Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Bannasidhe

Post #2338

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does anyone dispute that the RCC officially disapproved of dissecting human cadavers for at least 1000 years on the grounds that they believed the body needs to be intact in order to be resurrected during which time it also controlled European universities?

The fact that Classical Greece and Rome had similar views on dissection is irrelevant.

Would someone like to explain why it is not a necessary, indeed vital, part of surgical training for medics to be able to get inside a human body and see how it works therefore such a stricture had no impact on medical knowledge?

If so - please provide proof.

You might also tell me if you would be willing to have surgery performed on you by a doctor who had anatomized pigs, barbary apes etc but never a human. I certainly wouldn't...

Post # 2341

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

. I have.

Where exactly have you responded to these questions?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where exactly have you responded to these questions?

Does anyone dispute that the RCC officially disapproved of dissecting human cadavers for at least 1000 years on the grounds that they believed the body needs to be intact in order to be resurrected during which time it also controlled European universities?

The fact that Classical Greece and Rome had similar views on dissection is irrelevant.
You'll appreciate, as already indicated, the point of interest is not particularly whether the RCC disapproved of dissection. It's your assertion that continuity with prior pagan beliefs are irrelevant.

Would someone like to explain why it is not a necessary, indeed vital, part of surgical training for medics to be able to get inside a human body and see how it works therefore such a stricture had no impact on medical knowledge?
Who'd make such a case? The most sensible observation is the quote from wikipedia already provided:

In 1541, while in Bologna, Vesalius uncovered the fact that all of Galen's research had been based upon animal anatomy rather than the human; since dissection had been banned in ancient Rome, Galen had dissected Barbary Apes instead, and argued that they would be anatomically similar to humans. As a result, he published a correction of Galen's Opera omnia and began writing his own anatomical text. Until Vesalius pointed this out, it had gone unnoticed and had long been the basis of studying human anatomy. However, some people still chose to follow Galen and resented Vesalius for calling attention to such glaring mistakes.

It's illuminating both that people seemed to have assumed Galen's work to have been based on studies of humans, and that some chose to ignore the resulting errors after they'd been pointed out.

Highlights the difficulty of getting people to recognised when they're on a road to nowhere, wouldn't you say?

keane2097

Reply from Arthur Spring to an email from last week. The first paragraph is the sort of thing I was really hoping to hear back.

A Chara.

The tragic death of Savita Halappanavar is a heart-breaking case which highlights the need for legal certainty on this issue which has been with us for 20 years. This is the first government that has decided we are going to deal with it. Six Governments in this State have failed to act on the Supreme Court judgment in 1992. This will not be the seventh.

The Labour Party has a long held policy position that we should legislate for the X case. It has not always been a popular position or one that has commanded support across all political parties. We should not, as a country, allow a situation where women’s lives are put at risk in this way. The Labour Party believes we must deal with the issue and bring legal clarity to it as soon as possible. Doing nothing is not an option.
As determined in the Programme for Government and following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on the 29th November 2011 , the government approved the establishment of an Expert Group to address this issue. The group comprised of experts in the fields of obstetrics, general practice, law, public policy and professional regulation. The Expert Group has now reported and the Government will consider the contents of the report prior to providing legal clarity, as required by the European Court of Human Rights.

In the meantime, if I can be of further assistance to you with regard to this or indeed any other matter, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur J. Spring TD
Kerry North - West Limerick

Labour Party Office
Rock Street,
Tralee,
Co. Kerry

Office Tralee: 066 7125337
Office Dublin: 01 6183471
http://www.facebook.com/arthurjspring
http://twitter.com/#!/SpringAJ

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Does anyone dispute that the RCC officially disapproved of dissecting human cadavers for at least 1000 years on the grounds that they believed the body needs to be intact in order to be resurrected during which time it also controlled European universities?

The fact that Classical Greece and Rome had similar views on dissection is irrelevant.
You'll appreciate, as already indicated, the point of interest is not particularly whether the RCC disapproved of dissection. It's your assertion that continuity with prior pagan beliefs are irrelevant.

