,especially in the USA.

All I am saying is that - insulting and as risible as TMcGibney may find it - there *is* a corrolation between those USA states (and many nations) that are most anti-abortion and also pro-capital punishment, pro-gun lobby, anti-gay etc etc.

It's not an argument or an opinion. It's a fact which I find interesting and somewhat puzzling.


----------



## T McGibney

oldnick said:


> All I am saying is that - insulting and as risible as TMcGibney may find it - there *is* a corrolation between those USA states (and many nations) that are most anti-abortion and also pro-capital punishment, pro-gun lobby, anti-gay etc etc.



Just to clarify, what I found risible was this bit.



oldnick said:


> I'm not talking about Ireland where most  pro-life champions such as the Roman Catholic clergy are,of course, very  much in favour of equal rights for women ,gays and such basic rights  as,say, contraception. It's the other countries that have this  hypocritical attitude,not here.


----------



## michaelm

oldnick said:


> there *is* a corrolation between those USA states (and many nations) that are most anti-abortion and also pro-capital punishment, pro-gun lobby, anti-gay etc etc.


Interesting and puzzling as you may find it, might you accept that such is not relevant?


----------



## Firefly

michaelm said:


> Abortion should either be legalised, or not, but not brought in on the pretence that it is a positive step for the prevention or treatment of suicide.


 
I agree.


----------



## oldnick

Michaelm - 
I don't know the relevence of the undoubted fact that the most anti-abortionist states/ nations/lobby groups/people also have those other laws,beliefs etc that I described which are contrary to human rights. 
I'm just mentioning the fact in the hope someone can explain why it is so.

TMcGibney :- I also find it risible that the RC clergy claim to respect human life considering their attitudes, beliefs,behaviour and history. That's what you meant isn't it?


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> I wouldn't over rely on wikipedia...



Which is why I pointed out the references are at the bottom of the page to the claims made (The American Psychological Association and the U.K. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health). The links bring you to academic peer reviewed papers. 

The point is, the available evidence from different studies have been collated and the collation of such data has found 


> In December 2011, the U.K. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health published a *systematic review of available evidence*, similarly *concluding that abortion did not increase the risk of mental-health problems.*


----------



## michaelm

oldnick said:


> I don't know the relevence . . I'm just mentioning the fact in the hope someone can explain why it is so.


Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> Well, I'm not sure I was asked.  Google is your friend, although I suppose people will find what they want to find, like my quick search which found . .
> 
> A 1995 study by A.C. Gilchrist in the British Journal of Psychiatry  found that in women with no history of psychiatric illness, the rate of  deliberate self-harm was 70 percent higher after abortion than after  childbirth.
> A 1996 study in Finland by pro-choice researcher Mika  Gissler in the British Medical Journal found that the suicide rate was  nearly six times greater among women who aborted than among women who  gave birth.
> A 2002 record-linkage study of California Medicaid  patients in the Southern Medical Journal, which controlled for prior  mental illness, found that suicide risk was 154 percent higher among  women who aborted than among those who delivered.
> By 2003, the  data was so compelling that a team of researchers published in the  Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey (OGS), one of the top three  obstetrical journals in the United States, identified a number of  studies that found that “induced abortion increased … [the incidence] of  mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts at self-harm” and  concluded that, as a matter of medical ethics, “any woman contemplating  an induced abortion should be cautioned about the mental health  correlates of an increased risk of suicide or self-harm attempts as well  as depression.”
> A 2005 study by Mika Gissler in the European  Journal of Public Health found that abortion was associated with a  six-times-higher risk for suicide compared to birth.
> A 2006 study  by New Zealand researcher David M. Fergusson in the Journal of Child  Psychology and Psychiatry, which controlled for a prior history of  depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation (wanting to take one’s own  life or thinking about suicide), found that 27 percent to 50 percent of  women after abortion reported suicidal ideation. Mr. Fergusson found  that the risk of suicide was three times greater for women who aborted  than for women who delivered.
> A 2010 study by Natalie P. Mota in  the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry found that “abortion was associated  with an increased likelihood of several mental disorders - mood  disorders … substance abuse disorders … as well as suicidal ideation and  suicide attempts.”
> A 2011 meta-analysis in  the British Journal of Psychiatry found an 81 percent increased risk of  mental trauma after abortion.
> 
> Arguments as to whether or not abortion is detrimental to mental health  notwithstanding, I've yet to see a study which claims that it is  beneficial to those with mental health problems.
> 
> ​




All the text above comes from this article which was written by 2 members of AUL - an american pro-life organisation. 

So all it proves is they they cherry picked particular studies, I notice there is no information on the quality of the studies chosen nor links given to the academic papers.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Even a broken clock is right twice a day.



I use a 24 hour clock... and it's digital so when it breaks it says EE.EE


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> . . all it proves is they they cherry picked particular studies, I notice there is no information on the quality of the studies chosen nor links given to the academic papers.


Indeed.  I did say . .





michaelm said:


> Google is your friend, although I suppose people will find what they want to find, like my quick search which found . .


No doubt anyone who wants to find said articles will find them.  I'll get you started http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> No doubt anyone who wants to find said articles will find them.



I think its clear if you quote studies used in an article written by 2 pro-lifers that you will get a pro-life slant. 

On the contrary I posted links to academic studies made by groups with no agenda either way who reviewed available evidence in the medical literature.

I know which studies Id consider more relevant.


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> I think its clear if you quote studies used in an article written by 2 pro-lifers that you will get a pro-life slant.
> 
> On the contrary I posted links to academic studies made by groups with no agenda either way who reviewed available evidence in the medical literature.
> 
> I know which studies Id consider more relevant.



In any debate on any issue it's hard to find academics who don't have an agenda either way.


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> I think its clear if you quote studies used in an article written by 2 pro-lifers that you will get a pro-life slant.
> 
> On the contrary I posted links to academic studies made by groups with no agenda either way who reviewed available evidence in the medical literature.
> 
> I know which studies Id consider more relevant.


Indeed.  Or you posted a link to wikipedia and I mentioned numerous studies which are easy to find.  I did link above to the study reported in the British Journal of Psychiatry and, if you're interested, have a look at , which concludes that "The low rate of deaths from external causes suggests the protective  effect of childbirth, but the elevated risk after a terminated                      pregnancy needs to be recognized in the provision  of health care and social services."


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> Or you posted a link to wikipedia...



Which I explained had the academic references at the bottom of the page. Not hard to find if you just scroll down.


----------



## circle

michaelm said:


> Indeed. Or you posted a link to wikipedia and I mentioned numerous studies which are easy to find. I did link above to the study reported in the British Journal of Psychiatry


 
Yes, that's a peer-reviewed article, but the reviews are negative and point out the flaws in the methodology used. 

Ben Goldacre (respected Epidemiologist & Journalist) has a detailed response, contained on the page you have linked to, criticising her statistical methods and challenging her declaration of interest, it's worth a read.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> This is worth reading.
> http://www.independent.ie/national-...ice-that-could-put-lives-at-risk-3276226.html


 

I'm welll aware of that Tommy. All it showed me is that the women in these clinics are helping women in dire circumstances with unwanted pregnancies who don't know what to do and want an abortion for whatever reason. And the women in the clinics have the information to help them in their choice but are afraid of giving out the information as they are afraid of being prosecuted. The law is that information on abortion can be given out (constitutional amendment) but how far on that information can you go legally. 

So in effect Irish society is forcing Irish women to covertly help other Irish women in need of help to procure the abortion pill (which is imported illegally into Ireland - I'm not sure how this is done, presumable via the post system to a PO Box) and then the women take it but they don't seek medical help. In other countries when you take this abortificent it is under medical supervision. And there is a reason for this, it can go wrong. It's rare but there can be complications.

Then the women who do take it, because it is illegal, they are being advised not to tell their doctors. I can only assume this is in case said doctor would report them to the authorities for having an abortion. This is the culture of care for women in Ireland that has built up over the last few decades. Prior to this courtsey of the Catholic Church women were forced into Magdelena laundries and their babies adopted. With great stigma and shame attached also courtesy of the caring Catholic Church. Now in a more enlightened era we instead allow 4000 women a day to go to the UK and the number who go to the UK and don't declare an Irish address I don't know, nor are their numbers on those that go to other countries nor is there a number on those who take the abortion pill. 

