Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Flier

Richard Bingham wrote: »

There were multiple failures in the care given to Savita Halapannavar so much so that the team didn't even realise how sick she was until it was too late. Its not ssurprising therefore that they didn't offer her the appropriate treatment and its not a case for liberalising abortion.

Care to point out to us so, with the full benefit of forensic analysis of the case, where the fine line between threat to health and threat to life fell, and therefore where the medical team would have been able to intervene. It really is not so easy. And when it's happening in real time, it's exponentially more difficult. If doctors knew they had the backing in law, they would be a lot freer to act. It should not be up to medical professionals to interpert the constitution or supreme court rulings, while trying to do their job.
The appropriate treatment, according to international best practice, would have been to offer her a termination as soon as it was realised she was having an inevitable abortion. Not to wait until it was certain that sepsis was so deep seated that there was an actual threat to her life.

Corkfeen

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Yes. How else do you ascribe meaning to words?

I don't think he is overjoyed with the way the legislation has been applied but I don't think he is going to say it - what could it possibly achieve?

But you're making a massive assumption....

Gbear

jill_valentine wrote: »

Something's... broken in these people. Deeply, deeply broken.

Their "Act Like a C*nt" switch is stuck in the "on" position.

What about going to a different state (a la Irish women going to the UK)?

Richard Bingham

Flier wrote: »

Care to point out to us so, with the full benefit of forensic analysis of the case, where the fine line between threat to health and threat to life fell, and therefore where the medical team would have been able to intervene. It really is not so easy. And when it's happening in real time, it's exponentially more difficult. If doctors knew they had the backing in law, they would be a lot freer to act. It should not be up to medical professionals to interpert the constitution or supreme court rulings, while trying to do their job.
The appropriate treatment, according to international best practice, would have been to offer her a termination as soon as it was realised she was having an inevitable abortion. Not to wait until it was certain that sepsis was so deep seated that there was an actual threat to her life.

I agree with you that she should have been offered a termination and if they had acted differently and followed up on tests they ran they might have realised she needed one - they didn't.

I believe that Doctors currently act based on medical council guidelines not the Supreme Court ruling.

Richard Bingham

marienbad wrote: »

You are just saying what every constitutional lawyer said before the issue was forced into the constitution. It is too complex a matter to be handled by such a method.

And this is all the natural working out of that initial mistake . And it will continue in this piecemeal fashion until/unless that original prohibition is withdrawn from the constitution. Hopefully sooner rather later.

Can you please expand on your points I don't understand. When/how was it forced in? Do you not think the right to life is a good thing to have in the constitution in general?

Morag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq3U09DeKpg

Nodin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Yes. How else do you ascribe meaning to words?

I don't think he is overjoyed with the way the legislation has been applied but I don't think he is going to say it - what could it possibly achieve?

You've nothing to base that on whatsoever, so please drop it.

Obliq

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Can you please expand on your points I don't understand. When/how was it forced in? Do you not think the right to life is a good thing to have in the constitution in general?

I'll bite. I do not think "equal right to life of a foetus and a woman" is a good thing to even say or think, never mind put in the fcuking constitution.

As for forced into the constitution, I don't think that's the right word. Some better ones that spring to mind in relation to both the politicians and public that legislated for the 8th amendment are DUPED, MISLED, BULLIED, BADGERED, MISREPRESENTED, GULLED, DOMINATED and BULLDOZED by the powerful Catholic right-wing lobby group known as the P.L.A.C. and the entire weight of the RCC.

Their timing was impeccable - there was an extremely shaky government, with 3 changes in 18 months at the time. The Irish people had yet to hear a word about the child sex abuse scandals that toppled the RCC off their moral high ground, and the internet hadn't been invented, so we were still pretty damn ignorant about sex and women's rights. Sure, we'd only just got the use of condoms after having to stand up to the law and break it about that too.

It's all there to be seen by everyone now. With hindsight, we can see exactly what went down, so this is one tree it's not worth your while barking up. I'm so fcuking furious (due to being educated) about the history of the 8th amendment and what it says/does to women of Ireland that I can't take anyone as fully rational who supports it being there. :mad::mad:

http://politico.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5472:cover-story-backlash-and-blackmail&catid=222:society&Itemid=1245 From 1982 - A long article, but a large eye-opener about the kind of twisted-fcukery that brought us the unlovely 8th. I have MUCH, MUCH more. Want to go there bud?

marienbad

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Can you please expand on your points I don't understand. When/how was it forced in? Do you not think the right to life is a good thing to have in the constitution in general?

