Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Bannasidhe

Cork tonight.

Rough guess about 300 people. Good to see a lot of young men in particular there.

Sarky

I'd have gone if I'd known about it, didn't find out until a little while ago. Too late now.

Of course I'd only have gone as a cynical unscrupulous attempt to push my agenda. Nothing to do with being furious over a death that could easily have been prevented. God, no.

barrackali

Terrible to hear about what happened to that lady, I would deffo be in favour of medical terminations in cases where the mother is in danger.

At the same time I'd never be in favour of abortion on demand.

keane2097

This app automates your emailing to your local representatives.

Please everybody take ten seconds to do this:

http://www.nwci.ie/takeaction/legislate-for-x/

swampgas

doctoremma wrote: »

If I am pregnant, visiting Ireland and suddenly develop early and full-blown eclampsia, will the doctors consider a termination? As far as I've learned, the Constitution says Yes but the law says No. So I die?

Maybe all those promotions for "The Gathering" should come with a health warning advising women to avoid Ireland if pregnant.

Bannasidhe

Cork photo by Rebecca Murphy



Very emotional event in Cork. Palpable air of shock which I think will grow into anger unless the government acts now.

Morag

swampgas wrote: »

Hopefully there will be public protests that I will be able to attend.

http://www.irishchoicenetwork.com/1/post/2012/11/vigils-and-protests.html

Lon Dubh

There is a discussion on the Vincent Browne show tonight about this case and abortion

Bannasidhe

Great use for those 'Gathering' postcards.
I will be writing mine tomorrow.

Galvasean

^^ That's a great idea. Use their own tools against them!

Lon Dubh

keane2097 wrote: »

This app automates your emailing to your local representatives.

Please everybody take ten seconds to do this:

http://www.nwci.ie/takeaction/legislate-for-x/[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the link. I've done that now and I'm going to send the link on to other people.

jank

robindch wrote: »

2. It's utterly repugnant that instead of demonstrating the slightest sympathy for a woman who died needlessly, or doing something -- anything -- to help ensure that this never happens again, the most vocal of the no-side instead appear to retreat into a parallel universe where the dead woman and her grieving family do not exist and only "political agendas" and weird allegations of "beating" do. The callousness is chilling, even by the cryogenic standards of the religious:

http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-youth-defence-abortion-674078-Nov2012

Again, I am not defending organisations like youth defence and the like. Have no time for them. I think people are feeling angry which is understandable. Much of that anger is misdirected. Saying that people have 'blood' on their hands and so on. OTT

However, lets wait as I said to get ALL the facts before passing judgement. I would say a case of medical malpractice is on the cards and guidelines should be either written up or legislated for in future cases.

jank

robindch wrote: »

I must have missed the bit that approved of Ireland in the Australian article.

Exactly my point. An foreign article that is dis-approving of Ireland which then leads us into our usual pastime of mass cynicism of the country. Rinse and repeat....

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Exactly my point. An foreign article that is dis-approving of Ireland which then leads us into our usual pastime of mass cynicism of the country. Rinse and repeat....

...I think a political class that ignores the highest court in the land for 20 years is sufficient to warrant justifiable mass cynicism.

pauldla

jank wrote: »

Exactly my point. An foreign article that is dis-approving of Ireland which then leads us into our usual pastime of mass cynicism of the country. Rinse and repeat....

Cynicism, is it? Do you think your comment above might be regarded as cynical?

jank

Nodin wrote: »

...I think a political class that ignores the highest court in the land for 20 years is sufficient to warrant justifiable mass cynicism.

Agreed, for once, so lets concentrate on that shall we rather screaming from the rooftops that certain people have blood on their hands.

Ireland is very good at mass hysteria but very bad at actually doing and problem solving. I wonder will it be different this time around.

Newaglish

jank wrote: »

However, lets wait as I said to get ALL the facts before passing judgement. I would say a case of medical malpractice is on the cards and guidelines should be either written up or legislated for in future cases.

I'm not sure a medical malpractice case would go anywhere though? My understanding is that the doctor's hands are tied; there isn't any legislation that would have allowed him to carry out the procedure. I would probably criticize his bedside manner ("this is a Catholic country") (edit: I don't even know what tone he said this in) but I don't think he has really done anything wrong.

jank

pauldla wrote: »

Cynicism, is it? Do you think your comment above might be regarded as cynical?

Em, well I am not trawling the internet finding references to ireland regarding this case.... what is the point of it, other than feeding the guilty Irish conscious.

Worrying what others think of us is pissing in the wind.

