Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

There is nothing theoretical about a fetus. If you want to play a game of emotive smoke and mirrors there is a plethora of manipulative terms to choose from 'ball of cells' etc but at least spare us the dishonesty of fetus = 'People who aren't alive yet'.

Good grief, I'm doing my best to ignore you and your inane witterings but you're relentless.

I didn't say that a foetus was theoretical. Please, please READ THE POSTS that you are responding to before you respond.

robp wrote: »

The most obvious interpretation is that everyone refers to every human being. A fetus is an individual human being. That is irrefutable. The charter use 'human being' interchangeable with 'person' and it doesn't attempt to define person or human being so it doesn't take us very far on the matter unfortunately.

It is in fact very refutable. Please stop confusing your opinions with fact.

MrPudding

robp wrote: »

The most obvious interpretation is that everyone refers to every human being. A fetus is an individual human being. That is irrefutable. The charter use 'human being' interchangeable with 'person' and it doesn't attempt to define person or human being so it doesn't take us very far on the matter unfortunately.

As Koth has pointed out, Article 2 does not apply to the foetus, it only applied to persons in being, those that are born. Similar to other legal terms, like murder for example, "the unlawful killing of a person in being [...]"

Besides, you are really clutching at straws trying to use a document from an organisation that has already told Ireland it should legalise abortion as an argument against abortion. :rolleyes:

MrP

Delirium

robp wrote: »

The most obvious interpretation is that everyone refers to every human being. A fetus is an individual human being. That is irrefutable. The charter use 'human being' interchangeable with 'person' and it doesn't attempt to define person or human being so it doesn't take us very far on the matter unfortunately.

Everyone is a person, I mean the next article (Article 3) is called Right to the integrity of the Person which refers to 'everyone' and 'person'. That clearly indicates that 'everyone'/'no-one' is referring to a person.

There are 21 mentions of person in the Charter so IMHO it's written with the intention of applying to person(s).

Obliq

robp wrote: »

I will repeat my question. Do you believe humans deserve legal protection over other animals and if so why?

Al Jazeera is better than you give them credit for.

Better than I give them credit for? Don't be daft - it was me that said I thought it was the best piece of reporting all year.

To answer your question though - I don't think that "deserve" comes into it at all. We humans, being the most powerful minded animals on the planet, have given ourselves the right to use our planet as we see fit. This clearly hasn't worked out so well for any resource that we, as humans, deem necessary to our existence, whether animal/vegetable/mineral, or indeed human.

I surely don't need to tell you that it is also us humans that have set boundaries (not written in stone, as a particular section of humanity would have us believe) around the abuse of any resource/human and we have done this because our powerful minds recognise that cruelty and wanton destruction and waste is unnecessary. Morality is informed by thoughtful people and to each their own. A moral code is set by more than one person agreeing to live within the guidelines of that code according to many different philosophies, religions and cultures.

In relation to the abortion issue here, it is clear that the constitutional amendment in 1983 that sets out the "right to life" of the unborn was called for by a group who upheld the absolutist moral code as per the catholic church, and voted for by a people who were unused to questioning Catholic teachings and forming their own opinions on morality. Nowadays, most people realise that the Catholic Church has no moral authority and generally look to their own philosophy or culture as a guideline for their morals and do not avoid the hard questions by letting a hierarchy of ageing men in another country tell them what is right or wrong.

Obliq

Time World:

"Now the time for kicking the issue into the long grass may have passed. A poll carried out last year in the republic showed 54% of the country’s electorate backing the full legalization of abortion, up from 37% four years earlier. And, for the first time, women in the south contemplating unwanted pregnancies need only look north to see another option. The island has changed fast. Legislators and institutions on both sides of the border have some catching up to do."

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/11/12/irelands-abortion-debate-heats-up/#ixzz2C0Q1DGXg

robp

Obliq wrote: »

Better than I give them credit for? Don't be daft - it was me that said I thought it was the best piece of reporting all year.

