Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

If the "pro-life" side used a case like this for their ends they'd rightly be mocked and called for everything on here.

Lingua Franca

They use cases like this for their ends all of the time. Manon Jones, Jessie-Maye Barlow and Emma Beck most recently.

Bannasidhe

Eramen wrote: »

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.

What are you talking about?

Mark Hamill

Eramen wrote: »

It's the constant inference to the RCC that would have one believe that anyone who opposes unneeded abortions is 'under the yoke of the church' or making religious arguments to support their positions.

We know very well this underhandedness that pervades the pro-abortion on demand lobby. Anyone with a rational thought would not need to do this.

Atheists stand against casual abortion too! Stop talking about the RCC and debate the real questions!

What, in all honesty, are you blathering about? This is not a case of an unneeded abortion, the woman who died most definitely needed an abortion to increase her chances of living. The ambiguous religious centric legislation that killed this woman was a result of religious political interference over the years. And the religion with by far the most politic interference in this country's history is catholicism, hence it has been mentioned so much.

Its all well and good pointing out non-catholics who are anti abortion, but no other group in this country has the political influence the church still has, hence we are right to blame them for this situation (partially, the useless politicians too afraid of upsetting the rcc deserve an equal amount of blame too).

You seem to think there are no anti needless-abortion atheists here, well I am anti needless-abortion. But I wouldn't for a second have tried to stop or persuade this woman from an abortion. Do you know any anti-abortion atheists or agnostics who would have denied this woman an abortion?

Mervyn Crawford

It is incorrect to say that the church has 'influence'. It has control, both in law and by convention/fear.

I believe a database or electronic library should be established of all reported aspects of religious control, comment, etc. Information on the activities and the role of the religions in Ireland is haphazardly reported, muddied and suppressed. A consistent gathering and exposure of information would be vitally important in the struggle against reaction.

Since the Enlightenment the principle of separation of church and state has been fought for.

This Enlightenment principle includes the demand that an individual's right to practice their religion should be constitutionally protected, so long as that practice does not interfere with the rights of others.

Of course the other side of the coin is that no religious organisation or philosophy is allowed to have any role whatsover in civil society, as religion is a private belief, that is inherently beyond scientific verification. And it is profoundly oppresive and reactionary for religious belief to inform or control the organisation of public life.

The so-called defenders of the people in the unions and political parties that partake in the Dail and the councils have a stake in the system and have no intention of undermining the status quo. Though the role of some is to give the impression that they are for radical change; but then lead any independent movements of the people into dead ends.

Fanatical anti-clericalism has no serious role in opposing religion. Not least because religious oppression and obfusaction is itself a product of the division of society into classes and the exploitation of one calss by another. The fanatics are blind to that fundamental question.

Obliq

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

It is incorrect to say that the church has 'influence'. It has control, both in law and by convention/fear.

I believe a database or electronic library should be established of all reported aspects of religious control, comment, etc. Information on the activities and the role of the religions in Ireland is haphazardly reported, muddied and suppressed. A consistent gathering and exposure of information would be vitally important in the struggle against reaction.

Since the Enlightenment the principle of separation of church and state has been fought for.

This Enlightenment principle includes the demand that an individual's right to practice their religion should be constitutionally protected, so long as that practice does not interfere with the rights of others.

Of course the other side of the coin is that no religious organisation or philosophy is allowed to have any role whatsover in civil society, as religion is a private belief, that is inherently beyond scientific verification. And it is profoundly oppresive and reactionary for religious belief to inform or control the organisation of public life.

The so-called defenders of the people in the unions and political parties that partake in the Dail and the councils have a stake in the system and have no intention of undermining the status quo. Though the role of some is to give the impression that they are for radical change; but then lead any independent movements of the people into dead ends.

Fanatical anti-clericalism has no serious role in opposing religion. Not least because religious oppression and obfusaction is itself a product of the division of society into classes and the exploitation of one calss by another. The fanatics are blind to that fundamental question.