In addition to the women who take the abortion pill, it seems the clinics are advising women who have gone to the UK to have an abortion to also pretend they never had an abortion. This is absolute insane. There can, rarely, be complications of abortion, as there are complications of any pregnancy, but is is absolutely crazy that women cannot be truthful with their doctors. This is the reality of the lives of the 100,000 women who have had abortions in the last decades. 

But we'll continue on and export the problem and those that are anti abortion can be glad that we don't do abortion in Ireland. We'll vote for women to travel, we'll vote for them to be allowed information but no we won't allow them to do in in their own country. 

No doubt we'll all be pre imminent professional experts on suicide in pregnancy over the coming months. That's what's really important. That we discuss that morning noon and night.


----------



## Bronte

Firefly said:


> I'm sure you have a link for this. In any case, Truthseeker has provided opposing references, which, for me, is clear proof that legislating for suicide is madness....not only is determining whether a woman is suicidal or not a subjective matter, and open to abuse, we now have conflicting evidence on whether unplanned pregnancies or abortions are linked to suicide. This is a major can of worms.


 
I mostly agree with you, but there are cases of women who are suicidal when pregnant who would kill themselves if they don't have an abortion. But I imagine statistically it's a very low number and this low statistic should be legislated for. 

The problem is if it's legislated for will Irish women who want abortions all start to lie. And will we continue the hypocracy and allow them to have abortion under these grounds as we do now in relation to the UK or will we grow up and decide that we need to actually decide what to do about abortion.


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> A minority of men and women will lie to get what they want. I don’t think anyone thinks anything other than a tiny proportion of women would do what you suggest. That’s not the point though; laws have to take such scenarios into account.


 
Well maybe it is the point. If you believe that a minority/majority of women will lie, are we as a society giving them no choice but to lie?

In any case the reality I would forsee if they bring in suicide as grounds for abortion, is that nothing will really change, because what sane women would go though a system of being assessed by two psychatrists (maybe Patrica Casey who *never* thinks a women would want an abortion as a 'cure' for suicide) when you'd save yourself all the stress of that by going to the UK. Abortion is a very difficult decision for a woman so I don't see any Irish women who has the means avoiding the risk of judgement under an Irish suicide legislation. That then leaves the genuinely suicidal behind, or the women without means.

(Incidentally you called me sexist the other day and I was really hurt by that, I've gone back over what I wrote but maybe I am sexist or ignorant because I fail to see where I said something sexist)


----------



## Firefly

Bronte said:


> The problem is if it's legislated for will Irish women who want abortions all start to lie. And will we continue the hypocracy and allow them to have abortion under these grounds as we do now in relation to the UK or will we grow up and decide that we need to actually decide what to do about abortion.


 
I agree and I think we should have a referendum on on-demand abortion and let the people, once and for all, decide.


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> Well maybe it is the point. If you believe that a minority/majority of women will lie, are we as a society giving them no choice but to lie?


 They always have a choice. It may not be what they want or need but they still have a choice.



Bronte said:


> In any case the reality I would forsee if they bring in suicide as grounds for abortion, is that nothing will really change, because what sane women would go though a system of being assessed by two psychatrists (maybe Patrica Casey who *never* thinks a women would want an abortion as a 'cure' for suicide) when you'd save yourself all the stress of that by going to the UK. Abortion is a very difficult decision for a woman so I don't see any Irish women who has the means avoiding the risk of judgement under an Irish suicide legislation. That then leaves the genuinely suicidal behind, or the women without means.


 I think that the suicide issue is a red herring. Due to the endorphins released during pregnancy pregnant women are the least likely group to commit suicide. I also thing a scenario where psychiatrists (and Mrs Casey in particular) are acting as de-facto judges who decide which women get abortions and which women don’t would be completely unacceptable. 



Bronte said:


> (Incidentally you called me sexist the other day and I was really hurt by that, I've gone back over what I wrote but maybe I am sexist or ignorant because I fail to see where I said something sexist)


 My apologies; I didn’t mean to offend or hurt you. I just find the whole premise that this is a women’s issue and men either don’t understand or shouldn’t have a say to be spurious.

For me the crux of the issue is this: 
At some stage the woman loses her right to decide what happens to her on body; nobody here supports late term abortions.
At some stage a woman clearly has the right to decide what happens to her own body; nobody here (so far) is against the morning after pill.
The issue is when does the woman lose the right to decide, at what stage do we as a society say that the zygote or foetus becomes a person with their own rights and right to life. The idea that only women should have a voice in that discussion or a say in that decision is deeply sexist and offensive. Men are parents too and they love their children just as much as mothers do. 

If it’s a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the unborn child then, for me anyway, it’s a no-brainer; the life of the mother should always come first. I just don’t see this is a woman’s rights issue. It’s about abortion, not feminism.


----------



## dereko1969

T McGibney said:


> Gemma O'Doherty stands over her story and has since reinforced it in separate articles. Are you saying its untrue?


 
I have no idea if it's true or not. What I do know is that she didn't carry out the investigation, it was carried out by anti-choice activists and I don't believe that Gemma O'Doherty has seen the unedited footage, all she has reported on is footage provided to her by people with a vested interest.

So it would be the same if the IFPA provided video footage of meetings they had undercover with Youth Defence or SPUC, I wouldn't trust it.

The fact that the articles are written implying that the Indo actually did some proper journalism itself is very annoying too - the Indo exposed etc they didn't, they regurgitated information spoon fed to them.


----------



## orka

Purple said:


> nobody here (so far) is against the morning after pill.


At least one person on this thread has stated they are against it.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> The idea that only women should have a voice in that discussion or a say in that decision is deeply sexist and offensive. Men are parents too and they love their children just as much as mothers do.


 
I think men should be involved in the discussion and any referdum, but it would be impossible to legislate for men to be party to the decision to have an abortion - the woman can simply say she is not sure who the father is and likewise the father might deny he is the father at all. The father might be on holidays even!


----------



## T McGibney

Firefly said:


> it would be impossible to legislate for men to be party to the decision to have an abortion - the woman can simply say she is not sure who the father is and likewise the father might deny he is the father at all. The father might be on holidays even!



If the extent of the father's rights isn't addressed by legislation, any resulting vacuum will inevitably lead to legal challenges such as [broken link removed].


----------



## T McGibney

dereko1969 said:


> I have no idea if it's true or not. What I do know is that she didn't carry out the investigation, it was carried out by anti-choice activists and I don't believe that Gemma O'Doherty has seen the unedited footage, all she has reported on is footage provided to her by people with a vested interest.



Have you a source for these assertions?


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> My apologies; I didn’t mean to offend or hurt you. I just find the whole premise that this is a women’s issue and men either don’t understand or shouldn’t have a say to be spurious.
> 
> .


 
Thank you for that Purple, I do not recall every saying that men should have no say. I believe that both men and women should have a vote on abortion. If I were preganant and for whatever reason wanted an abortion I think it should be a matter for discussion between me and my husband (or long term partner). But I don't think for rape, incest and one night stand any man should have a say. In Saudi Arabia (might be the wrong country) women can only have an abortion with the consent of the husband, do you think that's the right approach? But take an ordinary couple how on earth in our society could you legislate to solve a dispute of such magnitude between a husband and wife.


----------



## Bronte

orka said:


> At least one person on this thread has stated they are against it.


 
I don't recall that?


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> Have you a source for these assertions?


 

Surely what is more important is why are people like Youth Defence going around checking up on women's advice centres?  Like what is that, we are going to be policed by them?  They want to control our options and what next will they want to control?


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> Surely what is more important is why are people like Youth Defence going around checking up on women's advice centres?  Like what is that, we are going to be policed by them?  They want to control our options and what next will they want to control?



Why change the subject?

Why are Youth Defence important anyway? Their fanaticism gives me (and I'd imagine most people) the creeps.


