the case of savita- i am a bit confused


There's a difference between not having an equal voice and being excluded so the argument isn't valid. As far as I can see no one is saying exclude men from the debate, in fact from what I can see in the media and government the majority of those deciding and debating are men. On here opinions have also been pretty fairly distributed among the sexes and there has been no call to stop men (including me) from debating. The only issue is whether a man can fully understand a woman's view, fears or concerns either way, which is not the same.

The only area I've seen where there is a degree of debate over a man's role is whether the father has an equal say in the abortion or not. I think that is a difficult question to answer, but again it is not the same as being excluded from a debate or from having a say.
 

My child is the most important thing in my life and I love him more than I could possibly put into words BUT if I could go back in time and the decision was mine, I would choose NOT to get pregnant. I do not regret having a baby or not having an abortion but I probably would regret both if my circumstances were different to what they are. By nature, I am very pragmatic and practical so for example, difficult economic circumstances and inability to provide for a child would be a factor for me.
 

Yes, thats really what I meant.

I do know one person who wanted an abortion, her parents persuaded her not to have it, there was no crisis pregnancy counselling or anything like that - it was 20 odd years ago, she lived at home with her parents. Anyway, she had the child, and a few months later simply couldnt cope, had a nervous breakdown and tried to give the child up for adoption. Her parents again stepped in and said that they would adopt the child themselves. But the girl didnt want the child in her life at all, her parents adopting the child meant theyd all still be living in the same house. Very difficult situation for everyone involved.
 
Purple said:
I wonder if there is any examples of women who decided not to abort and had their child but then regretted having that child.
Click to expand...
No doubt some will rue the fact that they ever became pregnant but I wonder how many of those will regret not opting for abortion. I suspect it would be a tiny fraction.
 
michaelm said:
No doubt some will rue the fact that they ever became pregnant but I wonder how many of those will regret not opting for abortion. I suspect it would be a tiny fraction.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter how many regret not opting for abortion.

A child changes person's and couple's life, for some for the better and for some (regardless of how small the group may be) for the worse. Some women fly through the pregnancy, some develop life-long medical conditions (Diabetes being one example). In this day and age, everyone either is or can easily get extremely well infromed of all kinds of risks and benefits. To go back to poor Savita, she could easily have googled 'dilated cervix at 17 weeks pregnant' on her smartphone and found out the likelyness of her foetus surviving. As an intelligent, educated woman in tremendous pain with knowledge that the chances of carrying pregnancy to term were non existent, she and her husband should have had the right to terminate despite what you, I or anyone else think about it. The same goes for the lady with terminal cancer who had to go to UK for an abortion - it's not up to any of us to judge her reasonong. She may have wanted to extend her life through appropriate therapy which she couldn't take while pregnant or maybe she didn't want to leave a motherless child. Or both.
 


I disagree. Society sets moral standards and members of society get judged by those standards. The issue here is do the laws reflect society's standards and if not how should they be changed.
I agree that where the mother's life is at risk the pregnancy should be terminated. That's the constitutional position and the Dail should legislate accordingly.
 
Purple said:
The issue here is do the laws reflect society's standards and if not how should they be changed.
Click to expand...

Thats why we should have some kind of referendum. I dont know what society thinks on the issue of abortion, none of us do. Based on the pro-choice side winning the last 4 referenda to loosen up the rules, and the x case now being 20 years old, thats exactly why its time to ask society what they think.
 
Purple said:
I wonder if there is any examples of women who decided not to abort and had their child but then regretted having that child.
Click to expand...
michaelm said:
No doubt some will rue the fact that they ever became pregnant but I wonder how many of those will regret not opting for abortion. I suspect it would be a tiny fraction.
Click to expand...
Even in cases where abortion had been considered, it is (thankfully) a rare thing for a mother not to love her child unconditionally, to not be able to imagine life without the child etc. etc. That still doesn’t mean it was the best decision the woman could have made for herself. We don’t have the option of peering into an alternate universe and seeing what her happiness levels would have been if she had chosen the abortion route. She might have ended up with better alternate life, love and family outcomes.

