Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

aloyisious

For the lawyer'ly here, I've looked at part of the Supreme Court decision wording and am a little confused.

the Supreme Court, in a majority opinion (Finlay C.J., McCarthy, Egan and O'Flaherty J.J.) held that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 if there was "a real and substantial risk" to her life. This right did not exist if there was a risk to her health but not her life; however it did exist if the risk was the possibility of suicide.

Now how does Irish Law define health? I'd have thought that health would have a very strong connect to life: ie, a person is ill - become's ill -and not in good health as a result. If Savita's health was at risk to a high, or a very high degree, then does this not fall into the meaning of the Supreme Court decision, that the life of the woman was at risk. If the Supreme Court wording is seen as unclear by the Irish medical profession and it's various representative bodies and allows them to decide a woman's health is distinct from her life, then maybe it's time that the use of the "health" word is defined by that court to mean that when a woman's health is at a level equalling a risk to her life, an abortion or termination is allowable to save her life.

(wikipedia - Health is the level of functional or metabolic efficiency of a living being. In humans, it is the general condition of a person's mind, body and spirit, usually meaning to be free from illness, injury or pain (as in "good health" or "healthy").[1] The World Health Organization (WHO) defined health in its broader sense in 1946 as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."[2][3] Although this definition has been subject to controversy, in particular as lacking operational value and because of the problem created by use of the word "complete", it remains the most enduring .[4][5] Classification systems such as the WHO Family of International Classifications, including the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), are commonly used to define and measure the components of health). WHO is a UN body.

pauldla

jank wrote: »

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.

If said organisation has a stated aim of influencing the legislature and/or judiciary of the nation then yes, abso-bucking-lutely, I want to know who they are, what they are doing, and where their money comes from.

BTW, not having noticed any calls for KGB-style surveillance of such private organisations on this thread, I decry the rest of your post. Such nonsense.

Obliq

pauldla wrote: »

If said organisation has a stated aim of influencing the legislature and/or judiciary of the nation then yes, abso-bucking-lutely, I want to know who they are, what they are doing, and where their money comes from.

BTW, not having noticed any calls for KGB-style surveillance of such private organisations on this thread, I decry the rest of your post. Such nonsense.

Spot on Pauldla - I was going to reply in a similar vein, but Jank - this post saves me the trouble. Besides, I'm off to Galway to pay my respects to Savita now.

robp

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

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.

In the same inquiry facebook must be included. We need lists of public servants who like catholic stuff on facebook. And the people who donate to catholic charity Trocaire boxes. That too.

The serious part of me wants say that about 70% of that information you mention is publicly accessible and most of the rest is available on request.

karlitob

Sarky wrote: »

The choice needs to be available. It's really that simple.

Its actually not really that simple at all.

The choice does not need to be available. Its actually quite simple. The status quo is working extremely well.

MagicMarker

karlitob wrote: »

The status quo is working extremely well.

Evidently.....:rolleyes:

Sarky

karlitob wrote: »

Its actually not really that simple at all.

The choice does not need to be available. Its actually quite simple. The status quo is working extremely well.

A woman is dead because of the status quo. This is just a very public case. How many more similar deaths do you think have occured that didn't get into the media? No, it is not working extremely well. How many dead women do you need to admit that?

Bannasidhe

MagicMarker wrote: »

Evidently.....:rolleyes:

Of course it is - the Status Quo is doing so well that Ireland is the model for how to run a country.

Our Economy is sound.
Our Health care is the envy of the world. No-one dies or is denied medical treatment in Ireland due to lack of resources.
Our Education system is faultless and delivers full equality in it's treatment of all sections of society.
Our Justice system is robust, swift, unstintingly fair and consistent in it's judgement.
Our Political system is accountable, democratic, transparent and responsive to the electorate.

Our....


*deep sigh*....I'm gonna cry......:(

Sarky

Sarky wrote: »

A woman is dead because of the status quo. This is just a very public case. How many more similar deaths do you think have occured that didn't get into the media? No, it is not working extremely well. How many dead women do you need to admit that?

How many has there been? 4 million? A billion?

Other than the pious with their vigil and those shouting loudest on both sides the reactions I've come across have all been "What the **** were the doctors playing at?" or "Who would charge them?" or "Why didn't they induce? I know people who had that done." Right from the start this whole thing smacked of one or more doctors either ****ing up or just being arseholes.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

How many has there been? 4 million? A billion?

Other than the pious with their vigil and those shouting loudest on both sides the reactions I've come across have all been "What the **** were the doctors playing at?" or "Who would charge them?" or "Why didn't they induce? I know people who had that done." Right from the start this whole thing smacked of one or more doctors either ****ing up or just being arseholes.

One is too many.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Our Economy is sound.
Our Health care is the envy of the world. No-one dies or is denied medical treatment in Ireland due to lack of resources.
Our Education system is faultless and delivers full equality in it's treatment of all sections of society.
Our Justice system is robust, swift, unstintingly fair and consistent in it's judgement.
Our Political system is accountable, democratic, transparent and responsive to the electorate.