----------



## Firefly

T McGibney said:


> If the extent of the father's rights isn't addressed by legislation, any resulting vacuum will inevitably lead to legal challenges such as [broken link removed].


 
That's a good point. Tricky innit?


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> Why change the subject?
> 
> .


 
I'm not trying to change the subject, you brought up the article yesterday and now you're debating with Dereko about whether the author investigated herself or not. But surely it's important to debate what's in the article too. 

In any case I've reread the article now and it's quite clear that the anti abortion people (presumable Youth Defence, Life Institute, Iona etc - we don't know because they have not declared themselves but one can take an educated guess) supplied the reporter with some tapes. Not sure if they are all the tapes they made but the reporter based her article on that. It would be important to know for example if women were given all options, such as adoption and help to deal with continuing a pregnancy and were these deleted from the tapes. 

I think we have a right to question the motives of those who are doing investigations in these circumstances and supplying it to journalists and I wonder is it legal for them to have done so and why are they hiding behind the name 'pro life movement' instead of allowing the reporter to name them.


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> But I don't think for rape, incest and one night stand any man should have a say.


I agree.


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> I agree.


 
And a more difficult question is whether one thinks the women in those circumstances should be allowed to choose abortion?


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> I'm not trying to change the subject, you brought up the article yesterday and now you're debating with Dereko about whether the author investigated herself or not. But surely it's important to debate what's in the article too.
> 
> In any case I've reread the article now and it's quite clear that the anti abortion people (presumable Youth Defence, Life Institute, Iona etc - we don't know because they have not declared themselves but one can take an educated guess) supplied the reporter with some tapes. Not sure if they are all the tapes they made but the reporter based her article on that. It would be important to know for example if women were given all options, such as adoption and help to deal with continuing a pregnancy and were these deleted from the tapes.
> 
> I think we have a right to question the motives of those who are doing investigations in these circumstances and supplying it to journalists and I wonder is it legal for them to have done so and why are they hiding behind the name 'pro life movement' instead of allowing the reporter to name them.



Note that I haven't debated anything with @dereko. He has made allegations and I merely queried his source or basis for same. 

I originally referenced the Indo story in response to another poster's "nobody will ever tell lies" claim. Funny how the reaction was an attempt to discredit the provenance of the story without addressing the issue that was actually being discussed.


----------



## dereko1969

T McGibney said:


> Have you a source for these assertions?


 
It's an opinion. She has never stated that she saw the entire footage, and could not do so, as she was only shown five hours of footage. She has never stated that she asked to see further footage, which would be a starting point. 

Now I'm basing all this on the articles, in none of which she seems to have investigated those who provided the footage, nor queried their motives.

You can believe everything she's written, I'm choosing not to given the dearth of actual research she has aluded to in her articles.


----------



## Bronte

As many of you have no doubt been following we know know that a termination was asked for. Whether it would have saved a life we do not know. But it is clear the new legislation will not solve the issue of a women's health or any many other mirad of important reasons that we Irish people cannot deal with. It will not change the women travelling to the UK, so that's ok then I guess so I've no idea what the likes of YD/Iona etc are getting so worked up about. They meanwhile are raking in the cash dollars. 

Two points about the governement debates that were not clear to me:

Did any of the 150,000 women who have had abortions in the UK give evidence or any of their partners or any of their children or relations? Any of the women who gave their harrowing stories on the Joe Duffy show and elsewhere?

Did anyone ask the medical profession how many women are referred to the UK for termination by them and under what circumstances?

As this is so much a women's issue, we have had since this errupted, the truly appalling Indian rape and death case, which has certainly opened my eyes to what goes on in that country in relation to it's respect of women and then while I pondered deeply on that, and thought about how come women are valued at so little, we have our very own very distressing rape/incest case and the travesty of that, since put to right some might say, but the damage is done, what woman would go to court, what women would let her daughter go to court. A Pandora's box perhaps without Elpis.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> As many of you have no doubt been following we know know that a termination was asked for.



Do we?

Note the following tweet on 22 Jan.


> *Paul Cullen*             ‏@*paulcullenit*                                                                Savita: time to clear up some confusion in last week's  reporting. There is NO request for a termination recorded in the  medical notes.


----------



## TarfHead

Yeah, but ..

This then gets messy.

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/145.jpg

Time for the lawyers and medical practitioners to agree what 'request' means.

Is '_could the pregnancy be terminated_' a request ?
Is '_we want this pregnancy to be terminated_' a request ?

This is why barristers earn the big bucks.


----------



## michaelm

Bronte said:


> I've no idea what the likes of YD/Iona etc are getting so worked up about. They meanwhile are raking in the cash dollars.


No idea?  The pro-life side oppose any legislation for the same reason the the pro-choice side supports it; both sides believe that it will open the door to abortion (for clarity: the direct and intentional killing of the unborn) in Ireland.

As to cash dollars, I'm surprised that you seem unaware of who really chucks the big bucks around, and to whom that money goes.





Bronte said:


> . . the truly appalling Indian rape and death case, which has certainly opened my eyes to what goes on in that country in relation to it's respect of women . .


You can add gendercide to that.


----------



## T McGibney

TarfHead said:


> Yeah, but ..
> 
> This then gets messy.
> 
> http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/145.jpg
> 
> Time for the lawyers and medical practitioners to agree what 'request' means.
> 
> Is '_could the pregnancy be terminated_' a request ?
> Is '_we want this pregnancy to be terminated_' a request ?
> 
> This is why barristers earn the big bucks.



That entire webpage is worth a read: http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/01/23/medical-notes-weirdness/

Also this: 
[broken link removed]

Everything still clear as mud.


----------



## coleman

Deleted - changed my mind


----------



## Bronte

*51% likelyhood of dying before action can be taken to save your life*

Where do doctors get the percentage that a pregnant woman has to have a 51% chance of dying before they will intervene to save her life? Do they learn this in medical school, is it in the medical guidelines or does it depend on the hospital. Do all hospitals have the same percentage or is 51% unique to Galway. Or does it depend on the doctor. What above doctors trained abroad, how do they learn of this percentage.

Is there any other area of medicine where one hangs around and waits and watches a women detoriate until they will intervene to a level of likelyhood of death of 51%?


----------



## blueband

id say its 51% across the board in all hospitals, cant see galway having special rules of its own.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> Where do doctors get the percentage that a pregnant woman has to have a 51% chance of dying before they will intervene to save her life?



Sounds like a gross misrepresentation of the actual position.



Bronte said:


> f medicine where one hangs around and waits and  watches a women detoriate until they will intervene to a level of  likelyhood of death of 51%?


Definitely a gross misrepresentation of the actual position.


----------



## Nige

Is it though? The constitution provides for the "equal" right to life of the "unborn". If both if equal rights and a "substantial" risk to the life of the mother is required, I can easily see how the doctor felt that the risk had to be 51% to the mother to justify a termination.

This ties into the testimony of Dr Rhona Mahony to the Dail committee where she queried what is meant by "substantial" risk and noted that from her experience, one person may think a risk of 20% was too substantial to continue with a pregnancy but another would be willing to accept that risk.


----------



## celebtastic

Almost 25 years after JPII came to Ireland to peddle his misogynistic views on womens right to choose, we are still debating the 8th amendment to our constitution.

Sad to see the church still has such a stranglehold on womens rights in Ireland.

Will we never get rid of the influence of the horrid little Priesteeen?


----------



## T McGibney

Nige said:


> This ties into the testimony of Dr Rhona Mahony to the Dail committee where she queried what is meant by "substantial" risk and noted that from her experience, one person may think a risk of 20% was too substantial to continue with a pregnancy but another would be willing to accept that risk.



She, and her peers, are eminent professionals who are each handsomely paid to make such decisions. The extremely low rates of Irish maternity mortality clearly indicate that between them they are doing an excellent job in that regard, but the pro-abortion cheerleaders claim expectant mothers are dying like flies. Make of that what you will.

Now the nonsense of "51% risk" is being cited. 

If our eminent consultant physicians ever studied English in school they will know that "a real and substantial risk" does not axiomatically equate to a 51% risk. (Note that risk assessment and quantification aren't exactly unknown in professional public administration, the risk of abscondment in bail cases, and the risk of recividism in parole cases being but two examples.)

