Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Lon Dubh

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Out of interest, I googled about a bit to see if the head of department consultant in Galway University hospital was actively pro life, like Eamon O'Dwyer.

He's not.

This is from 2002.



I think we can take his personal beliefs out of the equation.

Good find.

jank

robindch wrote: »

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

I think he is suggesting that there is a lot more grey to this news item than already mentioned. It fits a certain narrative of course about 'Catholic' morality being imposed on people and so forth but as I originally said maybe we should wait for all the facts to come out before judging what happened.

jank

robp wrote: »

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?

If the above is true its just an example on why most people hate the jumped up idiots on both sides of the argument.

robp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

rob.
Simple question.

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

After much objective debate I can do nothing but stand over the guidelines of Irish medical council.

21.4 In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where
therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy)
is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the
baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these
exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to
terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while
making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.

This is not defined as abortion but abortion itself is also permissible in the same circumstances due to the ruling of the X-case.
These guidelines allow for fullest treatment necessary. Over the last few days this topic as seen raging debate. Its a complicated topic and clouded with much misinformation but in all instances of practicing obstetricians commenting they have withheld judgment on this case. The pro-choice lobby could learn a lot from them.

Dades

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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

No, you just made yourself look a bit silly.

jank

seamus wrote: »

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.

Spot on. The thing is though that remark alone has been doing the rounds and is taken as the defacto official line of the hospital or even all Irish hospitals that have a maternity clinic/ward. When we all know, its nothing of the sort. Feeds into the mass hysteria of this tragic death.

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

I think he is suggesting that there is a lot more grey to this news item than already mentioned. It fits a certain narrative of course about 'Catholic' morality being imposed on people and so forth but as I originally said maybe we should wait for all the facts to come out before judging what happened.

So could you hypothesise some alternate reasons why this woman was refused a termination of a doomed foetus because it still had a heart beat that doesn't involve catholic morality? Whether the termination would have been lawful or not I can see no ambiguity without the church's views on the subject. Ambiguity that ended a life.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

Look, all I'm saying is we've a proud tradition of being self-righteous in poorly illuminated groups.

There probably are things that we need to take notice of in this case, but they won't be found by candlelight outside the Oireachtas.Our knowledge isn't improved by people gathering to experience the joys of feeling holier than thou.

expectationlost

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

an article by a religious guy joe humphrys does not mean much, the hospital has religious and catholic statues and symbols all around it im told by a galway resident. it is a former workhouse and not owned by an order but that state shares the same history of spiteful treatment of women as the church did, and church inflluence went everywhere. "its not like it was 15 years ago" he said well the same consultant could be working there who's ideas were outdated 15 years ago. she could well have been in the infection control ward irionically called st enda's.



the husband description was quite clear.

ShooterSF

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Look, all I'm saying is we've a proud tradition of being self-righteous in poorly illuminated groups.

There probably are things that we need to take notice of in this case, but they won't be found by candlelight outside the Oireachtas.Our knowledge isn't improved by people gathering to experience the joys of feeling holier than thou.

Wow. So mourning a needless death and calling for measures to make sure it doesn't happen again are all just covers for people just wanting the nice fuzzy holier than thou feelings. I hope you're not projecting onto others!

jank

ShooterSF wrote: »

So could you hypothesise some alternate reasons why this woman was refused a termination of a doomed foetus because it still had a heart beat that doesn't involve catholic morality? Whether the termination would have been lawful or not I can see no ambiguity without the church's views on the subject. Ambiguity that ended a life.

Em what? Did a priest overlook the treatment? No, a doctor did.

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

Em what? Did a priest overlook the treatment? No, a doctor did.

Elephants trunks are grey.

LittleBook

UDP wrote: »

Just on the way home from the protest outside leinster house. I have never been at a protest before but what happened to this woman makes my blood boil.

I protested outside Leinster House against the DPPs decision to detain the child involved in the X Case ... in a lot of ways there's a deeply disturbing sense of déjà vu about all this.

Sarky wrote: »

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

robindch wrote: »

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

I know I shouldn't be so surprised ... but it does beggar belief how out of touch these politicians are with the people of today's Ireland.

The last referendum on abortion was in 1992. So, effectively anyone born after 1974 has never been "asked" their opinion.

Would it be so shocking for them to consider that it might actually be the will of the majority of today's electorate to legislate properly for abortion?

jank

And until we know ALL the facts we cant judge or proportion blame. Simples.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

And until we know ALL the facts we cant judge or proportion blame. Simples.

