Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

I will be there too, I was at the demonstration wed night outside the Dail.

rainbow kirby

NoDrama wrote: »

I will be there too, I was at the demonstration wed night outside the Dail.

Ditto.

robindch

robp wrote: »

The reality is as facts emerge many more scenarios are possible to explain this tragedy and we may yet see some more awkard pro-choice backpedaling.

Are you suggesting that Savita's husband is a liar?

Mervyn Crawford

Sinn Fein web site statement:

Sinn Féin Health spokesperson Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin TD has said that thetragic death of Savita Halappanavar in University Hospital, Galway, underlinesthe need for long overdue legislation to provide for the termination ofpregnancy where the life of the woman is in real danger.
He said: “I extend deepest sympathy to the family of Savita Halappanavar. Newsof her death in such tragic and traumatic circumstances has caused distress topeople throughout the country.
“While we must await the outcome of on-going inquiries before drawingconclusions on all aspects of this particular case, it is clear that thetragedy highlights once again the need for long overdue legislation to providefor the termination of pregnancy where the life of the woman is in real danger.
“From the testimony of the husband of the deceased it appears that Savita wasdenied a termination on alleged legal and ethical grounds, even though it wasclear that the baby would not survive and that the mother’s life was in dangerfrom infection.
“The absence of the required legislation denies women protection and the rightto obtain a termination in such circumstances. It also creates an ambiguouslegal situation for clinicians in the same circumstances.
“Minister James Reilly has stated that he does not wish to be the seventhMinister for Health to fail to legislate in this regard. He must keep thatcommitment.” ENDS

Sinn Fein’s reluctant statement. A woman's life must be in "real danger".

My understanding of the condition that Savita Halappanavar suffered is that it is not normally life threatening; but there is a small chance that it can develop into such. And sound medical practice dictates that the grave potential risk is forestalled by inducement or termination.

As a doctor said on Pat Kenny's radio programme yesterday, in another country the patient would be asked to sign a disclaimer if she refused a termination as would be advised in the circumstances.

So according to Ó Caoláin, which situation does he believe merits medical intervention – when Savita Halappanavar was first diagnosed as miscarrying at GalwayUniversity Hospital; or was it when she was in “real danger”?

His reference to “alleged legal and ethical grounds” raises interrelated issues.Political position and philosophical outlook.

Along with his view that “ …we must await the outcome of on-going inquiries before drawing conclusions on all aspects of this particular case….” Ó Caoláin makes abundantly clear that Sinn Fein are committed to the system, and all that that implies.

For anyone with eyes to see Ireland is dominated by and riddled with a reactionary religious ideology that pervades all aspects of life. This does not mean that the great majority of people are religious reactionaries; but it does mean that the reactionaries have an insidious political control, as allies,and members, of the capitalist ruling class.

The determined opposition on the streets, and the voices that make their way into the broadcast media, the letters pages of the press and on the web sites make equally clear that this medieval ‘ethos’ is repugnant to the population.

Yet Sinn Fein’s ambiguity shies away from this divide in Irish society.Between those who believe that Catholic Church has a right to dictate and those who believe it does not. Hence Sinn Fein’s use of ‘ethical grounds’ in place of religious belief. This hiding of the true nature of the political world shows just where Sinn Fein’s allegiances lie– with the status quo; with the Catholic Church; with the rich.

The true nature and views of the great mass of the people is suppressed by Sinn Fein. The fact that those who reject the barbarism meted out to Savita Halappanavar cannot find a voice within the political system reveals the true nature of that system, and all the parties and organisations that support that system.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sharrow wrote: »

A reference to coat hangers, really?

Yup, if it helps explain why a particular substance is on sale. Back in the day, when legislation specifically prohibited the use of public funds to provide contraceptives, the pill was still available to medical card holders, free of charge. Simply because no-one was ever going to ask why it was being prescribed.

Sharrow wrote: »

You seem confused about when pregnancy begins, here this may help.

http://www.youtube.com/v/8ZKuuUPjk1Q

You’ve made an emphatic statement about there being a legal definition of pregnancy, relevant to this topic. I’ve supplied a reasonable source that suggests otherwise.

Do you have any basis for your contention?

pauldla

robp wrote: »

Its remarkable how in such a short space of time there has been such a dramatic turnaround amongst pro-choice people especially on this forum. At first we heard the continued insistence that this lady died due to the insistence of catholic ideas in Galway University hospital amidst much horrible and hasty bile directed towards ordinary pro-life people.

Then there was the Vincent Brown show that questioned any catholic role
link

Then there was the statement from Minister Reilly
No evidence of Catholic interference in Savita case

Later various obstetricians spoke out


Today we have the Irish Times story Catholic ethos suggestion dismissed

Many here have already U-turned in response and are now insisting on the theory of an indirect role of religion through no X-case changes. Its one hell of a difference but like the initial theory its backed up with only allegations and not cold and hard facts.