And even if they didn't, a €10 dictionary will put them right.

A lot cheaper, and less bloody, than bringing in abortion at the behest of a loud minority.


----------



## celebtastic

T McGibney said:


> A lot cheaper, and less bloody, than bringing in abortion at the behest of a loud minority.




What "loud minority"? 

The plain people of Ireland voted for abortion after the X case

The church doesnt like it, so they keep stirring it up time and again


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> Sounds like a gross misrepresentation of the actual position.
> 
> 
> Definitely a gross misrepresentation of the actual position.


 
How is what I've posted a gross misrepresentation of the actual position.  Do you not think that a doctor who has testified that she had to wait until there was a 51% risk of death is telling the truth.  Or do you think she was incorrect?  Or do you think her particular 'interpretation' of the law was incorrect?  

________________________

In relation to the law, why do doctors have to think of the law in this area instead of making a clinical decision on what is best for the pregnant woman.  It doesn't seem right that doctors have to concentrate on interpreting Supreme court judgements, 1800's legislation and medical council guidelines before concentrating on the medical issues.  Maybe doctors need a lawyer by their side in the the operating room.


----------



## Bronte

Nige said:


> This ties into the testimony of Dr Rhona Mahony to the Dail committee where she queried what is meant by "substantial" risk and noted that from her experience, one person may think a risk of 20% was too substantial to continue with a pregnancy but another would be willing to accept that risk.


 
And of course the women herself has no say whatever is what is an acceptable risk to her.  Which will not be changed by legislating for X.  

How can it be right that a woman has no input into a decision that could be life threatening for her ?


----------



## ali

celebtastic said:


> Almost 25 years after JPII came to Ireland to peddle his misogynistic views on womens right to choose, we are still debating the 8th amendment to our constitution.
> 
> Sad to see the church still has such a stranglehold on womens rights in Ireland.
> 
> Will we never get rid of the influence of the horrid little Priesteeen?



A huge bug bear for me. I don't believe that everyone who opposes abortion does so from a religious point of view. I certainly don't. I'm a woman, a feminist and I support divorce, access to contraception, equal rights for gay couples and many issues which are considered liberal and the antithesis of Catholic thinking. I'm also an atheist and I strongly oppose the provision of abortion services on demand. I struggle like many people with the boundaries of where abortion could / should be made available but I think it should be a last resort. 

This notion of the right to choose bothers me and more so this concept of "a woman never chooses an abortion lightly and it's a deeply personal and difficult decision to make - it should be left up to her to make it - it's her body". It is also the body of the potential human being she is carrying and also the child of another person - the father. And women make stupid and selfish and irresponsible decisions all the time - just like men do. Because we are people. We also make clever, well thought out, informed decisions - but why we should assume that this will always be the case when the decision to terminate a pregnancy is in question?


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> How is what I've posted a gross misrepresentation of the actual position.



My most recent post should explain.



Bronte said:


> Do you not think that a doctor who has  testified that she had to wait until there was a 51% risk of death is  telling the truth.  Or do you think she was incorrect?  Or do you think  her particular 'interpretation' of the law was incorrect?



Ditto



Bronte said:


> In relation to the law, why do doctors have to think of the law in this  area instead of making a clinical decision on what is best for the  pregnant woman.  It doesn't seem right that doctors have to concentrate  on interpreting Supreme court judgements, 1800's legislation and medical  council guidelines before concentrating on the medical issues.  Maybe  doctors need a lawyer by their side in the the operating room.



Doctors, in all situations, are professionally and legally obliged both to think of, and have regard for, the law. The case of Harold Shipman and the ongoing (and unspeakably horrific) trial of abortion clinic owner Kermit Gosnell should help you understand the dangers of ignoring this core principle of medicine.


----------



## Nige

T McGibney said:


> The extremely low rates of Irish maternity mortality clearly indicate that between them they are doing an excellent job in that regard, but the pro-abortion cheerleaders claim expectant mothers are dying like flies. Make of that what you will.


 
A maternal mortality rate of 8/100,000 is not "extremely low", it's about average for developed countries.

I haven't noticed anyone claiming expectant mothers are "dying like flies" (what lovely terminology). However, we do know that women such as Michelle Harte who are suffering from cancer, avail of abortion services in the UK, on the advice of their doctors.


----------



## blueband

ali said:


> A huge bug bear for me. I don't believe that everyone who opposes abortion does so from a religious point of view. I certainly don't. I'm a woman, a feminist and I support divorce, access to contraception, equal rights for gay couples and many issues which are considered liberal and the antithesis of Catholic thinking. I'm also an atheist and I strongly oppose the provision of abortion services on demand. I struggle like many people with the boundaries of where abortion could / should be made available but I think it should be a last resort.
> 
> This notion of the right to choose bothers me and more so this concept of "a woman never chooses an abortion lightly and it's a deeply personal and difficult decision to make - it should be left up to her to make it - it's her body". It is also the body of the potential human being she is carrying and also the child of another person - the father. And women make stupid and selfish and irresponsible decisions all the time - just like men do. Because we are people. We also make clever, well thought out, informed decisions - but why we should assume that this will always be the case when the decision to terminate a pregnancy is in question?


very good post ali


----------



## Nige

Dr Peter Boylan is reported to have told the inquest into the death of Savita Halappanavar that legally, she could not have an abortion on the Tuesday, when she requested it as there was not a "substantial" risk to her life at that point. However, if she had had an abortion then, she would most likely be still alive today.


----------



## michaelm

Nige said:


> However, if she had had an abortion then, she would most likely be still alive today.


Your opinion or did Dr. Peter Boylan say that?

[broken link removed] by Dr. Sam Coulter-Smith (Master of the Rotunda) re medical ethical dilemmas in caring for mother and unborn child is worth watching for those interested who have 20 minutes to spare.


----------



## Nige

michaelm said:


> Your opinion or did Dr. Peter Boylan say that?


 
Dr Boylan said it.


----------



## T McGibney

Nige said:


> Dr Peter Boylan is reported to have told the inquest into the death of Savita Halappanavar that legally, she could not have an abortion on the Tuesday, when she requested it as there was not a "substantial" risk to her life at that point. However, if she had had an abortion then, she would most likely be still alive today.



There was a substantial risk to her life on the Tuesday, but the medical staff were not aware of this because they had previously failed to carry out tests that would have detected such a risk.


----------



## T McGibney

Nige said:


> A maternal mortality rate of 8/100,000 is not "extremely low", it's about average for developed countries.
> 
> I haven't noticed anyone claiming expectant mothers are "dying like flies" (what lovely terminology). However, we do know that women such as Michelle Harte who are suffering from cancer, avail of abortion services in the UK, on the advice of their doctors.



2010 stats from the Lancet, reproduced in the Guardian confirm Ireland's maternal mortality rate at 5.7/100,000.

This is:
30% lower than the UK rate of 8.2/100,000;
43% lower than the French rate of 10.0/100,000;  and 
65% lower than the US rate of 16.7/100,000.


----------



## Nige

T McGibney said:


> 2010 stats from the Lancet, reproduced in the Guardian confirm Ireland's maternal mortality rate at 5.7/100,000.


 
I suggest you read the Maternal Death Enquiry in Ireland report ([broken link removed]) which gives the rate of 8/100,000 and also addresses the historical issues with figures in Ireland which resulted in an under reporting of maternal mortality here.


----------



## Nige

T McGibney said:


> There was a substantial risk to her life on the Tuesday, but the medical staff were not aware of this because they had previously failed to carry out tests that would have detected such a risk.


 
That doesn't tie into Dr Boylan's testimony. He said that there was no substantial risk to her life when she requested the termination on Tuesday. 

From what I can make of his testimony, sepsis, which was diagnosed at 6:30am on Wednesday may have been there for a number of hours beforehand, but not days as each hour of non-treatment increases the mortality rate by 6%.


----------



## T McGibney

Nige said:


> I suggest you read the Maternal Death Enquiry in Ireland report ([broken link removed]) which gives the rate of 8/100,000 and also addresses the historical issues with figures in Ireland which resulted in an under reporting of maternal mortality here.