Can you outline what facts are know at the minute?

For instance, are you disputing that this woman was denied an abortion?

Eramen

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.

A bit insensitive? Perhaps it's time to reconnect with your human nature. People need an outlet for their grief and the flame of hundreds of candles invokes the proper mood for reflection in these times.

Keep your 'sensitivity' politics out of it.

UDP

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There probably are things that we need to take notice of in this case, but they won't be found by candlelight outside the Oireachtas.Our knowledge isn't improved by people gathering to experience the joys of feeling holier than thou.

Hearing that doctors were waiting for the heatbeat of the fetus to stop is worrying and indicates that it might be the case that they did not want to act before the fetus had died. Surely if they did not want to act because they thought the risks to the mother from removing the fetus straight away were greater than removing the fetus later after the heartbeat had stopped I'm sure they would have made that clear to the father (and mother).

Even if it turns out terminating and removing the fetus sooner would not have made a difference, which is a possibility, it may save someone else's life in the future or help speed up the decision for a doctor. It would also have allowed Savita to successfully request a termination of the fetus when she asked for it the first time which should have been her choice to make. The doctor's responsibility was to give their opinion on risks and what they consider the best next steps but allow the mother (and/or father) to make the choice for themselves. This was the big failure here by the governments who have not legislated for what they were legally obliged to do. It also shows up the hypocrisy of the religious groups and their bullsh'it about being pro-life.

Savita didn't have the choice that she should have had. That's the problem here. I hope public anger will make a difference.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ShooterSF wrote: »

Wow. So mourning a needless death and calling for measures to make sure it doesn't happen again are all just covers for people just wanting the nice fuzzy holier than thou feelings. I hope you're not projecting onto others!

No, I'm just leaping to conclusions in the absence of hard information, seeing as how it's the spirit of the moment. The only difference is the absence of a candle.

Oh, and I'm not calling it a "Vigil". Apart from that, I'm right on message.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

UDP wrote: »

Hearing that doctors were waiting for the heatbeat of the fetus to stop is worrying and indicates that it might be the case that they did not want to act before the fetus had died. Surely if they did not want to act because they thought the risks to the mother from removing the fetus straight away were greater than removing the fetus later after the heartbeat had stopped I'm sure they would have made that clear to the father (and mother).

Even if it turns out terminating and removing the fetus sooner would not have made a difference, which is a possibility, it may save someone else's life in the future or help speed up the decision for a doctor. It would also have allowed Savita to successfully request a termination of the fetus when she asked for it the first time which should have been her choice to make. The doctor's responsibility was to give their opinion on risks and what they consider the best next steps but allow the mother (and/or father) to make the choice for themselves. This was the big failure here by the governments who have not legislated for what they were legally obliged to do. It also shows up the hypocrisy of the religious groups and their bullsh'it about being pro-life.

Savita didn't have the choice that she should have had. That's the problem here. I hope public anger will make a difference.

All of that might be true. Or it might not. The thing to react against, at present, is the attempt to pre-empt investigation.

Truth will out. In a few months.

jank

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can you outline what facts are know at the minute?

For instance, are you disputing that this woman was denied an abortion?

The facts are that a woman died in Galway from infection after a miscarriage. Its been reported that she requested and was subsequently denied an abortion.

There is too much filling in the blanks here to get a clear picture at this time. As rationalists should you not think we should get all the facts before one proportions blame? Of course making an emotional choice now is a hell of a lot easier.

Eramen

Zillah wrote: »

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

The Catholic Church and the conservative lobby

Hold on a second. There are plenty of atheist, agnostics, Hindus, Muslims who are against abortion too. There are plenty of non-religious reasons to oppose this. In fact i will be helping an Irish Atheist organisation this week-end with advertising campaign against unneeded abortions, without religion being brought into the equation at all.

Blaming Catholicism is just plain weak, and it's an underhanded tactic to tarnish everyone with the same brush. "To be opposed to (unneeded) abortions is to be a Catholic or help the interests of the RCC".. Well no it's not, there are other logical reasons to hold these opinions.

Also Catholics can believe as they like, it's no pitfall to be a Catholic and to not support abortion.

Eramen

jank wrote: »

The facts are that a woman died in Galway from infection after a miscarriage. Its been reported that she requested and was subsequently denied an abortion.