Education, career hopes, dreams of travelling and future love/family prospects are all affected by having a child. I know more than one woman who had a child on her own and didn’t manage to go on to get married and have further children as she would have dearly loved. Having one child at a young age, devoting your life to him as a single parent in your 20s and 30s, having no more children and no marriage can make you very lonely in your 40s and beyond when your only child leaves home. And having a child does affect how future relationships work out – the practicalities of dating in terms of babysitting, issues around if/when/how to introduce the boyfriend to the child, and also just how having a child from a previous relationship is perceived by the boyfriend, his friends and family. It is different – and rarely in a good way.

So while a mother might not sit looking at her child and wishing he had never been born, it is simplistic to imply that that means that abortion would not have been best for her and her life.

What would you want for your daughter/sister? To be adequately content with her life or happy and fulfilled in as many ways as possible?
 

Maybe you'd feel differently in relation to society (aka a lot of people who don't know you or anything about you and your family) if the subject was your wife, sister or daughter.
 
Of course you would feel differently if a case involved your own family, but that is why society as a whole should set a standard, and not just those emotionally involved.
 
While I'm still waiting for Bullbars medical peer review of the Dublin Symposium declaration on the other thread I see that we Irish have indeed made the editorial in the Lancet

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)62009-1/fulltext#
 

For the life of me I cannot understand why this would worry you? The 1861 Act was written by men, the Irish constitution was written by a deeply Catholic male Prime Minister in conjunction with that most pro feminine of organisations in no less a person than Archbishop McQuaid. And a most peculiar constitution it is too on it's views on women.

And we now know what the Catholic Church did with women who were pregnant outside marriage and we know how they treated the children of those women and indeed other children.

The current Dail is made up vastly of men, the Health Minister is a man, as indeed is most of the Cabinet.

But it's a woman who is dead. And only one man who is telling it like it is in that government. Alan Shatter.

Anyone who thinks that legislation for the x case would solve the issue in Galway had better understand that it even if they bring in legislation, the hoops women will have to go through to prove they are suicidal, being assessed by clinicians such as Patrica Casey who in 30 years of practise does not agree that there is such a thing as a woman who is suicidal because of a pregnancy. As she stated that more than once on RTE I thought of Anna Byrne (pregnant with twins on top of a cliff, who 'fell' - death by misadventure.) and wonder whether if she had been her patients she would be alive today, methinks not.

One of my best friends is from South Africa, she was pregnant at 15 and wanted to have an abortion. At that time it was very restrictive there and she had to pretend to be suicidal, but was forced to attend therapy sessions as a condition of being allowed an abortion, she has told me that the trauma of the 'therapy' on her at 15 was far worse than the abortion itself. It is amazing what women have to go through to decide their own life choices.

I was wondering Purple if you envision any circumstances where you think abortion should be allowed? I understand the moral difficulty you have with it from your posts, but you've stated you'd be willing to kill someone who raped a child of yours, which you had no difficulty with morally I think. If I've got it wrong please correct me.

Another question for you, your house no doubt receives the Irish Medical Times, not sure if you read it, but if you do, can you remember if there was ever an article by an Irish doctors that ever suggested abortion should be allowed in Ireland?
 

Two wrongs don’t make a right.
The constitution is out of date and is far too political and should be updated or replaced but that’s a different issue.
It is not morally right or socially desirable that any group be excluded or sidelined from national discussions that have complex moral implications for the sort of society we want.

I agree on Alan Shatter; he's being honest about this whole issue.
 
Purple said:
It is not morally right or socially desirable that any group be excluded or sidelined from national discussions that have complex moral implications for the sort of society we want.

.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I think it's women's view which have been excluded and sidelined up to now? Men just decided what was good for us don't you think?

Where have you seen the suggesion that men should be excluded from the issue?

Is there a reason you didn't answer my question on whether you think abortions should ever be allowed?
 