I have read it, and note that it counts deaths within 1 year after end of pregnancy as a maternal death.  This seems to be a rather generous definition. 

There is no mention of whether the 'historical issues' of reporting in Ireland are replicated elsewhere, so it is impossible to deduce international comparisons on foot of it.  The report does mention a UK initiative to improve their own reporting, so its quite likely that the previously stated UK figure of 8.2/100,000 is also understated.

I note also that the report doesn't mention abortion non-availability as a contributory factor towards maternal mortality.


----------



## T McGibney

Nige said:


> That doesn't tie into Dr Boylan's testimony. He said that there was no substantial risk to her life when she requested the termination on Tuesday.
> 
> From what I can make of his testimony, sepsis, which was diagnosed at 6:30am on Wednesday may have been there for a number of hours beforehand, but not days as each hour of non-treatment increases the mortality rate by 6%.



But didnt she display symptoms on Monday which would normally have been expected to warrant blood tests, but which weren't completed. Hence the doctors were unable to recognise any risk to her life on Tuesday.


----------



## Bronte

blueband said:


> id say its 51% across the board in all hospitals, cant see galway having special rules of its own.


 
Well appartently the 51% is wrong according to Boylan, for him you have to be at risk of dying of between 20% and 40%. A real and substantial risk that is. I wonder which pregnant women are entitled to a termination at 20% and which at 40%. Maybe it's 20% on Mondays rising to 40% on Fridays. 

There's also the question of how the doctors measure this.

The Supreme Court never mentioned percentages. So that's not very helpful. 

Having gone through pregnancy myself and having kids to look after and a husband thus being a family that needs me, if I were pregnant today I wouldn't find 51% nor 40% nor 20% acceptable risk, maybe 1%, max 5%. But being merely the pregnant women in that situation my views count for naught. 

If I had no kids, had been trying desparately for 10 years I might find 60% acceptable even if the doctors would only accept 20%. And in that situation the doctors would have to take my views into account.

And this counts for top class maternity care in a first world country.


----------



## Bronte

michaelm said:


> Your opinion or did Dr. Peter Boylan say that?
> 
> .


 

Yes he certainly said it and he did a wonderful job didn't he.  It's the law stupid that's at fault.  Nothing to do with the complete and utter incompetence of most of the medical team in Galway particular, oh wait, another obstetrician.

Brilliant performance by Boylan.  

(Michaelm you and I don't agree about abortion so to be clear my expression with the word stupid in it is not directed at you it's just an expression)


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> But didnt she display symptoms on Monday which would normally have been expected to warrant blood tests, but which weren't completed. Hence the doctors were unable to recognise any risk to her life on Tuesday.


 
Even if they had done the tests and shown any kind of proper medical care and attention and worked out there was a risk, the doctors have decided that because of the law the risk has to be 'real and substantial' before they will intervene. That's the viewpoint coming from all the doctors. They are all on message on this. 

In any other first world country they would have done the termination on the Monday. You wouldn't be waiting around for risk to increase, or indeed waiting for a risk at all. Inevitable miscarriage, pain, and ruptured membranes is good enough anywhere else. 

Did anyone honestly believe that one Irish doctor would ever castigate another. Why do you think Midwife Burke left out the Catholic country remark in her draft statement, and why do you think she was not on the list of witnesses, she who was so central to the care of Savita and why do you think another midwife is so ill she cannot attend the inquest.

It will be quite interesting to compare the 'draft' report, not the one that will be fixed after this, versus what we've heard in the inquest.


----------



## celebtastic

ali said:


> A huge bug bear for me. I don't believe that everyone who opposes abortion does so from a religious point of view. I certainly don't. I'm a woman, a feminist and I support divorce, access to contraception, equal rights for gay couples and many issues which are considered liberal and the antithesis of Catholic thinking. I'm also an atheist and I strongly oppose the provision of abortion services on demand. I struggle like many people with the boundaries of where abortion could / should be made available but I think it should be a last resort.
> 
> This notion of the right to choose bothers me and more so this concept of "a woman never chooses an abortion lightly and it's a deeply personal and difficult decision to make - it should be left up to her to make it - it's her body". It is also the body of the potential human being she is carrying and also the child of another person - the father. And women make stupid and selfish and irresponsible decisions all the time - just like men do. Because we are people. We also make clever, well thought out, informed decisions - but why we should assume that this will always be the case when the decision to terminate a pregnancy is in question?


 
An atheist feminist who embraces the Catholic church's view that women are simply vessels to procreate? How unusual.

What sort of feminist or atheist supports the view that women should die in pain, because "this is a Catholic country"?


----------



## Bronte

celebtastic said:


> An atheist feminist who embraces the Catholic church's view that women are simply vessels to procreate? How unusual.
> 
> What sort of feminist or atheist supports the view that women should die in pain, because "this is a Catholic country"?


 
I don't know about that Celebastic, Ali's post was a very interesting viewpoint from an atheist. I certainly didn't see it being from someone embracing the RCC's viewpoint. Also she did mention that abortion should be a last resort so I don't think it's fair to say that she supports a women dying in pain, she presumably along with most right thinking people including I assume everyone on this thread that Savita should have had a termination on the Monday. 

Maybe there are people on this thread that think there should have been no termination before the Wednesday but I don't think so. No matter how ardently anti abortion you are surely. 

In relation to the RCC and it's treatment of women, where would I start.  So I do agree with your previous post on that.


----------



## delgirl

Sepsis diagnosis failure aside, her pregnancy wasn't viable, she had ruptured membranes, a fully dialated cervix and had an elevated white bloodcell count.  

She was told at the hospital that her pregnancy wasn't viable and should have been given an immediate termination.

I went through a very similar crisis in the UK a number of years ago and am glad that I was living in London and not Ireland at the time or I may not be alive now to tell the tale.


----------



## michaelm

Bronte said:


> Maybe there are people on this thread that think there should have been no termination before the Wednesday but I don't think so. No matter how ardently anti abortion you are surely.


Dr. Boylan's opinion, no doubt expert and benefiting from hindsight, is an opinion.  Other doctors may disagree, for example Dr. Divakar of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India, see here.  In this specific case the doctors perhaps should have clinically diagnosed sepsis at an earlier stage.  We can't know whether an earlier termination would have resulted in a different outcome.

In any event, I think you're mistaken to assume that those who are 'ardently anti abortion' would agree with termination of pregnancy in cases where the life of the mother is not perceived to be at risk.


----------



## T McGibney

delgirl said:


> Sepsis diagnosis failure aside, her pregnancy wasn't viable, she had ruptured membranes, a fully dialated cervix and had an elevated white bloodcell count.
> 
> She was told at the hospital that her pregnancy wasn't viable and should have been given an immediate termination.



I agree 100%. 

The problem is that this case seems to have been dogged by incompetence and poor decision making at all levels, with extremely tragic consequences. 

A notion is now being peddled that an abortion would have saved her. (This depends on the assumption that a medical team that couldn't properly organise blood tests or read charts would be capable of making an emergency decision to terminate, let alone perform the termination.) This may well be so. But in that case, the question must be asked of the doctors: why didn't you perform an abortion?  If the child was more than likely unviable, then the issue of any infringement of their right to life was moot anyway.

The doctors' response to this uncomfortable question now seems to be to circle the wagons and pretend that the law somehow intimidated them into inaction.  This is based apparently on a notion that a real & substantial risk to life equates to a 51% risk of death.

This is so disingenuous as to insult common sense. 

If a patient presents with appendicitis symptoms, there is a real and substantial risk to their life if left untreated. In a developed health system, the statistical risk of death from appendicitis may only be 0.01% but it is real and substantial. Hence a doctor who fails to treat appendicitis will face consequences, and rightly so. 

Why do these basic principles not apply to pregnant woman presenting with twin symptoms of infection and miscarriage?