Would someone like to explain why it is not a necessary, indeed vital, part of surgical training for medics to be able to get inside a human body and see how it works therefore such a stricture had no impact on medical knowledge?
Who'd make such a case? The most sensible observation is the quote from wikipedia already provided:

In 1541, while in Bologna, Vesalius uncovered the fact that all of Galen's research had been based upon animal anatomy rather than the human; since dissection had been banned in ancient Rome, Galen had dissected Barbary Apes instead, and argued that they would be anatomically similar to humans. As a result, he published a correction of Galen's Opera omnia and began writing his own anatomical text. Until Vesalius pointed this out, it had gone unnoticed and had long been the basis of studying human anatomy. However, some people still chose to follow Galen and resented Vesalius for calling attention to such glaring mistakes.

It's illuminating both that people seemed to have assumed Galen's work to have been based on studies of humans, and that some chose to ignore the resulting errors after they'd been pointed out.

Highlights the difficulty of getting people to recognised when they're on a road to nowhere, wouldn't you say?

This is getting tiresome now.

Did you miss the bit where I said? - on the grounds that they believed the body needs to be intact in order to be resurrected.
If you wish to discuss Pagan influence on Christian beliefs and doctrines I am sure there is a thread or three on that somewhere. Perhaps you would like to visit them

If wikipedia is the best link you have - that says it all really.

Continue to quibble all you wish about who did or did not follow Galen and whether some or all of Christian doctrine is of pagan origin but I, for one, have wasted enough time on this tangent and have no intention of indulging your attempts to drag the thread off topic any further.

Obliq

I think it is about morality. About one version of morality that the Catholic church has imposed on an entire country, regardless of belief and enshrined (no pun intended) in the constitution, where it didn't ought to be. This article is on how Article 40.3.3 came to pass - it's long, but very interesting.
http://www.politico.ie/home/5472.html

A particularly pertinent part:

"In fact, left to the politicians, the debate on the propossed pro-life amendment would already be over. It is the Protestant churches, some doctors, lawyers and womens' groups who have recently atternpted/ to broaden the deebate, and there is now an emerging body of opinion that is anti-abortion but also anti-amendment. Some object to the denominational aspect of the amendment, claiming that it will enshrine a particularly Catholic viewpoint of life into the constitution. Others think it is a subject that should be tackled by the legislature after lengthy debate on the probblem of abortion, and that such a debate will be over before it's begun if the referendum succeeds. Still, others, mostly doctors, are worried that such a referendum will alter estabblished medical practice.

Those in the medical profession who are not associated with PLAC have been slow to publicly voice their objections to the campaign. One of the reasons for this is that the grip that the Catholic Church has on the maternity hospitals has produced a real fear among some members of the medical profession that opposition to the amenddment marks the end of promotional prospects. Several of the major hospitals are subject to an ethics committee which includes Archbishop Ryan and this committee has the power to promote or halt careers of individual doctors."

Also this is particularly interesting:

"Certainly it is agreed that what becomes human life beegins at conception. What is not agreed is whether that is potential human life, or actual life which has the same rights as any citizen of the state. The Protestant churches see area for discussion here and, in the case of profound foetal abnormality or dangers to the mother's physical or mental health, or indeed threats to the existing family they would be inclined to leave room for weighing up maternal and foeetal rights and coming' to a just and compassionate decision that might include abortion.