To answer your question though - I don't think that "deserve" comes into it at all. We humans, being the most powerful minded animals on the planet, have given ourselves the right to use our planet as we see fit. This clearly hasn't worked out so well for any resource that we, as humans, deem necessary to our existence, whether animal/vegetable/mineral, or indeed human.

I surely don't need to tell you that it is also us humans that have set boundaries (not written in stone, as a particular section of humanity would have us believe) around the abuse of any resource/human and we have done this because our powerful minds recognise that cruelty and wanton destruction and waste is unnecessary. Morality is informed by thoughtful people and to each their own. A moral code is set by more than one person agreeing to live within the guidelines of that code according to many different philosophies, religions and cultures.

In relation to the abortion issue here, it is clear that the constitutional amendment in 1983 that sets out the "right to life" of the unborn was called for by a group who upheld the absolutist moral code as per the catholic church, and voted for by a people who were unused to questioning Catholic teachings and forming their own opinions on morality. Nowadays, most people realise that the Catholic Church has no moral authority and generally look to their own philosophy or culture as a guideline for their morals and do not avoid the hard questions by letting a hierarchy of ageing men in another country tell them what is right or wrong.

All very interesting but you haven't addressed by question whatsoever. Do you believe humans deserve legal protection unlike what other animals have and if so why? Are we deserving or not?

MrPudding wrote: »

As Koth has pointed out, Article 2 does not apply to the foetus, it only applied to persons in being, those that are born. Similar to other legal terms, like murder for example, "the unlawful killing of a person in being [...]"

Besides, you are really clutching at straws trying to use a document from an organisation that has already told Ireland it should legalise abortion as an argument against abortion. :rolleyes:
MrP

Once again the EU never told Ireland to legalise abortion! The judgment declared that protecting the unborn, as in the Irish Constitution (Article 40.3.3), is "a legitimate aim".

The Court held in the A,B and C case that charter does not include a right to have an abortion. The court was asked if the right to privacy under article 8 permitted abortion in the circumstances of the three cases.
They found that Ireland failed to provide of the specific circumstances when it is permitted by the Irish constitution . Very few pro-choice people understand this enormous distinction.

As Koth has pointed out, Article 2 does not apply to the foetus, it only applied to persons in being, those that are born. Similar to other legal terms, like murder for example, "the unlawful killing of a person in being [...]"

If it was so clear that interpretation would have been made by the EU court of human rights. Its straight forward to prove your incorrect by referring to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (if your not familiar with this convention it was formed in 1997 and since 2011 is recognised as to be understood in the same sense as the charter of rights. http://www.echr.coe.int/ NR/rdonlyres/02164A4C-0B63-44C3-80C7-FC594EE16297/0/2011Communication_ CEDHCJUE_EN.pdf)
Anyway the convention states human being. If it was to refer to only rational adults it would have used a different term. The reference to human beings in Article 2 of that Convention allows for an application to cover the unborn. Otherwise, the agreed upon parallel meaning of the Charter and the Convention is being ignored.

Also look at earlier judgments e.g. Vo v France,which held countries are entitled "to choose to consider the unborn to be a person and to aim to protect that life".

Article 2 – Primacy of the human being

The interests and welfare of the human being shall prevail over the sole interest of society or science.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm

Delirium

No ever said that any of the text you provided referred to only "rational adults". It was suggested it refers to person(s).

Much like Article 1 of the document you linked to above:

Parties to this Convention shall protect the dignity and identity of all human beings and guarantee everyone, without discrimination, respect for their integrity and other rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to the application of biology and medicine.

Everyone, i.e. person(s).

Obliq

robp wrote: »

All very interesting but you haven't addressed by question whatsoever. Do you believe humans deserve legal protection unlike what other animals have and if so why? Are we deserving or not?

And I repeat......"To answer your question though - I don't think that "deserve" comes into it at all." So, no. Clearly.