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> The problem is that this case seems to have been dogged by incompetence and poor decision making at all levels, with extremely tragic consequences.
> 
> A notion is now being peddled that an abortion would have saved her. (This depends on the assumption that a medical team that couldn't properly organise blood tests or read charts would be capable of making an emergency decision to terminate, let alone perform the termination.) This may well be so. But in that case, the question must be asked of the doctors: why didn't you perform an abortion?  If the child was more than likely unviable, then the issue of any infringement of their right to life was moot anyway.
> 
> The doctors' response to this uncomfortable question now seems to be to circle the wagons and pretend that the law somehow intimidated them into inaction.  This is based apparently on a notion that a real & substantial risk to life equates to a 51% risk of death.
> 
> This is so disingenuous as to insult common sense.
> 
> If a patient presents with appendicitis symptoms, there is a real and substantial risk to their life if left untreated. In a developed health system, the statistical risk of death from appendicitis may only be 0.01% but it is real and substantial. Hence a doctor who fails to treat appendicitis will face consequences, and rightly so.
> 
> Why do these basic principles not apply to pregnant woman presenting with twin symptoms of infection and miscarriage?



Agree 100% with that.


----------



## bullbars

celebtastic said:


> An atheist feminist who embraces the Catholic church's view that women are simply vessels to procreate? How unusual.
> 
> What sort of feminist or atheist supports the view that women should die in pain, because "this is a Catholic country"?



Not what ali stated or intimated but nice twist of words there, perhaps you can blame the church on toast landing butter side down next?


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> Well appartently the 51% is wrong according to Boylan, for him you have to be at risk of dying of between 20% and 40%. A real and substantial risk that is. I wonder which pregnant women are entitled to a termination at 20% and which at 40%. Maybe it's 20% on Mondays rising to 40% on Fridays.


This is an ill informed and frankly disgusting remark. Devoid of conscious thought. It's akin to one labeling all pro-choice members of society as outright baby killers. 


Bronte said:


> There's also the question of how the doctors measure this.
> The Supreme Court never mentioned percentages. So that's not very helpful.


You do realise there is no digital read out on a womans forehead detailing what level she is currently at? Medical staff can only use their respective training and expertise to assess a patient based on how they are responding to treatment.  If, hypothetically, they had proceeded with a termination but only afterward found that both patient and child would on probability have survived then we’d be sat here debating why doctors didn’t continue with treatment and then assess the response.


Bronte said:


> if I were pregnant today I wouldn't find 51% nor 40% nor 20% acceptable risk, maybe 1%, max 5%. But being merely the pregnant women in that situation my views count for naught.


Ridiculous contradiction. You do realise that by getting pregnant in the first place you have inherently put your risk level above the 1% to 5%? Pregnancy is a massive drain and stress on both body and mind; exposing it to numerous possible outcomes for both mother and child. To say that you want a zero risk pregnancy yet bore a number of offspring is illogical. 
You have children who have put your life at risk, through no fault of their own; yet prior to birth if they risk your life at any stage, you’d be ready to abort.


Bronte said:


> If I had no kids, had been trying desparately for 10 years I might find 60% acceptable even if the doctors would only accept 20%. And in that situation the doctors would have to take my views into account.


No they don’t. They are bound to preserve the life of both mother and child.


Bronte said:


> And this counts for top class maternity care in a first world country.


You have a better system I assume. Feel free to set up the Bronte hospital of Unicorns and Rainbows where nothing wrong ever happens and hindsight is a perfect treatment plan.


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> the doctors have decided that because of the law the risk has to be 'real and substantial' before they will intervene. That's the viewpoint coming from all the doctors. They are all on message on this. .


The doctors haven’t decided anything; they must follow the law on this. You seem confused about this.


Bronte said:


> In any other first world country they would have done the termination on the Monday. You wouldn't be waiting around for risk to increase, or indeed waiting for a risk at all.


Would they or is this speculation to suit your emotional outcry of righteousness?


Bronte said:


> Did anyone honestly believe that one Irish doctor would ever castigate another.


Yes, just like in any other profession, or does this not fit in with your conspiracy theory. 


Bronte said:


> Why do you think Midwife Burke left out the Catholic country remark in her draft statement, and why do you think she was not on the list of witnesses, she who was so central to the care of Savita


Did she not leave it out as she thought it a comment made in general conversation? Also accepted by Mr. Hallapanvar as a general comment not a medical reason. 


Bronte said:


> and why do you think another midwife is so ill she cannot attend the inquest.


Perhaps you know more- are you saying she is blatantly lying? Serious remark to make without any relevant reasoning.



Bronte said:


> It will be quite interesting to compare the 'draft' report, not the one that will be fixed after this, versus what we've heard in the inquest.


Heard at the inquest or (mis)read in the media?


----------



## orka

bullbars said:


> Ridiculous contradiction. You do realise that by getting pregnant in the first place you have inherently put your risk level above the 1% to 5%?


Really?  Getting pregnant puts your risk (of dying) level above 1% to 5%?  So we lose more than 1 woman per 100 pregnancies?


----------



## bullbars

orka said:


> Really?  Getting pregnant puts your risk (of dying) level above 1% to 5%?  So we lose more than 1 woman per 100 pregnancies?



Nope. What happens there is medical proffesionals can and do intervene to alleviate the risks and work around them. There are a plethora of conditions both physical and mental that go hand in hand with pregnancy. I was addressing Bronte's insistence on a zero risk pregnancy.


----------



## orka

bullbars said:


> You do realise that by getting pregnant in the first place you have inherently put your risk level above the 1% to 5%?





bullbars said:


> What happens there is medical proffesionals can and do intervene to alleviate the risks and work around them. There are a plethora of conditions both physical and mental that go hand in hand with pregnancy.


Bronte presumably got pregnant in a medically advanced country in modern times, not the middle ages so where does the inherent 'above 1% to 5%' risk of dying come from? 

And I'll let Bronte answer herself but I'm pretty sure she wants as low a risk as possible, not zero (which would be great but impossible). And I'm with Bronte, if a doctor told me it was a 10% chance of death without an abortion, I would go with the abortion - the best decision for me, my husband and my other children.


----------



## bullbars

orka said:


> not zero (which would be great but impossible).



That is my point. If you are pregnant you have to undertake that your actions come with risks. 
At present the law gives a value to the life created by the actions of the parents.


----------



## orka

bullbars said:


> At present the law gives a value to the life created by the actions of the parents.


And as the Savita inquest is hearing, too much value is given to the life of the foetus, even when it is accepted as no longer viable.  Dr Boylan was very very clear that while there were undoubtedly shortcomings in Savita's care, these only changed the inevitable by hours as it was the law which prevented the doctors terminating the pregnancy on the Monday or Tuesday - Savita was not at enough risk of death for the law to allow the doctors to terminate until the Wednesday morning.
No major medical negligence is emerging from the inquest as the anti-abortion side must have hoped; it's coming down to the legal position hampering doctors' actions and that just has to be addressed.  Change will come.


----------



## T McGibney

orka said:


> And I'm with Bronte, if a doctor told me it was a 10% chance of death without an abortion, I would go with the abortion - the best decision for me, my husband and my other children.



Note that the existing law would support your decision to terminate, as a 10% risk (or even a much smaller risk) of death would present a real and substantial threat to your life.


----------



## orka

T McGibney said:


> Note that the existing law would support your decision to terminate, as a 10% risk (or even a much smaller risk) of death would present a real and substantial threat to your life.


Unfortunately, there is no agreed legal definition of what 'real and substantial' means. I agree that, to me, 10% is real and substantial but the doctors are currently hampered by the lack of an agreed threshold. Where does it become 'real and substantial'? Bullbars would have us believe that anyone getting pregnant has agreed to dice with death - so is there always a real chance of death in pregnancy? If so, then we're on to what constitutes 'substantial'? 51%? 20%? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0.1%? And how do you even measure the percentage chance of death? Without lots of statistics of cases with exactly the same symptoms/conditions, it's a doctor's judgement. 

So back to the doctors - if they decide it is real and substantial, they can do an abortion. But if they get it wrong, they can go to prison (and/or be pulled up before a committe on medical malpractice which I can't imagine is pleasant for any doctor). So they wait until there is absolutely no way they can be retrospectively challenged that there was indeed a real and substantial risk. And most of the time, waiting will be fine. But very occasionally, it won't be. And I don't want that occasion to be me, my daughter, my sister, my friend or, actually, anybody.