The reality is as facts emerge many more scenarios are possible to explain this tragedy and we may yet see some more awkard pro-choice backpedaling.

To me, this whole 'Catholic ethos' issue is a red herring. Is it not the case that the husband has repeatedly alleged that his wife was refused a termintation with the excuse that 'this is a Catholic country, there is nothing we can do'? Can we regard this as factual? On the other hand, we have the arguments 'dismissing any Catholic ethos' (whatever that may mean). Can we regard these arguments as factual? Or do they express an opinion on the ethos at the hospital? Why is this 'Catholic ethos' relevant, anyhow...?

robp

robindch wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Savita's husband is a liar?

No but you seem to be claiming he is infallible. You are kidding yourself if you think you have the full details. What was apparently said to the husband does not necessarily reflect the thought processes and logic of the doctor at all.

Now it is emerging the pro-abortion network had been given fore knowledge of this case on Sunday the 11th of November. The response strategy was already preplanned at a meeting. The Wednesday night vigil had already being planned as a protest on Monday. Why was the information handed to them by the Irish Times who only released the news days later, or by someone in the HSE? And if so, why?

Bannasidhe

robp wrote: »

No but you seem to be claiming he is infallible. You are kidding yourself if you think you have the full details. What was apparently said to the husband does not necessarily reflect the thought processes and logic of the doctor at all.

Now it is emerging the pro-abortion network had been given fore knowledge of this case on Sunday the 11th of November. The response strategy was already preplanned at a meeting. The Wednesday night vigil had already being planned as a protest on Monday. Why was the information handed to them by the Irish Times who only released the news days later, or by someone in the HSE? And if so, why?

rob.
Simple question.

Do you oppose abortion where there is a serious threat to the life of the mother?

Turtwig

robp wrote: »

No but you seem to be claiming he is infallible. You are kidding yourself if you think you have the full details. What was apparently said to the husband does not necessarily reflect the thought processes and logic of the doctor at all.

Now it is emerging the pro-abortion network had been given fore knowledge of this case on Sunday the 11th of November. The response strategy was already preplanned at a meeting. The Wednesday night vigil had already being planned as a protest on Monday. Why was the information handed to them by the Irish Times who only released the news days later, or by someone in the HSE? And if so, why?

*Checks nagivation bars*

Conspiracy theories forum <---- that way

Zillah

robp wrote: »

No but you seem to be claiming he is infallible. You are kidding yourself if you think you have the full details. What was apparently said to the husband does not necessarily reflect the thought processes and logic of the doctor at all.

Now it is emerging the pro-abortion network had been given fore knowledge of this case on Sunday the 11th of November. The response strategy was already preplanned at a meeting. The Wednesday night vigil had already being planned as a protest on Monday. Why was the information handed to them by the Irish Times who only released the news days later, or by someone in the HSE? And if so, why?

I don't really see where the ambiguity is here. He was told that this was a Catholic country, and that they would begin the procedure except that there was a fetal heartbeat. The only difference between removing the contents of the womb when there is or is not a fetal heartbeat is that one of those things can't be done if you refuse to perform an abortion. Why did they make such a big deal of there being a fetal heartbeat? Either she needed it removed or she didn't.

I'm not saying we know all of the details but the details that we do have are quite damning.

seamus

pauldla wrote: »

To me, this whole 'Catholic ethos' issue is a red herring.

I agree, and it's the reason I've been ignoring it really in this case. In high-stress situations, people are prone to misreading signals, forgetting conversations and blowing things out of all proportions.

I have no doubt that at some point someone said to Savita's husband, "Ireland is a Catholic country, which doesn't do abortions", but there's a very good chance that in the stress of it all, the context of the comment has been lost and it's been simultaneously attributed to the doctor in charge, all of the doctors and nurses and to the hospital. When we don't even know if a doctor said it - conceivably a visitor could have made the remark when told that an abortion was refused.

No, it's something which should never have been said by any medical professional to them, but as an argument point at this stage, it's really only fit for the Joe Duffy show. It's irrelevant to the wider issue and only inflames tensions and muddies the water.

lazygal

I think the Catholic comment shouldn't be analysed to death. It could have been said out of frustration, anger, annoyance-or by a Catholic doctor. We don't know. It was said to me by my consultant when I asked about harvesting stem cells (family syndrome which stem cells have been proven to treat), she said it in a resigned, frustrated way, an 'Oh, I wish I could help but unfortunately the ethos. blah, blah, blah." Maybe she was Catholic, I don't know. I had my baby safely and got great care, so the comment only came back to we when I heard this case.

kingtubby

I have no time for the Catholic church but I would rather see the blame for this tragedy being directed squarely at the 5 governments who failed to legislate for abortion in the case of a serious threat to the life of a mother despite there being clear public will for it based on the referendum results.