And to quote myself again...."We humans, being the most powerful minded animals on the planet, have given ourselves the right to use our planet as we see fit." This is where I tell you how deserve doesn't come into it.

When you say my comment is all very interesting, that means sweet F.A. if you haven't actually understood the first two lines. Trying to have a two way discussion with you is as irrational as trying to herd cats. Completely pointless.

Nodin

Saw the start of VB there. Apparently the Indo tommorrow are going with a story about a women who died in an Irish hospital because they delayed carrying out an abortion to save her life.

(Thats the gist of it I got...doubtless there'll be more clarity tommorrow).

rainbow kirby

Nodin wrote: »

Saw the start of VB there. Apparently the Indo tommorrow are going with a story about a women who died in an Irish hospital because they delayed carrying out an abortion to save her life.

(Thats the gist of it I got...doubtless there'll be more clarity tommorrow).

Indo

Times

This fcuking country :mad:

Lingua Franca

By Galway Pro-Choice
For Release: Woman Dies in UCHG after Being Denied a Life-Saving Abortion

On Sunday the 28th of October, Savita Praveen died at UCHG after being denied a termination which would most likely have saved her life. She was 31 years old, married for four years and hoping to start a family.

If legislation is not introduced immediately, more women will die. Under the X Case ruling, women in Ireland are legally entitled to an abortion when it is necessary to save their life. However, legislation has never been passed to reflect this. It is the failure of successive governments to do so that led to Savita’s death.

Savita was first admitted to the hospital on October 21st complaining of severe back pain. Her doctor initially told her that she would be fine, but she refused to go home. It became clear that her waters had broken, and she was having a miscarriage (spontaneous abortion). She was told that the foetus had no chance of survival, and it would all be over within a few hours.

However, her condition did not take its expected course, and the foetus remained inside her body. Although it was evident that it could not survive, a foetal heartbeat was detected. For this reason her repeated requests to remove the foetus were denied. By Tuesday it was clear that her condition was deteriorating. She had developed a fever, and collapsed when attempting to walk. The cervix had now been fully open for nearly 72 hours, creating a danger of infection comparable to an untreated open head wound. She developed septicaemia.

Despite this, the foetus was not removed until Wednesday afternoon, after the foetal heartbeat had stopped. Immediately after the procedure she was taken to the high dependency unit. Her condition never improved. She died at 1.09am on Sunday the 28th of October.

Had the foetus been removed when it became clear that it could not survive, her cervix would have been closed and her chance of infection dramatically reduced. Leaving a woman's cervix open constitutes a clear risk to her life. What is unclear is how doctors are expected to act in this situation.

Rachel Donnelly, Galway Pro-Choice spokesperson stated:
“This was an obstetric emergency which should have been dealt with in a routine manner. Yet Irish doctors are restrained from making obvious medical decisions by a fear of potentially severe consequences. As the European Court of Human Rights ruled, as long as the 1861 Act remains in place, alongside a complete political unwillingness to touch the issue, pregnant women will continue to be unsafe in this country.”

Sarah McCarthy, Galway Pro-Choice member said:
“Galway Pro-Choice believes that Ireland must legislate for freely available abortion for all women. Deaths like Savita's are the most severe consequence of the criminalisation of abortion, yet it has countless adverse effects. We must reflect long and hard on the implications of Savita’s tragic and untimely passing, and we must act to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.”

For more information please contact Galway Pro-Choice on 087 706 0715 or Sarah McCarthy on 085 7477 907

Truly heartbreaking, and infuriating that she could have survived.

Bannasidhe

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Truly heartbreaking, and infuriating that she could have survived.

Pro-Life my arse :mad::mad::mad:

rainbow kirby

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Pro-Life my arse :mad::mad::mad:

The old chant is so true... "Pro-life is a lie, they don't care if women die"

Lingua Franca

The Times story is up on the site, her husband spoke to them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

Hotblack Desiato

Yesterday's IT opinion piece had the usual 'Abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life' and 'Ireland is among the safest places in the world to give birth' guff, from a bishop no less :mad:

Morag

The State has imposed 'Catholic' care on a hindu women resulting in her death.
I am horrified it has come to this, but it was only thing which will make those cowards we have in government legislate.