----------



## bullbars

orka said:


> Bullbars would have us believe that anyone getting pregnant has agreed to dice with death - so is there always a real chance of death in pregnancy?



Care to re-read my comments again? What I stated is that there is no such things as a zero risk pregnancy, which you then agreed with.


----------



## bullbars

orka said:


> So they wait until there is absolutely no way they can be retrospectively challenged that there was indeed a real and substantial risk. And most of the time, waiting will be fine.



Is this based on anything other than guessing to suit a point of view?


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> The problem is that this case seems to have been dogged by incompetence and poor decision making at all levels, with extremely tragic consequences.
> 
> A notion is now being peddled that an abortion would have saved her. This may well be so. But in that case, the question must be asked of the doctors: why didn't you perform an abortion?


 

Excellent post Tommy - all of it.  I've left those two bits there as the issue is both legal and medical.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> Not what ali stated or intimated but nice twist of words there, perhaps you can blame the church on toast landing butter side down next?


 
Charming as always bullbars.  You want to see off Celebastic maybe?

In relation to the Roman Catholic Church and toast, maybe they believe that toast landing butter side down is something to do with them, that's not something I would know.  And it's not something I'd worry about.  They had a man hanged for proving the world was round. 

Treatment and the reasons for treatment of women in hospitals in Ireland and the reasons for our ethics and laws would be of far more relevance which is what Celebastic was getting at as you well know.  Should we discuss syphysiotomy perhaps?  Or more importantly why it was so prevelant in Irish hospitals and other RCC countries.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> Ridiculous contradiction. You do realise that by getting pregnant in the first place you have inherently put your risk level above the 1% to 5%? Pregnancy is a massive drain and stress on both body and mind; exposing it to numerous possible outcomes for both mother and child. To say that you want a zero risk pregnancy yet bore a number of offspring is illogical.
> You have children who have put your life at risk, through no fault of their own; yet prior to birth if they risk your life at any stage, you’d be ready to abort.
> 
> .


 
You can talk down to me all you like, you can believe that I who merely had pregnancies and babies know nothing, you wouldn't be the first that completely dismissed my own pregnancy experiencies on here, you can think that you know what I would do if had a risky pregnancy, you can take my post apart point by point if that helps you. 

But you cannot state that I would have an abortion because even you do not know this. I may state on here that I find a 1% risk unacceptable or even a 5% risk. That is a different thing to saying I would in those circumstances have an abortion. At the time I would in all probability have one, weighting up all the circumstances and the need of my family to have me in it.  If I were in an Irish hospital I would of course have no say in the matter.  

Nowhere did I state that I want a zero risk pregnancy. I am talking about the specifics of the question of abortion in the circumstances of which Savita found herself. And for other women who might find themselves in such situations.

Interesting your point of view where a mother is at risk from her pregnancy and she wants to continue but the doctors don't. You think they would force her to have an abortion if it preserved her life? Am I reading you right?


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> Charming as always bullbars.  You want to see off Celebastic maybe?



"See off"? No, I didn't realise Celebtastic is heading away - holidays?



Bronte said:


> In relation to the Roman Catholic Church and toast, maybe they believe that toast landing butter side down is something to do with them, that's not something I would know. And it's not something I'd worry about.



Start a separate thread? Agreed.



Bronte said:


> They had a man hanged for proving the world was round.


I see, and this was recently was it? Are we going to cast back through the annals of history and dig up what each religious group was responsible for? Whats the cut off era, it could get tedious otherwise. 



Bronte said:


> Treatment and the reasons for treatment of women in hospitals in Ireland and the reasons for our ethics and laws would be of far more relevance which is what Celebastic was getting at as you well know.



It wasn't actually. It was twisting an aposing opinion into something inherently different. Just because it may side with your agenda doesn't mean you should blindly follow it.



Bronte said:


> Should we discuss syphysiotomy perhaps?  Or more importantly why it was so prevelant in Irish hospitals and other RCC countries.


I don't know, should we? You brought it up, why is it relevant?


----------



## Bronte

orka said:


> And I'm with Bronte, if a doctor told me it was a 10% chance of death without an abortion, I would go with the abortion - the best decision for me, my husband and my other children.


 
And now we go full circle because you wouldn't have any say in the matter.  Not in Ireland anyway.  And to hell with your husband and other children.  They're a complete irrelevance.


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> You can talk down to me all you like, you can believe that I who merely had pregnancies and babies know nothing, you wouldn't be the first that completely dismissed my own pregnancy experiencies on here, you can think that you know what I would do if had a risky pregnancy,


I haven't "dismissed" your pregnacies  in anyway, ever. 



Bronte said:


> you can take my post apart point by point if that helps you.


 I am commenting on the points individually as it would be illegible otherwise.



Bronte said:


> But you cannot state that I would have an abortion because even you do not know this. I may state on here that I find a 1% risk unacceptable. That is a different thing to saying I would in those circumstances have an abortion.


You did say that 1% would be a maybe - what other recourse do you have to not proceed with the pregnancy?



Bronte said:


> Nowhere did I state that I want a zero risk pregnancy. I am talking about the specifics of the question of abortion in the circumstances of which Savita found herself.  And for other women who might find themselves in such situations.


There are always risks, you assume that she only started at 0% risk when presented to the hospital staff originally she may have been already at the 10% -15% (hypothetically) Other women may find themselves in the same situation and respond better to treatment - or even get the full treatment which seems now to be the crux of the matter.



Bronte said:


> Interesting your point of view where a mother is at risk from her pregnancy and she wants to continue but the doctors don't. You think they would force her to have an abortion if it preserved her life? Am I reading you right?


No, I'm not sure how you gathered that? 
However, I will admit I don't know the legal stance if the mother wishes to proceed knowing that continuing to term will kill her. I'd hazard a guess doctors would be then forced to intervene.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> And now we go full circle because you wouldn't have any say in the matter.  Not in Ireland anyway.



I frankly don't believe this to be the case. Based on my own and my close family members' experiences, I firmly believe that doctors & consultants do take into account the wishes and preferences of their patients, and do, generally, act in accordance with their wishes and preferences.

Granted this didn't happen in Galway with regard to Savita and Praveen but on the other hand, the hospital seems to have made every mistake in the book in relation to Savita's care and treatment. 

I think it would be dangerous to conclude on the basis of her tragic experience that the same sort of bungling is endemic within our maternity health services. On the other hand, if it is, then it clearly isnt the law that is at fault.


----------



## orka

bullbars said:


> Care to re-read my comments again? What I stated is that there is no such things as a zero risk pregnancy, which you then agreed with.


That's one thing you stated. You also asked Bronte (living in a medically-advanced country in modern times) the following question:





bullbars said:


> You do realise that by getting pregnant in the first place you have inherently put your risk level above the 1% to 5%?


You are saying with that question that getting pregnant (in a medically-advanced country in modern times) puts your inherent risk of dying from the pregnancy above 1% to 5% (and presumably the doctors save us from our fate to bring the true rate back to the 8 per 100,000). Can you explain your view that the inherent risk level is above 1% to 5% in a medically advanced country in modern times?


----------



## bullbars

Bronte said:


> And now we go full circle because you wouldn't have any say in the matter.  Not in Ireland anyway.  And to hell with your husband and other children.  They're a complete irrelevance.



What if the expecting mother has no husband or children - does that make her case less relevant? 

"To hell with husband, children" etc. what relevance has that? The doctors are duty bound to care for mother and unborn child. No one has ever suggested that the mother be sacrificed just to ensure the child is born. How are you still confused by this?


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> I am commenting on the points individually as it would be illegible otherwise.
> 
> .


 
From before you know that I find it very difficult to follow you when you dissect me practically word by word. That's my point. AAM is not about that. I don't know why you did it before nor now. It was so bad a couple of months ago I got lost and could not follow you. On a funny note probably it's due brain changes from pregnancy. And yes I do feel my brain changed because of pregnancy.