This was a tragedy waiting to happen.

Bannasidhe

kingtubby wrote: »

I have no time for the Catholic church but I would rather see the blame for this tragedy being directed squarely at the 5 governments who failed to legislate for abortion in the case of a serious threat to the life of a mother despite there being clear public will for it based on the referendum results.

This was a tragedy waiting to happen.

This was a tragedy warned about in 1983.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This was a tragedy warned about in 1983.

Yes. I would rather see the 8th amendment revisited. This time without the Catholic church having an unquestioned "moral authority". So would Ivana Bacik it seems, and I'll bet we're not alone in this.

"The saddest and most shameful thing of all is that deaths of pregnant women in circumstances such as these were predictable once the 1983 amendment to the Constitution was passed, equating the right to life of the “unborn” with that of the pregnant woman."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1116/1224326666155.html

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

No but you seem to be claiming he is infallible. You are kidding yourself if you think you have the full details. What was apparently said to the husband does not necessarily reflect the thought processes and logic of the doctor at all.

Now it is emerging the pro-abortion network had been given fore knowledge of this case on Sunday the 11th of November. The response strategy was already preplanned at a meeting. The Wednesday night vigil had already being planned as a protest on Monday. Why was the information handed to them by the Irish Times who only released the news days later, or by someone in the HSE? And if so, why?

Still at it, eh?

When this story emerges from somewhere other than that cat's arse that Niamh O'Briain calls her mouth with at the very least a screenshot of said e-mail, we'll lend it credence.

I find it hilarious that you take the vaguest of accusations as fact (remember you mumbled something about abortion causing cancer?) but keep on with your emperical demands for evidence that's never good enough for you anyway.

Niamh O'Briain said it so it must be true but how can you believe a word that comes out of Praveen Halappanavar's mouth, sure he's no doctor! :pac:

(Btw, he's a scientist, she was a dentist and both of their families have many members in the medical profession.)

robindch

robp wrote: »

No but you seem to be claiming he is infallible. You are kidding yourself if you think you have the full details. What was apparently said to the husband does not necessarily reflect the thought processes and logic of the doctor at all.

I'm not claiming he's infallible, though it does appear that your poor comprehension of what I and others here are saying suggests you think most do.

So let me be quite clear:

Savita's hubby may or may not have heard what he appears to have claimed he heard. It may or may not have been said by a member of the hospital staff and it may or may not be hospital policy, even if it was said.

What is clear and what is undisputed is that a foreign national lies dead, and the principal reason appears to be because she was treated dreadfully badly by Irish medical services. I don't believe that anybody expects the major conclusions of the various reports to change this simple understanding in any significant way. While there is widespread disgust within Ireland and internationally at events in Galway, the majority Fine Gael government doesn't appear to give a flying fuck -- one can only speculate on the reasons for this, but I think it's quite reasonable to think that religion may be involved somewhere. Meanwhile, the majority of the noisiest religious appear to be using this tragedy to malign the motives of people -- like most posters here -- who wish to ensure that no more women die needlessly; effectively playing politics while people die. What a disgrace.

Zillah

kingtubby wrote: »

I have no time for the Catholic church but I would rather see the blame for this tragedy being directed squarely at the 5 governments who failed to legislate for abortion in the case of a serious threat to the life of a mother despite there being clear public will for it based on the referendum results.

This was a tragedy waiting to happen.

What do you imagine was the largest force dissuading those governments from legislating for abortion?

The Catholic Church and the conservative lobby

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zillah wrote: »

I don't really see where the ambiguity is here. He was told that this was a Catholic country, and that they would begin the procedure except that there was a fetal heartbeat. The only difference between removing the contents of the womb when there is or is not a fetal heartbeat is that one of those things can't be done if you refuse to perform an abortion. Why did they make such a big deal of there being a fetal heartbeat? Either she needed it removed or she didn't.
I'm not saying we know all of the details but the details that we do have are quite damning.

You are right that facts of the case have been presented, and there is not yet any reason to doubt them. And, indeed, our Constitution still invokes the Holy Trinity as the ultimate source of its authority, so we don't live in a secular State.

There is also, independently of any particular case, a degree of agreement among responsible authorities (Supreme Court, health professionals, and so forth) that legislation is needed to define more clearly when abortions can be performed, given that it has already been established, just as a general principle, that the Constitution allows abortion where there is a risk to the life of the mother.

The reason some are hesitating over linkage of this case to the general issue is simply because the facts of the case are strange. The contention we're hearing is that, in any of the Dublin maternity hospitals, terminations (or however people want to term such procedures) would simply be carried out if required on medical grounds. And they are operating, obviously, under exactly the same set of legal circumstances. That doesn't meant the facts of the case don't stack - just that they are sufficiently puzzling to require investigation and verification before making judgments.