Purple said:
It is not morally right or socially desirable that any group be excluded or sidelined from national discussions that have complex moral implications for the sort of society we want.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that there is a desire to exclude men in general, just men who are anti-abortion. This has no relevance to the arguments for or against abortion.
Bronte said:
But it's a woman who is dead.
Click to expand...
This tragic story is being repeatedly misused, to great effect heretofore, by the pro-abortion lobby (I'm not suggesting you, just the ICN and others who had of same). Even Kitty Holland who broke the story in the Irish Times seems to be stepping back somewhat (in this Newstalk @ 33m:20s) and effectively saying, things aren't entirely clear, let's wait for the reports.
 
michaelm said:
.This tragic story is being repeatedly misused, to great effect heretofore, by the pro-abortion lobby (I'm not suggesting you, just the ICN and others who had of same).
Click to expand...


What is your point about ICN knowing about the death of Savita 3 days before it was published in the Irish times. In other words so what?

Do you think that if Savita's husband or family went to Youth Defence or the Iona institute we'd have heard anything about it. Do you think if the Irish Times hadn't published it we would have 2 HSE/Hiqua enquires and possibly 3?

Do you think that all the world's media, respected media in nearly every country in the world, and famous medical journals such as the Lancet are all on a pro abortion lobby? Why do you think that all the world's media have commented on this story?

Church views on women and children and abortion

How can you say that the way the Church dealt with women and children is not relevant to the abortion debate. They are categorically anti abortion. They have told the Irish people what do in the referndums etc. They helped to put together the Constitution with it's peculiar slant on Irish womanhood. By their treatment of women in the Magdelen laundries and their treatment of children in industrial schools and elsewhere, it is important to point out their views on women and children.

Also it's important to point out that the original proposed constitutional amendment did not even bother to refer to the woman's equal right to life. Whose bright idea was that?

What do you think would happen to the 12 Irish women who go to the UK and elsewhere if they were forced to stay here and forced to proceed with a pregnancy. Maybe we should stop with the hypocracy and take out the current constitutional amendment and put in one banning all abortions and banning travel to the UK and maybe we should set up border controls to examine women at airports and ports to see if they are pregnant and then test them when they return to see if they've had an abortion and prosecute them.

If you follow the logic of what you're saying that is where we should be at.

Men and abortion

If men were the one's who got pregnant we wouldn't be having this debate. If it were mostly female legislators we would have had abortion long ago. I cannot prove either of those points but I believe it.
 
I have been described by many people as anti-Church. I’m comfortable with that description. That said they are entitled to their opinion and to express that opinion and they are entitled to tell their members what the RC Church’s rules are. If people want to be a member of a club then it’s not unreasonable that the rules of the club are pointed out to them. I’m not a member and disagree with their rules and that’s my right but that doesn’t mean they can’t express their views.
 
Bronte said:
What is your point about ICN knowing about the death of Savita 3 days before it was published in the Irish times. In other words so what?
Click to expand...
Just that I was admonished early on for suggesting that a lot of the spontaneous outrage at this case may have been organized, prior to the story breaking, for the purpose of pushing an agenda. I don't think that can be denied now. We should wait for the reports.

I wonder if any posters here are members of any campaigning groups on either side of this debate; I'm not, although I'm keenly interested in the topic.
 
michaelm said:
Just that I was admonished early on for suggesting that a lot of the spontaneous outrage at this case may have been organized, prior to the story breaking, for the purpose of pushing an agenda..
Click to expand...

You mean pushing the agenda for abortion?

Well if an abortion would have saved Savita, don't you think that's an important agenda?

Could you clarify where you see the organised agenda of which you speak?

What is it you are waiting for in the reports? That she would have dies anyway because she already had untreatable septicimea or e-coli? Or that the doctors were incompetent and it was medical negligence?
 
Bronte said:
What is it you are waiting for in the reports?
Click to expand...
Just the facts of the case. And we shouldn't have long to wait. In the meantime the pro-abortion lobby will wring what they can out of the story. Although our liberal media are quite malleable they are also quite fickle so their interest in this story will wane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register