Abortion at the time of the first referendum was already illegal in this country, so by definition it was an unnecessary measure. But not happy with this a powerful section of society took advantage of a hung dail/electorate to force a referendum .

All it was was a last gasp effort by a patriarchal elite to copperfasten a future they deemed acceptable.

There were told it couldn't be done using the constitution but to no avail, hence the litany of further referenda and court cases and so it will continue until the issue is decided by legislation .

As to you second point - you would have to define what you mean by ''life''. If you said citizen I would have no problem.

Mark Hamill

jill_valentine wrote: »

Carolyn Jones and her husband learned halfway through her pregnancy that their baby was severely ill — even if he made it to term, his brain, spine and legs wouldn't develop correctly and he would need a lifetime of medical care.

...

But the Planned Parenthood counselor had no choice but to comply with the law, and the doctor later told Jones that he could lose his license if he didn't describe her baby's development.

So this woman has to hear, for the nth time, about how her baby isn't developing properly? About how its brain, spine and legs are not growing right and how that will lead to a life of painful medical care? That is fcuking torture :mad:

Morag

The bill which is being proposed gives the same right to life to an implanted embryo as to to the adult human woman it is implanted it. That's just wrong. How long before we see the other rights of that adult human woman subsumed due to the right of that implanted embryo?

What's the difference between an embryo and a baby?
You can freeze and unfreeze an embryo and it will live.

SebBerkovich

Well, Youth Defence are taking the fight to rape victims apparently...

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/27/opposite-the-dublin-rape-crisis-centre/

show some humanity for **** sake

eviltwin

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Well, Youth Defence are taking the fight to rape victims apparently...

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/27/opposite-the-dublin-rape-crisis-centre/

show some humanity for **** sake

oh dear god...how utterly inhumane and vicious can these people be. That is just disgusting. And they have the nerve to say they want to protect the vulnerable? :mad:

Bannasidhe

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Well, Youth Defence are taking the fight to rape victims apparently...

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/27/opposite-the-dublin-rape-crisis-centre/

show some humanity for **** sake

Saw posters of the same ilk up around the Dunkettle Roundabout in Cork last night. I was already late to meet someone so couldn't stop to take 'em down. OH wanted to go and get a big black marker and go back and add a comment. She may yet do so on her way home from work if someone hasn't beaten her to it.

All I can say is that although their current tactics are a toned down version of what happened in '83, they still don't seem to realise how much Irish society has moved on and is unwilling to be bullied and fed misinformation by these US funded religious fundies.

Many people were genuinely afraid to speak out in '83 for fear of being labeled 'baby murderers' or worse- myself and a mate from college were spat at and chased down Patrick St by about 20 people (ironically they were protesting about H-Block) for giving out pro-choice leaflets, we were haunted that my bus driver cousin saw what was happening and stopped his bus so we could hop on. A close friend of mine was so severely beaten by people who had just come out of mass in Clonakility he ended up in hospital - he too was giving out pro-choice leaflets. If that happened now there would be war. Back then it was seen as borderline acceptable because they made it look like it was to protect tiny baybees and people bought their BS.

Flier

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I agree with you that she should have been offered a termination and if they had acted differently and followed up on tests they ran they might have realised she needed one - they didn't.

I believe that Doctors currently act based on medical council guidelines not the Supreme Court ruling.

Where is the tipping point Richard? I'm still waiting for you to point it out.
And which test was run that showed she legally could have had a termination?
There were deficiencies in her care - as there are in every hospital every day of the week. That is human nature, and the nature of our health service as it stands. But when a woman's life depends on every minute detail being right, while doctors who know the right thing to do is a termination are standing by, waiting for that tipping point to happen, there is something deeply wrong with the system.

The Medical Council guidelines are just that - guidelines. They do not have the protection of law, and it would be a very foolish doctor who would act on them alone, without due regard for the law of the land - or in this case the constitution and the supreme court ruling, which is all we have to go on right now. So while you may believe that to be the case, you are wrong.