But, I suppose, we've so much Catholic heritage in our past that vigils by candlelight are probably written into our genes. Certainly, some are simply stampeding with the herd on this case. Personally, I'm waiting for someone to report a moving statue.

Sarky

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1116/1224326668914.html

Apparently 20 years on from the X Case it's "too soon" to legislate for abortion.

People voted for this gobsh*te. How did that happen?

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, I suppose, we've so much Catholic heritage in our past that vigils by candlelight are probably written into our genes. Certainly, some are simply stampeding with the herd on this case. Personally, I'm waiting for someone to report a moving statue.

Y'know, I have no Catholic leanings at all, but I have no difficulty whatsoever in lighting a candle for Savita, and showing my heart to be with her husband Praveen. As for "stampeding with the herd", it is quite true that in the tiny rural village where I live, people are now questioning why this was allowed to happen, as they may never have done before. I call that waking up, personally.

Moving statues? Moving cars all the way from Clare to Galway, if local anger and upset is anything to go by. And not a shred of love for the Holy Catholic Ethos.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, I suppose, we've so much Catholic heritage in our past that vigils by candlelight are probably written into our genes.

Do the millions and millions of Hindus who are lighting candles at this time to year to celebrate Diwali (The Festival of Light which pre-dates Christianity btw) know candle-lit vigils are part of Catholic heritage?

Savita Halappanavar was one of the organisers of this year's Diwali celebrations in Galway. Celebrations she will not be able to attend.

To suggest that only Catholics light candle's in in this context a bit insensitive.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

People voted for this gobsh*te. How did that happen?

Well, perhaps they won't make that mistake a second time.

keane2097

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do the millions and millions of Hindus who are lighting candles at this time to year to celebrate Diwali (The Festival of Light which pre-dates Christianity btw) know candle-lit vigils are part of Catholic heritage?

Savita Halappanavar was one of the organisers of this year's Diwali celebrations in Galway. Celebrations she will not be able to attend.

To suggest that only Catholics light candle's in in this context a bit insensitive.

Besides just being ill-informed.

Lingua Franca

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do the millions and millions of Hindus who are lighting candles at this time to year to celebrate Diwali (The Festival of Light which pre-dates Christianity btw) know candle-lit vigils are part of Catholic heritage?

Savita Halappanavar was one of the organisers of this year's Diwali celebrations in Galway. Celebrations she will not be able to attend.

To suggest that only Catholics light candle's in in this context a bit insensitive.

Indeed, candlelit vigils to express sympathy and solidarity for tragedys are a worldwide phenomenon seen everywhere from New York to Gaza to Tokyo.

Sonics2k

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, I suppose, we've so much Catholic heritage in our past that vigils by candlelight are probably written into our genes. Certainly, some are simply stampeding with the herd on this case. Personally, I'm waiting for someone to report a moving statue.

Candlelight vigils are far from a Catholic, or even Christian tradition.
They are held throughout the world, from the old Vikings, Ancient Greeks and Romans, and quite a lot of Asian cultures too. And yes, it's very common in India too.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To suggest that only Catholics light candle's in in this context a bit insensitive.

I haven't suggested that they are the only people, globally, who light candles.

I've simply pointed out the situations where, in the past, you typically saw large amounts of Irish people turning up with candles.

I'm delighted to see it struck a nerve. It should.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I haven't suggested that they are the only people, globally, who light candles.

I've simply pointed out the situations where, in the past, you typically saw large amounts of Irish people turning up with candles.

I'm delighted to see it struck a nerve. It should.

A nerve - only in that I am gobsmacked by your lack of sensitivity or cultural awareness.

I forget there are people who think Ireland is some special place outside of time and space and not just a little island stuck off the west coast of Europe.

I am an Irish person. I light candles in memory of the dead. I am not a Catholic. I did this when I lived in the UK/Australia/Switzerland/US and was joined by Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Anglicans, Presbyterians etc etc.

Mervyn Crawford

The issue is religion. And the demand for a secular society.

The point about Savita Halappanavar's husband's claim that they are not Catholic (and not Irish) is that they should be treated according to enlightened norms of medical practice, not according to reactionary laws based on religious beliefs.

The issue for Irish people is the ejection of religious control and influence from all aspects of civil society. Religion must become a private matter, the individual decides privately whether or not they have religious beliefs; but one's religious beliefs, if one has them, can in no way be imposed on others - (including children).

Religious belief is a matter of faith.I t can by it's very features have no scientific verification. It is reactionary in the extreme to force such an 'ethos' on others.

The absolute necessity to expel religion from all civil society is a political task. That is why I raised the issue of Sinn Fein's response (see earlier post).

In one way or another, every political tendency in official Ireland supports the status quo; even despite some loud noises apparently to the contrary.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Well, perhaps they won't make that mistake a second time.

I wish I could be that optimistic....:(