How many countries tick more than 1 or 2 of those boxes and with no-one disagreeing?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

One is too many.

I agree, cars should be banned.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

How many countries tick more than 1 or 2 of those boxes and with no-one disagreeing?

Whataboutery is the best you can come up with?

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree, cars should be banned.

So a pithy throw away off-topic remark is your response to a woman's unnecessary death.

You must be so proud of yourself.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Whataboutery is the best you can come up with?

It's not whataboutery. If you criticise in a way that draws direct comparisons by using units such as countries then don't be surprised when there are comparisons. If I were to say genuinely that I believe we have the best healthcare system in the world and you said we didn't because another country is better for x reason is that whataboutery?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So a pithy throw away off-topic remark is your response to a woman's unnecessary death.

Yours are so much better yes?

You must be so proud of yourself.

Yeah I've really achieved a few things over the last couple of months and feel better about myself than I have in a while. Maybe that's why I haven't felt the need to piously exploit a woman's death for my own means. But if you want to feel like you're better than those disagreeing with you, which I guess does seem like a prerequisite around these parts at times, then go right ahead. I can pretend I'm wearing a cross if you'd like.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Of course it is - the Status Quo is doing so well that Ireland is the model for how to run a country.

Our Economy is sound.
Our Health care is the envy of the world. No-one dies or is denied medical treatment in Ireland due to lack of resources.
Our Education system is faultless and delivers full equality in it's treatment of all sections of society.
Our Justice system is robust, swift, unstintingly fair and consistent in it's judgement.
Our Political system is accountable, democratic, transparent and responsive to the electorate.

Our....


*deep sigh*....I'm gonna cry......:(

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not whataboutery. If you criticise in a way that draws direct comparisons by using units such as countries then don't be surprised when there are comparisons. If I were to say genuinely that I believe we have the best healthcare system in the world and you said we didn't because another country is better for x reason is that whataboutery?

Where exactly did I do this?

I pointed out that by any measure our country is not functioning well.
Therefore the Status Quo is not fit for purpose in a democratic society.

At no point did I draw a comparison with any other country. You introduced that - classic 'what about...'

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

Yours are so much better yes?


Yeah I've really achieved a few things over the last couple of months and feel better about myself than I have in a while. Maybe that's why I haven't felt the need to piously exploit a woman's death for my own means. But if you want to feel like you're better than those disagreeing with you, which I guess does seem like a prerequisite around these parts at times, then go right ahead. I can pretend I'm wearing a cross if you'd like.

Good to know you have found a way to exploit an innocent woman's death to feel superior to all of us.

Nodin

karlitob wrote: »

Its actually not really that simple at all.

The choice does not need to be available. Its actually quite simple. The status quo is working extremely well.

....a woman dies, others have to take their problems elsewhere, keep their mouths shut when they get back. Yep, thats classy and working extremely well.

eviltwin

karlitob wrote: »

Its actually not really that simple at all.

The choice does not need to be available. Its actually quite simple. The status quo is working extremely well.

Working well for who?

The only people I can see it working well for are the pro life lobby who can feel glad that legal abortion is not an option in Ireland.

But that totally ignores the reality that 12 women a day travel to other countries to have abortions, how many more are there that endure a pregnancy they don't want due to lack of funds or try a home abortion.

That's about 4000 women or so every year, add it up over the past 20 odd years and you're talking a large number of the female population that have had to be farmed out overseas.

That has to stop, women deserve better.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where exactly did I do this?

I pointed out that by any measure our country is not functioning well.
Therefore the Status Quo is not fit for purpose in a democratic society.

At no point did I draw a comparison with any other country. You introduced that - classic 'what about...'

How is our economy not sound? Saying it's not sound implies that others are sound, hence comparison. Explain why it isn't sound without comparing to other countries. 14% unemployment? How would one know that's bad, the levels in other countries?
What models work better for running a country? Now bear in mind you can't use another country to suggest one so it's going to either be a purely theoretical model which isn't very helpful or a model by which Ireland was previously run.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Good to know you have found a way to exploit an innocent woman's death to feel superior to all of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkinn36MfVM

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

How is our economy not sound? Saying it's not sound implies that others are sound, hence comparison. Explain why it isn't sound without comparing to other countries. 14% unemployment? How would one know that's bad, the levels in other countries?
What models work better for running a country? Now bear in mind you can't use another country to suggest one so it's going to either be a purely theoretical model which isn't very helpful or a model by which Ireland was previously run.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkinn36MfVM

Ok - explain to me how well our economy is working then?

Actually - perhaps you should take that to another thread rather than continue to drag this one off-topic.

MagicMarker

Deleted User wrote: »

How is our economy not sound? Saying it's not sound implies that others are sound, hence comparison. Explain why it isn't sound without comparing to other countries. 14% unemployment? How would one know that's bad, the levels in other countries?
What models work better for running a country? Now bear in mind you can't use another country to suggest one so it's going to either be a purely theoretical model which isn't very helpful or a model by which Ireland was previously run.

Kinda getting off topic, but there's more money going out than there is coming in, hence the economy is not sound. There is no comparison required, nor was there one made.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ok - explain to me how well our economy is working then?