I like it. I like it a lot. When can we start gathering information and who's getting it?

Bannasidhe

Mark Hamill

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

I believe a database or electronic library should be established of all reported aspects of religious control, comment, etc. Information on the activities and the role of the religions in Ireland is haphazardly reported, muddied and suppressed. A consistent gathering and exposure of information would be vitally important in the struggle against reaction.

While not Ireland centric, there is concordatwatch.org, a website that which reports on the various concordats (diplomatic treaties) the vatican has with various countries . It also has links to other issues, like women and religious law, and religious threats to human rights.

I'd imagine it would be quite hard to find all the specific places the church has controlled, or attempted to control. Its not like the vatican is known for its honesty, we are still finding out about institutionalised abuse performed and hidden by clergy for years.

Xenophile

Never saw Taoiseach Enda Kenny under so much pressure as he came across on the Six One News this evening. He knows that this is a serious issue and has the real potential of bringing the Government down.

Galvasean

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

It is incorrect to say that the church has 'influence'. It has control, both in law and by convention/fear.

I believe a database or electronic library should be established of all reported aspects of religious control, comment, etc. Information on the activities and the role of the religions in Ireland is haphazardly reported, muddied and suppressed. A consistent gathering and exposure of information would be vitally important in the struggle against reaction.

A combined form of the 'Hazards of Belief' and the 'Ongoing Religious Scandals' threads?

Mervyn Crawford

What is hidden is hidden.

However, it is known in a general way that the churches run both education and health in Ireland. That catholic priests and nuns (and protestant, and non-christain clerics) sit on and manage boards of management of hospitals, schools, colleges(?).

Are there clerics on the boards of other state institutions? Say RTE?

The GAA is not a state organisation; but it is funded by the state to a very large degree. Does it have religious rules, aspects?
And other sports organisations?

The arts?

Government bodies on scientific research? Medical ethics?

Is there a religious element written into the rules of public organisations?

Persons with known allegiance to religious organisations, who are not clerics, and have state roles?

How does the state directly and indirectly fund religion?

Do any political parties have a direct religious connection? Or the unions?

The nebulous area of 'semi-state', NGOs, charities?

I believe there are questions yet that we do not know to ask; but in gathering all known information together the accumulation paints a fuller picture.

Turtwig

Eramen wrote: »

Zillah wrote: »

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

The Catholic Church and the conservative lobby

At no point here does Zillah state that the quantity of atheists against abortions is zero.
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...

Eramen wrote: »

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.

Lingua explains to you that 'largest force' does not equate to saying there are none. S/he then asked you to define what amount you consider would quantify as 'plenty'

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.

Eramen wrote: »

This forum is unable to debate.

Twice above you misinterpreted what someone else said. That's ok anyone can do that, but when it was pointed out to you again your next post proceeded with addressing the fake non existent point again and you persisted in doing this. Others still pointed this out to you too but you still continued to address fake points.

We try not to have debate here because they invariably go the way of "convincing" one side over the other and not actually bothering to understand your opposing sides argument. Robin will correct me here, I'm sure, but I think what we strive for is a dialectic? In any case, your style of argument, debate, discussion, is frankly, atrocious.

And before you get ready to toss the salt at me, remember you first made the point about standards of debating? It's only fair game I point out what your actual standard is at then.

Jessica-Rabbit

I would really like to bring my point across in the hope that it will some insight as to why women have abortions. This is just my opinion based on personal experences
First of all NO woman in their right mind ever Wants to go through this however they find that this is the only solution they have under the circumstances be it .. their age ie too young or too old
Have enough children and cannot cope with another child mentally or financially
financial reasons
lack of or no support
Rape
Mental health issues ect

and it is all well and good to say 'well you should have been more careful in the first place' but sometimes contraception fails and to those who did not use any for whatever reason high in sight is all well and good. The reality is these women and in a very upsetting situation and they feel abortion is the only way to deal with it but they have to carry the grieve sense of loss and guilt for a very long time sometimes for the rest of their lives and when they hear or see pro lifers berating them and other women it just adds to the hurt and pain.