----------



## bullbars

orka said:


> That's one thing you stated. You also asked Bronte (living in a medically-advanced country* in modern times*)



And here I was thinking she'd given birth in the middle ages. Was it a delorean or a telephone box used to travel through time?



orka said:


> the following question:You are saying with that question that getting pregnant (in a medically-advanced country in modern times) puts your inherent risk of dying from the pregnancy above 1% to 5% (and presumably the doctors save us from our fate to bring the true rate back to the 8 per 100,000). Can you explain your view that the inherent risk level is above 1% to 5% in a medically advanced country in modern times?



A cursory internet search of "Risks to a woman during Pregnancy" throws up a list of both physical and mental conditions that can arise during and after pregnancy. Can some of these result in death? Yes of course, but that is why we (I assume we are talking about modern times now) get continual pre and post pregnancy medical check ups and care.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> , I firmly believe that doctors & consultants do take into account the wishes and preferences of their patients, and do, generally, act in accordance with their wishes and preferences.
> 
> .


 

I believe this too in general. Except in cases of mother's needing abortions. Forget Savita for a moment. What do you think actually happens to women who have say a X% risk in pregnancy in Ireland ?

(The actual percentage amount isn't relevant in general to the answer.)


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> What if the expecting mother has no husband or children - does that make her case less relevant?
> 
> "To hell with husband, children" etc. what relevance has that?


 
The point I'm making and that which you are missing is that a women with zero kids might think a high risk is ok.  A women who already had kids might consider that the needs of those children did not warrant any risk.  

As it is women have no right to decide on an actual abortion.  But in situations where they want to continue an at risk pregnancy, say a low risk, but a real and substantial risk, then the mother can continue with the pregnancy.  Women do this all them time.  Because unbelievable we actually want to have babies and be mothers.  And would put our lives on the line to have them and for them (and men would too, the for them part)


----------



## orka

orka said:


> So they wait until there is absolutely no way they can be retrospectively challenged that there was indeed a real and substantial risk. And most of the time, waiting will be fine.





bullbars said:


> Is this based on anything other than guessing to suit a point of view?


Which bit are you asking about?  That the waiting will be fine?  Or that they wait so they won't be retrospectively challenged?
My most recent views are based on reading reports of the Savita inquest, reports of the recent Oireachtas hearings on abortion.  No doctor will say that they are clear when they can and cannot perform an abortion even with a sick woman and an unviable foetus.  There are grey areas and no clear guidelines on what threshold must be met to ensure that they will not face prosecution.  Who suffers if the unviable foetus is removed from the woman too soon in the eyes of the law?  Only the doctor.  That is not a fair situation to put doctors in which is why they need greater clarity and legal protection.


----------



## orka

bullbars said:


> And here I was thinking she'd given birth in the middle ages.


Wow, stunningly original comeback - where do you get them? 





orka said:


> Bronte presumably got pregnant in a medically advanced country in modern times, not the middle ages...


----------



## orka

bullbars said:


> A cursory internet search of "Risks to a woman during Pregnancy" ...


Once more with feeling, where does your view come from that there is more than 1% to 5% inherent risk of death in getting pregnant?


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> I believe this too in general. Except in cases of mother's needing abortions.



Have you a basis for your belief that doctors shelve their normal patient consultation practices in the case of women with pregnancy complications?

Note that many, if not most, consultants and gynecologists go out of their way to comply with women's preferences in relation to childbirth, specifically where caesarean sections are requested, even to the point that some doctors and hospitals have attracted third party criticism for being too accommodating in this regard. 

It's hard to rationalise how and why these brave & highly experienced professionals suddenly become shrinking violets when confronted by decisions that involve the premature termination of a pregnancy in order to safeguard the mother's life.


----------



## Sunny

T McGibney said:


> Have you a basis for your belief that doctors shelve their normal patient consultation practices in the case of women with pregnancy complications?
> 
> Note that many, if not most, consultants and gynecologists go out of their way to comply with women's preferences in relation to childbirth, specifically where caesarean sections are requested, even to the point that some doctors and hospitals have attracted third party criticism for being too accommodating in this regard.
> 
> It's hard to rationalise how and why these brave & highly experienced professionals suddenly become shrinking violets when confronted by decisions that involve the premature termination of a pregnancy in order to safeguard the mother's life.



They don't face jail for doing a c-section. They might face jail as soon as the issue of terminating a pregnancy comes into play so you can't really compare the two can you? Also no consultant will do a c-section without medical reason. Presume you can back up your claim that they offer them on request. 

This thread has reached the usual conclusion whenever this topic is discussed. People will never change their minds so don't know why the thread is being kept alive.


----------



## orka

Sunny said:


> People will never change their minds so don't know why the thread is being kept alive.


People who feel strongly enough to post are unlikely to change their minds but that doesn't mean that the broader readership of the thread can't be influenced/persuaded in any way.  People can and do change their minds on abortion - the gradual move towards acceptance in Ireland is caused mainly by demographics but also by older people understanding the issue better when it is presented independently and rationally rather than as part of a doctrine that must be obeyed.  It's easy to be anti-abortion when the issue is presented as wanton hussies killing cuddly perfect babies because they couldn't keep their legs together; it becomes a different issue when you can imagine your own daughter/sister/friend dying because an unviable foetus was still alive but the mother wasn't yet sick enough to have it removed.  I know my own father was very anti-abortion for years but he is more pro-wife and pro-daughter and he accepts now that abortion is sometimes necessary.


----------



## celebtastic

orka said:


> People who feel strongly enough to post are unlikely to change their minds but that doesn't mean that the broader readership of the thread can't be influenced/persuaded in any way.  People can and do change their minds on abortion - the gradual move towards acceptance in Ireland is caused mainly by demographics but also by older people understanding the issue better when it is presented independently and rationally rather than as part of a doctrine that must be obeyed.  It's easy to be anti-abortion when the issue is presented as wanton hussies killing cuddly perfect babies because they couldn't keep their legs together; it becomes a different issue when you can imagine your own daughter/sister/friend dying because an unviable foetus was still alive but the mother wasn't yet sick enough to have it removed.  I know my own father was very anti-abortion for years but he is more pro-wife and pro-daughter and he accepts now that abortion is sometimes necessary.



This I'd agree with

As the church finally loosens its awful grip on Irish society, more folks are wakening up to the reality that the rights of women come well ahead of the rights of foetal tissue.

This is what we have already agreed in the last referendum on abortion. The people have spoken - the RC hierarchy dont like it, and they will kick and scream to drag us back to the situation where women should know their place.


----------



## Bronte

Sunny said:


> This thread has reached the usual conclusion whenever this topic is discussed. People will never change their minds so don't know why the thread is being kept alive.


 
I don't believe you're correct on this Sunny.  It is about far more than abortion.  This story has unprecedented implications for Irish society.  There is massive change in the air.  Older people have realised they got it wrong before.  Younger people didn't realise the dangers they were in and what Irish society stood for and they will not stand for it, they were in a fog and most wonderfully of all men now get it, particularly the older men.   

We will look back in history and see this as a wonderful turning point in our history.  A major moment in time. 

And the other side know it, and they don't know what to do about it, the tactics they used the last time will not work now.  They are also exposed as never before, the Breda O' Brien's, the David Quinn's and Patricia Casey's and the others that have over the last few months who have sought to defend the indefensible. Each time they get an outing on radio or TV they make things worse for themselves and dig the hole a little deeper.


----------



## Bronte

bullbars said:


> There are a plethora of conditions both physical and mental that go hand in hand with pregnancy. I was addressing Bronte's insistence on a zero risk pregnancy.


 
Yes there are many implications both physical and mental that occur during pregnancy.  And I have certainly not insisted on any post on a zero risk pregnancy.  As you don't seem to get it I'll repeat, where there is a risk that can be dealt with by a termination, than a mother should be allowed in consultation with her doctor to take the best course of action for her.  Currently Irish women do not have that choice.  They cannot be consulted.  How is that best medical practice in a modern world.  

BTW I gave birth in a top Catholic hospital that carries out abortions where necessary, but there would be no question of hanging around waiting until I were near 1% chance of death never mind 51%.  Any doctor that did that here would be sacked and probably jailed.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

That's all folks!


----------