Lingua Franca

Did you really just call everyone else out for "mass cyncism" and seeking foreign approval and then have the audacity to post this:

jank wrote: »

Ireland is very good at mass hysteria but very bad at actually doing and problem solving. I wonder will it be different this time around.

??? :pac:


Is it only self loathing when other people do it?

Edit: and more!

robp

IT-Guy wrote: »

I reject the version of humanity you espouse, you're determined to downplay the seriousness of this woman's death as 'just one of those things' when it couldn't be further from the truth. The simple fact is she would be alive today had she been allowed a termination, end of. It's making my blood boil reading the utter sh*te from YD. What is it about the anti-abortion crowd that they can't predict the outcome of situations like this? There's an element of "wait for the worst to happen before we do anything cos then we'll know we were right to have acted". Reminds me to a certain extent of a friend complaining about the city council putting down speed bumps along a straight stretch of road as "no-one had died" because of excessive speed on it. Like there had to be a death before any action was taken.

Let the lessons be learned from this and legislate for abortion as laid out by the European Court of Human Rights.

Minster Reilly made a statement yesterday which vindicated my point about waiting for the full facts. Its worth listening to before trying to heap blame on people. Based on certain details he is privy too but can not release he also said Reilly: No evidence of Catholic interference in Savita case

Newaglish wrote: »

I'm not sure a medical malpractice case would go anywhere though? My understanding is that the doctor's hands are tied; there isn't any legislation that would have allowed him to carry out the procedure. I would probably criticize his bedside manner ("this is a Catholic country") (edit: I don't even know what tone he said this in) but I don't think he has really done anything wrong.

As I stressed before the medic's hands were not tied. If he/she went for an early delivery/termination as everyone is suggesting he/she would only be doing something which is a regular occurrence and has never been charged. Read today's indo.

A LEADING obstetrician has said doctors do intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman, even if it means the loss of a baby.
Prof Fionnuala McAuliffe said obstetricians who were caring for pregnant women in life-threatening situations were working without specific legislation – but there was "no evidence they are letting people die"....
Prof McAuliffe, who is spokesperson for the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said obstetricians would welcome legislative clarity.

While the Medical Council's code of ethics states that doctors can intervene to terminate a pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, the institute has not provided any specific guidelines.

Most patients who come to a maternity hospital with threatened miscarriage would want to do everything they could to continue the pregnancy, Prof McAuliffe said.

She said: "the outcomes for pregnant women in Ireland are among the best in the world. We have excellent maternity services. There is no evidence that we are letting patients die to prolong the pregnancy."

Another leading obstetrician, who did not want to be named, said it was his view that doctors were legally protected if they intervened to save the life of a pregnant woman. link

Penn wrote: »

Mentioned, but "a delay in her getting antibiotics" has not been attributed as a possible cause by the Irish Times, has it? Could you perhaps quote the sections which mention antibiotics? I already provided one, but I'm not sure if I've missed another one?

Obviously, I'd like to get the full picture. Could you copy, quote or link to where it says a delay in receiving antibiotics is a suspected cause?

The problem is there is no full picture available and everyone is rushing to judge. Antibiotics may be the issue as we are told her cervix was open from Sunday yet antibiotics weren't given to Tuesday. thats considered an open wound for two whole days.

jank

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Did you really just call everyone else out for "mass cyncism" and seeking foreign approval and then have the audacity to post this:



??? :pac:


Is it only self loathing when other people do it?

Edit: and more!

Yes, because the Irish are a serious people...... :rolleyes:

Skrynesaver

I was at the rally last night and the crowd was raging, the two remarks that elicited the greatest response were a call for separation of church and state and a speaker who couldn't contain her composure and admitted, tearfully that the reason was she was "so f*cking angry right now". for those who are saying that this is not what YD and the church want to see the canonisation of the poor deluded St. Gianna Beretta Molla indicates a belief that dying in pregnancy is a positive thing.

I am so f*cking angry right now

robp

Skrynesaver wrote: »

I was at the rally last night and the crowd was raging, the two remarks that elicited the greatest response were a call for separation of church and state and a speaker who couldn't contain her composure and admitted, tearfully that the reason was she was "so f*cking angry right now". for those who are saying that this is not what YD and the church want to see the canonisation of the poor deluded St. Gianna Beretta Molla indicates a belief that dying in pregnancy is a positive thing.

I am so f*cking angry right now

No interest in listening to what Minister Reilly said?

aloyisious

Putting it bluntly, the ethos of the health service in the Irish Republic seem's (on the face of what reportedly happened to Savita in Galway) to be that there is no right to life for pregnant women when their lives are at risk medically. That ethos is based on the fact that the Irish Republic, it's politicians and it's voting population do not want to put a guarantee to it's pregnant women into national law that their lives are of value.