The Pro-Life Amendment Campaign admits no potenntial conflict between mother and child. Certainly the draamatic save-the-mother-or-the-child choices that might have confronted a doctor in the first half of this century do not exist anymore, however many Protestants believe that the question of conflicting rights does indeed arise. According to Dean Griffin of St. Patrick's Cathedral: "Abortion is morally wrong. However, at some time there may be rare unfortunate cases in which it is resorted to as the lesser of two evils. It is wrong to enshrine the Catholic view of this in the constitution." "

This article was written THURSDAY, 01 JULY 1982 prior to the 8th amendment being put to the people. It clearly shows the pressure brought to bear on the government and the medical authorities by the Catholic Church and associated pressure groups. It also shows that NO informed or balanced debate was ever held about abortion in Ireland, before one religion's moral standpoint was railroaded into the constitution.

robindch

The HSE announces the terms of the investigation into Savita's death. An Indian doctor residing in the UK is to head it up:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1119/savita-halappanavar.html

And Richard Branson describes the time he was called to give evidence about the Virgin shop selling condoms in central Dublin. The sale of condoms was legalized in Ireland less than 20 years ago, for any youngsters reading.

http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/the-day-we-were-arrested-for-selling-condoms-in-dublin

recedite

robindch wrote: »

An Indian doctor residing in the UK is to head it up:

Just the man for the job. It looks like he will form his opinion of what happened after a few days investigations...

Prof Arulkumaran said that over the next three days the team would review the case notes, look at guidelines and interview people.

And then the HSE will wait a few months for it to all blow over before they release anything...

The HSE said the investigation would be completed within an "expeditious timeframe"....Mr Reilly said three months was a realistic timeframe for the inquiry to be completed.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes. But I am working.

Does anyone dispute that the RCC officially disapproved of dissecting human cadavers for at least 1000 years on the grounds that they believed the body needs to be intact in order to be resurrected during which time it also controlled European universities?

Yes. I dispute that. You've produced no evidence for it, and it would be an extraordinary thing for a church which believes in an omnipotent God also to believe that the omnipotent God could ressurect a person whose cadaver had decayed naturally, but not one whose cadaver had been dissected.

Dades

To be honest, if that was the maddest thing the church believed they'd be doing well!

MagicMarker

Talking about this on the Frontline...

A lady giving her story now of being in intense pain for weeks, but doctors were unwilling to do anything as there was still a heartbeat. She was only 7 weeks pregnant and looked a few months pregnant due to the swelling. When there was no heartbeat she says the doctors opened her up and couldn't see any organs due to amount of puss etc. :mad:

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

The HSE announces the terms of the investigation into Savita's death. An Indian doctor residing in the UK is to head it up:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1119/savita-halappanavar.html

And Richard Branson describes the time he was called to give evidence about the Virgin shop selling condoms in central Dublin. The sale of condoms was legalized in Ireland less than 20 years ago, for any youngsters reading.
http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/the-day-we-were-arrested-for-selling-condoms-in-dublin[/QUOTE]

Good move by the HSE apponting en expert from outside the state and the same nationality as the deceased.

There is far to much hysteria within and outside Ireland regarding this case. Let the experts do their job and conduct a professional inquiry. If the conclusion is that the death could have been prevented by an early termination and this was not done due to fear of the legal ramifications then the blame should be laid squarely where it belongs i.e. 20 years of spineless gutless representatives in government. The same spineless gutless shower who had the responsibility of protecting the most vulnerable of their citizens since the formation of the state, failed miserably and were never held to account.

decimatio

I never understand why this is such an issue.

If you don't believe abortions are moral than don't have one.

If you don't believe homosexuality is moral than don't have a homosexual relationship.

If you don't believe that sex before marraige is ok than don't do it.

What is the problem for the religious? That they can't force their views on others?

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

To be honest, if that was the maddest thing the church believed they'd be doing well!

Oh, come now, Dades. I'm entitled to be a bit sceptical. When Bannasidhe's previous version of this claim was challenged she attempted to support it with a cite from Andrew Dickson White which, coming from a history lecturer, is tantamount to an admission that she doesn't have a reputable source for her claim.

If Bannasidhe can point to any athoritative church teaching that it is beyond the power of God to work the resurrection of someone whose body has been dissected, now would be a really good time for her to do so. Her credibility is on the line.

Hotblack Desiato

decimatio wrote: »

What is the problem for the religious? That they can't force their views on others?