You're the one claiming that it isn't. Whatever figures you produce are next you useless without a frame of reference.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Kinda getting off topic, but there's more money going out than there is coming in, hence the economy is not sound. There is no comparison required, nor was there one made.

OK then, I'll try another way, is anything other than perfection evidence that the model for running something isn't working? What model for running the country would improve things in terms of the economy? What's an acceptable level of failure or is there one?

And just to bring it back around to this case, I've yet to be convinced that "the model" is the problem here rather than human error. Maybe I move in different circles to others on here but I've yet to meet anyone who thinks this case could bring the government down or whatever, most are asking why the same treatment wasn't carried out as was in either their case or a family member or friend's case that happens time after time and no suggestion of charges being brought under a 150 year old law.

MagicMarker

Deleted User wrote: »

And just to bring it back around to this case, I've yet to be convinced that "the model" is the problem here rather than human error. Maybe I move in different circles to others on here but I've yet to meet anyone who thinks this case could bring the government down or whatever, most are asking why the same treatment wasn't carried out as was in either their case or a family member or friend's case that happens time after time and no suggestion of charges being brought under a 150 year old law.

You don't think the legal/constitutional ambiguity surrounding the use of abortion in cases like this is a problem? The fact that a woman who is miscarrying and in pain has no option of an abortion unless her life is in danger?

recedite

jank wrote: »

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.

Mr. Spock was not supposed to be infallible. You're thinking of The Pope

aloyisious wrote: »

the Supreme Court, in a majority opinion (Finlay C.J., McCarthy, Egan and O'Flaherty J.J.) held that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 if there was "a real and substantial risk" to her life. This right did not exist if there was a risk to her health but not her life; however it did exist if the risk was the possibility of suicide.

Now how does Irish Law define health?

You're over-analysing the word health. A risk to health is just a lesser risk, which is not actually life threatening. It could be argued that even a "normal" birth is stressful and has negative health implications for the mother (maybe for the father too).

Look at the amendments that were put to the people since then, and were rejected;

12th amendment 1992

It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction.

25th amendment 2002

• Defined abortion as the destruction of unborn life after implantation in the womb.
• Permitted abortion where necessary to prevent loss of life other than by suicide.

These amendments were rejected because they sought to remove the threat of suicide as grounds for abortion.
The position in Irish law is very clear where there is a threat to the mother's life in any way, including a self inflicted threat. Abortion is permitted.

I actually voted for both of those amendments, because I am basically pro-life and I think anyone can say they feel suicidal, when what they really mean is the pregnancy is too much of an inconvenience for them at that particular time. Giving a baby up for adoption may not be fashionable, but it is an option.

Defining abortion as destruction of life "after implantation" as in the 2002 amendment is better than the previously assumed "after fertilisation" but IMO there is a continuum of human development which continues up to and even after birth. Ergo I would not grieve as much for a non-viable baby which died a few hours after birth, as I would for a toddler.

I once met a nurse who had worked in clinics in the UK; she described how in one ward they aborted late term cases, and in another they saved premature babies of the same age. Both procedures required all the skills of modern medicine. It was the "choice" of the woman which decided the fate of the infant. Yet it seems crazy to expend vast expense and resources on a premature baby, keeping it alive in an incubator, unless its life has some value in and of itself. This is why I take a pro-life position.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

You don't think the legal/constitutional ambiguity surrounding the use of abortion in cases like this is a problem? The fact that a woman who is miscarrying and in pain has no option of an abortion unless her life is in danger?

No. One swallow doesn't make a summer. The issue appears to be that the doctors didn't recognise that her life was in danger.

MagicMarker

Deleted User wrote: »

No. One swallow doesn't make a summer. The issue appears to be that the doctors didn't recognise that her life was in danger.

Or they recognized it when it was too late to do anything about it.

The fact remains, "the model" says a woman can't have an abortion unless her life is in danger. There is absolutely no reason for this restriction to be in place when the featus in non-viable. If "the model" wasn't so ridiculously flawed, this woman would likely be alive.

One death is too many, the rules have to change so it doesn't happen again.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

Or they recognized it when it was too late to do anything about it.

If the doctors erred they erred, the law is irrelevant. It's all still "if"s at this point.

The fact remains, "the model" says a woman can't have an abortion unless her life is in danger. There is absolutely no reason for this restriction to be in place when the featus in non-viable. If "the model" wasn't so ridiculously flawed, this woman would likely be alive.

Is surgical intervention always the preferred method in cases like this? "The model" works fine when people are sensible, same with any "model".

One death is too many, the rules have to change so it doesn't happen again.

If they change the rules and some doctors err what should they change them to then?

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

If the doctors erred they erred, the law is irrelevant. It's all still "if"s at this point.


Is surgical intervention always the preferred method in cases like this? "The model" works fine when people are sensible, same with any "model".


If they change the rules and some doctors err what should they change them to then?

Is the fact that the Irish people made a choice 20 years ago and that we still do not the the required legislation in place also irrelevant?