Bannasidhe

Sharrow wrote: »

The State has imposed 'Catholic' care on a hindu women resulting in her death.
I am horrified it has come to this, but it was only thing which will make those cowards we have in government legislate.

I hope her family sue the arses out of the government!

Sarky

I don't know what to say. That story disgusts me.

Stark

I can hardly breathe after reading that. How can the youth defence vermin justify their "no woman ever needs an abortion for medical reasons" stance now?

Sarky

I am not looking forward to John Waters' next column. I suspect it will go right over the edge of "crazy old man" and into "completely f*cking despicable".

Nailz

Contrary to what my location may say, I attend college in NUIG and the hospital in which this has happened is just right off my college-term doorstep, literally a stones' throw away, this give it an ora of sickening locality, an attribution I did not wish to apply but it appears I have no choice.

It's time we got rid of this pre-historic nonsense once and for all in this country, one life is crossing the line, let alone the amount of lives it has cost civilisation over the course of history. This woman could be alive and well as we speak if it wasn't for this ultimate wickedness and stupidity.

My sincerest thoughts are with the family and friends of the young lady, one could not imagine how devastated and saddened they are by this avoidable tragedy.

ShooterSF

Every TD that has formed part of a government that has failed to legislate since the x-case should see the inside of a prison cell for this.

pauldla

Sarky wrote: »

I don't know what to say. That story disgusts me.

Stunned. Ashamed to be Irish today, and that's the truth. The wife was asking me about it this morning as we watched the news. How can it be explained?

MagicMarker

Truly sickening.

Obliq

ShooterSF wrote: »

Every TD that has formed part of a government that has failed to legislate since the x-case should see the inside of a prison cell for this.

I'm too upset to say much of anything about this. ShooterSF, I agree. Her death is by the hand of every government TD for the last 20 years.

My heart goes out to Mr. Halappanavar on the death of his wife Savita Halappanavar caused by Irish Law. I'm so, so sorry.

Ashamed to be Irish today.

OldNotWIse

Despicable. Should not have happended. All women whose lives are in danger by being pregnant should be allowed access to an abortion.

fitz0

I'm sure robp and other pro-lifers will still insist that there's no medical reason for an abortion. The standard response I've been reading from the pro-lifers on Broadsheet is 'You don't know the intimate details of the case so you can't prove anything.'

This attitude is disgusting. If the newspaper reports are in any way accurate, I don't see how anybody could hang on to a position that would deny another woman in this situation appropriate medical care.

robp

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Despicable. Should not have happended. All women whose lives are in danger by being pregnant should be allowed access to an abortion.

Its a tragic story and it shouldn't happen in this day and age.

The thing is though you don't know the details and I don't know the details. We will have to see the results of the full external investigation. The sooner the better. What we do know is that when a women's life is in danger doctors are fully entitled to intervene and end the pregnancy and infact it is a regular event. What happened in UCHG needs to be and will be clarified.

What also struck me about this story what how differently it was reported in the Indo compared to the Irish Times. The Irish Times gave a more superior report that showed its not a black & white issue.

Obliq

robp wrote: »

The thing is though you don't know the details and I don't know the details. We will have to see the results of the full investigation.

You should be ashamed of yourself. That is the most callous f**king comment in the face of the death of a young woman who could have been saved from septicaemia but wasn't BECAUSE the fetus she was MISCARRYING still had a heartbeat. There IS NO GREY AREA ABOUT IT. You disgust me.

28064212

robp wrote: »

What we do know is that when a women's life is in danger doctors are fully entitled to intervene

That's not true. They have a constitutional right to, but it is against the law (Offences Against the Person Act of 1861) to exercise that right