And for those who ah sure you could give it up for adoption.. adoption is great but that too has its down sides,, it is a very very hard thing for a woman to carry her baby and then give the baby away, during the pregnancy the woman could become severely depressed maybe even suicidal if she feels she is being forced to give up her baby.
Then there can be issues for the child who was given up, some children feel that they were not wanted by and some question their own identity. They may as adults fall in love with someone who could turn out to be their half brother or sister.
So please take all of this into account before any of you berate any woman who has been through this. Regardless of what you may think it is not an easy quick fix but for some women it was the right thing for them. I know this because I was one of them. I now have a wonderful fiance and a beautiful baby girl so I have been very lucky but had I went through with my previous pregnancy several years ago my life may not have turned out how it is not

Thanks for reading

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MagicMarker wrote: »

Here's an good article by OB/GYN, Dr. Jen Gunter.

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

It's a good article, as she's not assuming inquiry to be settled

1) Irish law does indeed treat pregnant women as second class citizens and denies them appropriate medical care. The medical team was following the law to avoid criminal prosecution.

2) Irish law does not deny women the care they need; however, a zealous individual doctor or hospital administrator interpreted Catholic doctrine in such a way that a pregnant woman’s medical care was somehow irrelevant and superceded by heart tones of a 17 weeks fetus that could never be viable.

3) Irish law allows abortions for women when medically necessary, but the doctors involved were negligent in that they could not diagnose infection when it was so obviously present, did not know the treatment, or were not competent enough to carry out the treatment.

Now, her material needs a little amendment. In option 2), it's possible that whomever was in control of the medical care misunderstood what the law permits. I'd feel it's also unlikely that any administrator had a decision-making role in any of this.

The issue is around establishing if the third point has any relevance. That's what investigation needs to determine.

recedite

MagicMarker wrote: »

Here's an good article by OB/GYN, Dr. Jen Gunter.

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

...As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice...

I'd like to see the hospital and/or doctor involved sued for malpractice. I don't think the family will want to sue, but somebody should do it.
As a matter of principle.

There are two main differences between this and the x case;

1.The mothers life was clearly and evidentially at grave risk through actual miscarriage and sepsis infection (not just alleged suicidal thoughts)

2.There has been a constitutional amendment since the x case which makes it clear that a termination is allowed where there is a real (credible) threat to the life of the mother.

Any legislation they might bring in later will only clarify to what extent a risk to the woman's life might be credible or real (in less straightforward cases, such as where suicide is threatened by a woman in a healthy physical state, during a healthy pregnancy.)
In Savita's case though, the threat was very clear and very real, and therefore Irish law already specifically allows a termination in such a case.

Bannasidhe

Jessica-Rabbit wrote: »

I would really like to bring my point across in the hope that it will some insight as to why women have abortions. This is just my opinion based on personal experences
First of all NO woman in their right mind ever Wants to go through this however they find that this is the only solution they have under the circumstances be it .. their age ie too young or too old
Have enough children and cannot cope with another child mentally or financially
financial reasons
lack of or no support
Rape
Mental health issues ect

and it is all well and good to say 'well you should have been more careful in the first place' but sometimes contraception fails and to those who did not use any for whatever reason high in sight is all well and good. The reality is these women and in a very upsetting situation and they feel abortion is the only way to deal with it but they have to carry the grieve sense of loss and guilt for a very long time sometimes for the rest of their lives and when they hear or see pro lifers berating them and other women it just adds to the hurt and pain.