Lingua Franca

That is vile. Everytime I think they can't possibly get any lower, they start digging.

Sarky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Saw posters of the same ilk up around the Dunkettle Roundabout in Cork last night. I was already late to meet someone so couldn't stop to take 'em down. OH wanted to go and get a big black marker and go back and add a comment. She may yet do so on her way home from work if someone hasn't beaten her to it.

She's not the cause of all the "**** Youth Defence" messages I'm seeing on nearly every street, is she? :pac:

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

She's not the cause of all the "**** Youth Defence" messages I'm seeing on nearly every street, is she? :pac:

Don't think so as I doubt she would put '****' but I wouldn't bet on it not being her...or son of mine for that matter.

Stark

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Well, Youth Defence are taking the fight to rape victims apparently...

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/27/opposite-the-dublin-rape-crisis-centre/

show some humanity for **** sake

Scummy. But I take satisfaction from that being one hell of an own goal.

Penn

Stark wrote: »

Scummy. But I take satisfaction from that being one hell of an own goal.

Just saw on Twitter that YD have said the driver was stuck in traffic and wasn't instructed to park there.

Yeah, that traffic in the pic looks unbelievable alright...

Bannasidhe

Penn wrote: »

Just saw on Twitter that YD have said the driver was stuck in traffic and wasn't instructed to park there.

Yeah, that traffic in the pic looks unbelievable alright...

That is a traffic jam of those invisible cars one encounters on the road sometimes, usually in front of 'Sunday' drivers who insist on having a 20 ft gap between their car and the visible car in front of them while everyone is stopped at traffic lights. I have often thought the only 'logical' explanation is the presence of an invisible car in that 20ft space.

aloyisious

From Today's Irish Examiner: This afternoon Fine Gael backbencher Peter Matthews insisted he cannot support the legislation and quoting a doctor who wrote to him insisted the Health Minister is childish.

"Abortion is the most heinous deed a man or woman can be part of," he said.

Wicklow FG TD Billy Timmins is going to vote against the Bill. Nothing surprising there, he's a doctrinaire Christian.

Sarky

Peter "we're all going to die anyway" Matthews? I do believe that man can go and sh*te.

eviltwin

aloyisious wrote: »

From Today's Irish Examiner: This afternoon Fine Gael backbencher Peter Matthews insisted he cannot support the legislation and quoting a doctor who wrote to him insisted the Health Minister is childish.

"Abortion is the most heinous deed a man or woman can be part of," he said.

Bit of an exaggeration there Peter

Sarky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is a traffic jam of those invisible cars one encounters on the road sometimes, usually in front of 'Sunday' drivers who insist on having a 20 ft gap between their car and the visible car in front of them while everyone is stopped at traffic lights. I have often thought the only 'logical' explanation is the presence of an invisible car in that 20ft space.

No motion blur, so the billboard wasn't moving. It's in the bike/bus lane. The driver's door is open. They're terrible liars.

Morag

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/350236758820139008

PopePalpatine

aloyisious wrote: »

From Today's Irish Examiner: This afternoon Fine Gael backbencher Peter Matthews insisted he cannot support the legislation and quoting a doctor who wrote to him insisted the Health Minister is childish.

"Abortion is the most heinous deed a man or woman can be part of," he said.

Wicklow FG TD Billy Timmins is going to vote against the Bill. Nothing surprising there, he's a doctrinaire Christian.

I'm being reminded of a controversial "Doonebury" sketch, where a Texan woman is asked something like, "Do you want to go through with this abortion?" The woman replies with something like, "Especially if it turns out to be Rick Perry."

Of course, Peter probably wouldn't care if the abortion is carried out because the woman is a rape victim. In his medieval mindset, she probably "asked for it". :mad:

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

No motion blur, so the billboard wasn't moving. It's in the bike/bus lane. The driver's door is open. They're terrible liars.

That would be the other logical explanation.

Sarky

Hey, I like your explanation too.

aloyisious

Well Billy Timmins is on Drive-time right now explaining that his decision is based on what Irish Gynacologists and Psychiatrists, Maternity Hospital Doctors have told him. that the bill is bad law.

Oh, God , he's rolling out the 100 years of service his family (I think) histroy in Irish Parliamentary Politics and how he doesn't want to end it, or summat like that (tuck's violin under chin and start's playing)