It is not about Christians versus the ungodly, though some will want to sidetrack the Irish public into that belief. It is about recognizing that the Irish republic is now a multi-cultural, multi-religious melting pot, no longer bounden to one religious belief. We have to wake up and move into the 21st century and order our politicians that they are not to long-finger the abortion issue by bringing the "examination by committee" excuse into play. We have been long-fingering the abortion "issue" too long here in our Republic, and Savita's death is the end result.

pauldla

robp wrote: »

No interest in listening to what Minister Reilly said?

He said that "he has no evidence that a Catholic ethos prevented the life of a pregnant woman being saved by a medical termination of her pregnancy." (Newstalk)

The husband said “Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do." (Irish Times)

Is that correct?

Skrynesaver

robp wrote: »

No interest in listening to what Minister Reilly said?

As a general rule listening to that self-important, parochial, pompous fool does not reduce my anger quotient.

If the failure to legislate does not come from the same misguided mindset as the one which could hold up St. Gianna_Beretta_Molla as an example that should be followed, where does it come from, a general hatred of women ?

I'm old enough to remember the '83 referendum and the subsequent attempts to overturn the '92 supreme court decision by referendum, to imply that this state of affairs did not come about because of the imposition of misogynistic laws on us from celibate men who are terrified of the messy details of reproduction yet feel entitled to pronounce on the practice of those of us who get involved in the process, is to blind yourself to reality (but that's another speciality of theirs).

Now, seeing as I answered you sneering remark, could you address the canonisation of Molla and what ethos that represents?

Mervyn Crawford

Religion and the state.

Some points.

1 A citizen's right to practice her/his religion should be defended in the constitution.

2. There should be no involvement of religious organisations or personel in any institutions of the state. (Education, Health, Broadcasting, Libraries .....)

3. There should be no financial support by the state for religion. Including tax breaks etc. All expenses involved in running religious organisations to be borne by the membership. All property and finances of religions to be confiscated by the state, except designated places of worship and ongoing donations by membership to run their religious organisation.

4. Formal religious education of children to be banned.

Link:
http://wsws.org/category/eco-reli.shtml

robp

Skrynesaver wrote: »

As a general rule listening to that self-important, parochial, pompous fool does not reduce my anger quotient.

If the failure to legislate does not come from the same misguided mindset as the one which could hold up St. Gianna_Beretta_Molla as an example that should be followed, where does it come from, a general hatred of women ?

I'm old enough to remember the '83 referendum and the subsequent attempts to overturn the '92 supreme court decision by referendum, to imply that this state of affairs did not come about because of the imposition of misogynistic laws on us from celibate men who are terrified of the messy details of reproduction yet feel entitled to pronounce on the practice of those of us who get involved in the process, is to blind yourself to reality (but that's another speciality of theirs).

Now, seeing as I answered you sneering remark, could you address the canonisation of Molla and what ethos that represents?

I also share distrust of Reilly but his statement does not serve his own interest. He has personally pushed the expert committee report despite the wishes of his party. There is a strong view that he is pro-choice.

What has this Gianna Molla got to do with Irish law and secular Irish hospitals like UHG?

pauldla wrote: »

He said that "he has no evidence that a Catholic ethos prevented the life of a pregnant woman being saved by a medical termination of her pregnancy." (Newstalk)

The husband said “Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do." (Irish Times)

Is that correct?

It'd be wise to be reassured by the words of the several obstetricians in the today's indo and wait for the inquest.

robp

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

Religion and the state.

Some points.

1 A citizen's right to practice her/his religion should be defended in the constitution.

2. There should be no involvement of religious organisations or personel in any institutions of the state. (Education, Health, Broadcasting, Libraries .....)

3. There should be no financial support by the state for religion. Including tax breaks etc. All expenses involved in running religious organisations to be borne by the membership. All property and finances of religions to be confiscated by the state, except designated places of worship and ongoing donations by membership to run their religious organisation.

4. Formal religious education of children to be banned.

Link:
http://wsws.org/category/eco-reli.shtml

Those changes would need a referendum. In my opinion the one in bold would never be passed.

pauldla

robp wrote: »

I also share distrust of Reilly but his statement does not serve his own interest. He has personally pushed the expert committee report despite the wishes of his party. There is a strong view that he is pro-choice.


It'd be wise to be reassured by the words of the several obstetricians in the today's indo and wait for the inquest.

Oh I await the results of the inquest with great interest.

Alas, I am not party to Reilly's interests. Could his interests include that he is a member of an elected assembly that has dragged its feet disgracefully on the issue of abortion?