That, and that somehow they think we'll all turn into immoral baby-eating savages the second the guiding hand of The Church is lifted from our shoulders :rolleyes:

Although I have to admit, no.2 child is almost the perfect size and weight for the oven - might cancel that turkey order!

fitz0

nagirrac wrote: »

Good move by the HSE apponting en expert from outside the state and the same nationality as the deceased.

He's Sri Lankan, not Indian.

As for an outside observer, that can only be a good thing. Every Irish doctor is biased one way or another in this case.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did you miss the bit where I said? - on the grounds that they believed the body needs to be intact in order to be resurrected.

No.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

The HSE announces the terms of the investigation into Savita's death. An Indian doctor residing in the UK is to head it up:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1119/savita-halappanavar.html

And Richard Branson describes the time he was called to give evidence about the Virgin shop selling condoms in central Dublin. The sale of condoms was legalized in Ireland less than 20 years ago, for any youngsters reading.

http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/the-day-we-were-arrested-for-selling-condoms-in-dublin

HSE release is here:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/News/savitahalappanavar.html

I don't see the terms of reference. I'd be more interested in seeing what they are supposed to be investigating, than who they are appointing. Also, I don't see any commitment to publishing the conclusions reached. For better or worse, this case is now a matter of public interest, as there is a real need to establish if either legal uncertainty or legal prohibition had any impact on the chain of events.

And you really do have to wonder about the membership having so many representatives of Galway University Hospital. I mean, I'm all for learning from our mistakes. But I'm not sure this is how to go about it.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. I dispute that. You've produced no evidence for it, and it would be an extraordinary thing for a church which believes in an omnipotent God also to believe that the omnipotent God could ressurect a person whose cadaver had decayed naturally, but not one whose cadaver had been dissected.

Well, it all depends on what you mean by omnipotent, surely. There is the famous, and no doubt apocryphal, story of nuns bathing in their undergarments, lest they be naked before the Lord. The implication being, of course, that the Lord could see through brick, but not cotton.

I was under the impression that the Middle Ages was something of a golden age for dissection and for anatomy, and that public dissections were not unknown (the ultimate Reality TV, perhaps). I'd guess that the locals might have been none too happy about it, but the learned men at the universities were happily carving away, afaik.

Nodin

The husband of the late Savita Halappanavar wants employees of Galway University Hospital removed from the inquiry established by the Health Service Executive into her death.
Praveen Halappanavar said last night he would request through his solicitor that Prof John J Morrison, a consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology; Dr Catherine Fleming, consultant in infectious diseases; and Dr Brian Harte, consultant in anaesthesia and intensive care at the hospital, be removed from the inquiry

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1120/1224326840862.html

Can't say I blame him either.

robindch

The bishops release a statement claiming they've never said that the foetus is more important than the mother. While I suspect this isn't true, nonetheless, in the context of the current mess, their statement seems to be an uncommonly worthwhile contribution:

http://www.thejournal.ie/bishops-abortion-savita-681145-Nov2012/

Bishops wrote:

[...The RCC...] has never taught that the life of a child in the womb should be preferred to that of a mother. By virtue of their common humanity a mother and her unborn baby are both sacred with an equal right to life [...] Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Her credibility is on the line.

With the greatest of respect - Bite Me.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

With the greatest of respect - Bite Me.

You tease, you!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

The bishops release a statement claiming they've never said that the foetus is more important than the mother. While I suspect this isn't true, nonetheless, in the context of the current mess, their statement seems to be an uncommonly worthwhile contribution:

http://www.thejournal.ie/bishops-abortion-savita-681145-Nov2012/

I think the point is they've never said the foetus is more important than the mother's life; the issue is around where there's an impact on health. I don't think there's any difference in what they are saying there, compared to what they would have said thirty years ago.

eyescreamcone

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think the point is they've never said the foetus is more important than the mother's life; the issue is around where there's an impact on health. I don't think there's any difference in what they are saying there, compared to what they would have said thirty years ago.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I think the bishop's are still saying that the life of the foetus should be of equal value to that of the mother.