There is too much filling in the blanks here to get a clear picture at this time. As rationalists should you not think we should get all the facts before one proportions blame? Of course making an emotional choice now is a hell of a lot easier.

I believe the latest news is that she did not need an abortion at all, because her situation did not demand it. Rather because of the miscarriage and subsequent infection she need to be artificially induced into early labour, but because of medical incompetence this was not done.

Both sides of this argument have waded into the water far to early. I hope people take a good look at the fear-mongers on both sides and remember to punish them at a later date for abusing this poor family's situation.

Lingua Franca

Zillah said "largest force". What is your definition of "plenty"? Last time I looked Ireland did not have plenty of Muslims, Hindus or pro-life atheist groups.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

The facts are that a woman died in Galway from infection after a miscarriage. Its been reported that she requested and was subsequently denied an abortion.

There is too much filling in the blanks here to get a clear picture at this time. As rationalists should you not think we should get all the facts before one proportions blame? Of course making an emotional choice now is a hell of a lot easier.

So you are disputing that this woman was denied an abortion then? Are you sure the woman even died? Have you seen the body?

The facts are in, had this woman's pregnancy been terminated once it was known the foetus was not viable then she would likely be alive. This is not filling in the blanks, this is reality.

ShooterSF

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, I'm just leaping to conclusions in the absence of hard information, seeing as how it's the spirit of the moment. The only difference is the absence of a candle.

Oh, and I'm not calling it a "Vigil". Apart from that, I'm right on message.

Oh ok. Continue. I'll read you future points with your jumping to conclusionness in mind!

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

All of that might be true. Or it might not. The thing to react against, at present, is the attempt to pre-empt investigation.

Truth will out. In a few months.

We don't need all the details to know that there is a problem. Doctors waiting on a heartbeat to stop to do an operation that has no benefit to that operation and opens up potential risks means we have a problem. Either our legislation is the problem or it's clarity. Both the government can and should address. We don't need to know whether the doctors could have done the operation legally.

Either the government needs to introduce laws to cover this or clarify one's that are in existence.

Stark

Eramen wrote: »

Hold on a second. There are plenty of atheist, agnostics, Hindus, Muslims who are against abortion too. There are plenty of non-religious reasons to oppose this. In fact i will be helping an Irish Atheist organisation this week-end with advertising campaign against unneeded abortions, without religion being brought into the equation at all.

Blaming Catholicism is just plain weak, and it's an underhanded tactic to tarnish everyone with the same brush. "To be opposed to (unneeded) abortions is to be a Catholic or help the interests of the RCC".. Well no it's not, there are other logical reasons to hold these opinions.

Also Catholics can believe as they like, it's no pitfall to be a Catholic and to not support abortion.

Yeah sure, totally unfair to suggest they have anything to do with things: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/church-launches-new-antiabortion-campaign-3251178.html

Eramen

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Zillah said "largest force". What is your definition of "plenty"? Last time I looked Ireland did not have plenty of Muslims, Hindus or pro-life atheist groups.

Sir/Madame, are you suggesting that there are no 'pro-life' atheists, Muslims, and Hindus etc? I'd say that would be far, far off target.

The reason you see a 'solid' Catholic front (which is not entirely accurate, a sizable portion of Catholics support abortion) on the issue is because they have cohesive organisations to lobby, as does the 'pro-chice' side.

Both lobbies of course rely on the ignorance and under-education of the general public to achieve their aims; back-room political dealings will be the name of the game, not popular incentive.

MagicMarker

Eramen wrote: »

Sir/Madame, are you suggesting that there are no 'pro-life' atheists, Muslims, and Hindus etc? I'd say that would be far, far off target.

No one is saying that.

Eramen

Stark wrote: »

Yeah sure, totally unfair to suggest they have anything to do with things: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/church-launches-new-antiabortion-campaign-3251178.html

I never said that, but it is their right to act in whatever way they wish.

I'm merely saying that all demographic groups are represented in opposing unneeded abortions through the ideal itself. That there are plenty of non-religious, ethical, humanitarian, scientific reasons to be against unneeded abortions.

Learn to handle these facts.

mikhail

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Look, all I'm saying is we've a proud tradition of being self-righteous in poorly illuminated groups.

There probably are things that we need to take notice of in this case, but they won't be found by candlelight outside the Oireachtas.Our knowledge isn't improved by people gathering to experience the joys of feeling holier than thou.

Well I'm glad you've found a way to make yourself feel better by convincing yourself you're superior to them.