And for those who ah sure you could give it up for adoption.. adoption is great but that too has its down sides,, it is a very very hard thing for a woman to carry her baby and then give the baby away, during the pregnancy the woman could become severely depressed maybe even suicidal if she feels she is being forced to give up her baby.
Then there can be issues for the child who was given up, some children feel that they were not wanted by and some question their own identity. They may as adults fall in love with someone who could turn out to be their half brother or sister.
So please take all of this into account before any of you berate any woman who has been through this. Regardless of what you may think it is not an easy quick fix but for some women it was the right thing for them. I know this because I was one of them. I now have a wonderful fiance and a beautiful baby girl so I have been very lucky but had I went through with my previous pregnancy several years ago my life may not have turned out how it is not

Thanks for reading

Jessica - I am glad things are going so well for you now after having such a difficult time.

Congratulations on your beautiful baby girl.

Jessica-Rabbit

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jessica - I am glad things are going so well for you now after having such a difficult time.

Congratulations on your beautiful baby girl.

thanks so much xxx

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Jessica-Rabbit wrote: »

And for those who ah sure you could give it up for adoption.. adoption is great but that too has its down sides,, it is a very very hard thing for a woman to carry her baby and then give the baby away, during the pregnancy the woman could become severely depressed maybe even suicidal if she feels she is being forced to give up her baby.
Then there can be issues for the child who was given up, some children feel that they were not wanted by and some question their own identity. They may as adults fall in love with someone who could turn out to be their half brother or sister.

Thanks for sharing your experience in general. I found your comments on adoption particularly interesting, as the numbers of children put up for adoption these days is tiny. There used to be over 1,000 adoptions a year; now there's less than two hundred, and most of them are children adopted by their natural mother and her subsequent husband.

I'm only zoning in on this, because I find people still talk about adoption as if it was still a common practice. It isn't.

Turtwig

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Thanks for sharing your experience in general. I found your comments on adoption particularly interesting, as the numbers of children put up for adoption these days is tiny. There used to be over 1,000 adoptions a year; now there's less than two hundred, and most of them are children adopted by their natural mother and her subsequent husband.

I'm only zoning in on this, because I find people still talk about adoption as if it was still a common practice. It isn't.

Apologies to the mods for dragging this further off topic.

Is there any reason given or speculated for why the figures have dropped so low? I was one of those who assumed it was common place so nice to have ignorance met with awareness.

Nodin

Jernal wrote: »

Apologies to the mods for dragging this further off topic.

Is there any reason given or speculated for why the figures have dropped so low? I was one of those who assumed it was common place so nice to have ignorance met with awareness.

...most unmarried mothers keep the children these days. Likewise orphanages are mostly a thing of the past for much the same reason.

recedite

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In option 2), it's possible that whomever was in control of the medical care misunderstood what the law permits. I'd feel it's also unlikely that any administrator had a decision-making role in any of this.

Ignorance of the law is never an excuse.
Its very possible that an administrator instructed the doctors to never terminate while the foetal heart still beats, without having a direct involvement in this particular case.
So it's still malpractice, recklessly endangering her life, just to uphold their religious doctrine.

Lingua Franca

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.

I missed this and other people cleared it up for me but obviously, no. We have pro life atheists right here in this very thread.




Edit: and to clear up the gender issue for everyone, I'm a she.

Jessica-Rabbit

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Thanks for sharing your experience in general. I found your comments on adoption particularly interesting, as the numbers of children put up for adoption these days is tiny. There used to be over 1,000 adoptions a year; now there's less than two hundred, and most of them are children adopted by their natural mother and her subsequent husband.

I'm only zoning in on this, because I find people still talk about adoption as if it was still a common practice. It isn't.

You're welcome,

In Ireland yes the figures are very low. however in the US the figures are higher alot of that maybe because it is such a vast country.

Lingua Franca

I'd also like to thank you for sharing Jessica, and and glad you've found happiness.

I believe a lot of the US adoptions are foreign ones. I know there were a lot of adoptions from Russia until this happened and a few other horror stories came out that put the brakes on it for a while.