In my opinion this is not true.
Put to a vote I reckon they'd struggle to get 25% to support them.

kylith

decimatio wrote: »

I never understand why this is such an issue.

If you don't believe abortions are moral than don't have one.

If you don't believe homosexuality is moral than don't have a homosexual relationship.

If you don't believe that sex before marraige is ok than don't do it.

What is the problem for the religious? That they can't force their views on others?

I think their point is that they want to ban these things because they're evil, and they want to stop us from doing evil. The fact that we, nor most of the civilised world, know that these things aren't evil doesn't seem to factor into their thinking.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think the point is they've never said the foetus is more important than the mother's life; the issue is around where there's an impact on health. I don't think there's any difference in what they are saying there, compared to what they would have said thirty years ago.

virtue of their common humanity a mother and her unborn baby are both sacred with an equal right to life

The bit in bold is what bugs me. IMO the foetus only has an equal right to life with the mother if the mother thinks it does, and it certainly doesn't if the mother's life or health is at risk. The fully grown human has a much greater claim to life than a bunch of cells incapable of surviving on their own.

recedite

decimatio wrote: »

I never understand why this is such an issue.
If you don't believe abortions are moral than don't have one.

Its an issue because the constitution recognises that the "unborn" have human rights independent of the parent.

kylith wrote: »

IMO the foetus only has an equal right to life with the mother if the mother thinks it does, and it certainly doesn't if the mother's life is at risk. The fully grown human has a much greater claim to life than a bunch of cells incapable of surviving on their own.

IMO the more developed a foetus is, the more its claim to life and legal protection, but I don't think you can say its claim is dependent on what the mother thinks. Either it has certain rights, or it hasn't. Certainly its life is dependent on the goodwill of the mother, but that is not the same as saying its rights are dependent on her.

UDP

recedite wrote: »

IMO the more developed a foetus is, the more its claim to life and legal protection, but I don't think you can say its claim is dependent on what the mother thinks. Either it has certain rights, or it hasn't. Certainly its life is dependent on the goodwill of the mother, but that is not the same as saying its rights are dependent on her.

I think it only matters whether the fetus is viable outside of the womb including using whatever medical technology is available to keep the fetus alive. I'm not sure if matters how developed the fetus before that period. Of course this period should change depending on the medical technology/techniques available.

Mervyn Crawford

I believe the ejection of religious control from all aspects of civic life is a fundamental democratic demand; and is revolutionary.

The capitalists cannot concede such a demand.

The call for legislation is being approached from two sides:

- by the population it is implicitly driven by the thrust for secularisation in public life

-by the politicos it is a diversion to be fought over twixt the religious fanatics and the liberals; but the liberals will never demand full-blown secularism, and not only do they concede ground and give time to religious fundamentalism, but in that they also refuse to expose the thoroughgoing religious control there is throughout civil society, in the whole island.

The nationalists are manoevuring also around the legislation demand. Sophistry! The National Catholic Party (aka Sinn Fein) are intimately entwined with the zealots and their priests.

Mervyn Crawford

The courageous and principled position that Praveen Halappanavar has taken in refusing to co-operate with the HSE enquiry is to applauded. He should be given complete support.

As is broadly understood by most people so-called 'Enquiries' are in fact methods to cover the truth, muddy the waters, slander the injured and innocent.

That the enquiry was to be stacked with three consultants from the very hospital that killed Praveen Halppanavar's wife tells those who have any doubts what the true role of Reilly's Enquiry is

kylith

recedite wrote: »

IMO the more developed a foetus is, the more its claim to life and legal protection, but I don't think you can say its claim is dependent on what the mother thinks. Either it has certain rights, or it hasn't. Certainly its life is dependent on the goodwill of the mother, but that is not the same as saying its rights are dependent on her.

I think that, up to the cut-off date for abortion, the foetus' right to life is entirely dependent on the mother's willingness to carry it. If she decides to revoke that right it is entirely her own prerogative.