Here in the Netherlands my mother in law's best friend is growing her own little rainbow family by adopting abroad.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

recedite wrote: »

Ignorance of the law is never an excuse.
Its very possible that an administrator instructed the doctors to never terminate while the foetal heart still beats, without having a direct involvement in this particular case.
So it's still malpractice, recklessly endangering her life, just to uphold their religious doctrine.

I'm not suggesting ignorance is a defence. You'd expect a hospital to know its business. And, to be clear, I'm absolutely not ruling out the prospect of finding that this hospital applies some religious doctrine in such cases. I just feel that a structured investigation is needed to sort out what is and isn't relevant.

However, I'm not clear where an administrator would have any function in respect of medical treatment. As I understand it, the medical profession here don't defer to anyone in their clinical decisions. There is some provision in the newer consultants' contract that provides for clincal leads (who are also consultants) having some kind of supervisory role with respect to other doctors. But I'd be very, very surprised if medical practitioners deferred to anyone outside the profession on this kind of issue. They might listen to legal advice. They might be aware of limits set by their clinical indemnity insurance. But the decisions would rest with the doctors.

Now, that said, I'm utterly open to hearing whatever is uncovered by this investigation. So, yeah, maybe it's all down to a hospital administrator who's in Opus Dei. But I'd feel that to be far less likely than, say, a doctor feeling that terminating the pregnancy would leave him legally exposed because of some circumstance in the case.

Jessica-Rabbit

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I'd also like to thank you for sharing Jessica, and and glad you've found happiness.

I believe a lot of the US adoptions are foreign ones. I know there were a lot of adoptions from Russia until this happened and a few other horror stories came out that put the brakes on it for a while.

Here in the Netherlands my mother in law's best friend is growing her own little rainbow family by adopting abroad.

Thanks so much Lingua xx

doctoremma

Am on phone so not going to attempt to block quote....

I suspect the medics (or those who direct them) will garner enough evidence and testimony to assert that this death was unpredictable and that no 'abortion for maternal health' legislation would have saved Savita. You can only try to save a woman if you know that the woman is at risk.

Now, I confidently predict someone on that team will come forward and say that their hands were tied. But you'll also get a few medical experts saying that this was an unfortunate and unexpected event.

Somewhat anathema to me, and I've thought very long and hard about this, I don't think 'legislation for X' is going to work. I think it's jumping onto the obvious bandwagon without considering if it's the most effective action. This case is far broader than a simple 'abortion for maternal health' or 'abortion of a non-viable fetus' or 'abortion on demand'.

I'm worried that it's all too easy to claim 'we did what we thought best'.

Well, I think I have so many other things running around my head but let's see where ^^^ goes.

jank

MagicMarker wrote: »

Had you read past the bolded part you would have seen the fact that I was referring to, which is indisputable.

Indisputable by whom? The Irish independant? You?
Where is the HSE report? The GUH report?

As you said the facts are in not some of the facts are in. Incomplete data makes for poor judgment calls.

jank

robindch wrote: »

I'm going to wait for a government report before passing any judgement on this little fella:

Run away from your preemption if you want Robin. Thing is you preach logic and rationality when it comes to things like morals, religion, policy and so on but only when it suits. When it come to such a serious matter as this all that goes out the windows because you make a snap emotional judgment call. In your mind youth defense/RCC killed this woman, that is indisputable in your head. You can pretend you are Spock but you are just as fallible or as human as the rest of us.

jank

Obliq wrote: »

I like it. I like it a lot. When can we start gathering information and who's getting it?

I always find it fascinating and bizarre that so called liberal minded people would call for government legislation to spy on a particular private organisation as it were the USSR. Do we really want to empower more government to control (they have a great record dont they? :rolleyes:) what we do and who we associate with? What we need is less statism and more freedoms, not laws that ban or control groups in civil societies etc...

In my mind people who advocate such nonsense don't really care about freedom of mind, body, spirit and conscience. They care more about banning or controlling something in which they disprove of for the "betterment" of society as a whole.