Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Karona

Ireland is decades behind every other country, how can a religion influence a medical practice. It's disgusting almost cultish.

It reminds me how Jehovah's Witnesses cannot have blood transfusions and we scoff at them when it could save a life, yet the republic cannot give abortions even when it can save lives.

Pherekydes

goodie2shoes wrote: »

a friend of mine died of a burst appendix.
should we have more legislation, or another referendum to deal with that?

Did your friend present on the Sabbath? And was she/he told, "No I can't take it out today. Today is the Sabbath and it's against my religion. I'll do it tomorrow."?

If you're not trolling then you're coming across as a simpleton...

Panrich

Another thing that was on Morning Ireland was the fact that the autopsy had to wait until Tuesday because of a bank holiday weekend.

dfx-

old hippy wrote: »

This case won't go away. I feel Ireland has reached a turning point with this tragedy.

I sadly don't think so. The magnitude of a change Ireland would have to do to bring itself forward...is too big for anyone currently in public office to dare take 'the cultural catholicism' on effectively.

General Zod

goodie2shoes wrote: »

a friend of mine died of a burst appendix.
should we have more legislation, or another referendum to deal with that?

If the doctor refused to act because he was legally prevented from performing an appenddectomy then yes we would need more legislation.

next?

Plazaman

THIS

I thought the law already stated that where the mothers life is in danger, a termination can take place.

Zulu

Sharrow wrote: »

No it's not, I know plenty of people who are pro choice but do not support abortion on demand.

Perhaps, however that is rarely the argument presented.

Very few, VERY FEW people are against abortions where the woman's life is at risk. Lots of people are against the option of abortions as a form of contraception - hence the problem.

Mod

goodie2shoes has been banned from After Hours so there is no point in replying to him any further.

HellFireClub

Right now, we have 2 of the left wing loo-laa brigade, Joan Collins & Clare Daly, of the United Left Alliance, organising a protest/demonstration outside the Dail for this evening. These two individuals have been demanding abortion services without restriction in this state for women for years now, and they are now organising demonstrations on the back of this appalling tragedy. Sadly this is the standard of the debate in this country when it comes to this subject of abortion.

https://twitter.com/ClareDalyTD

https://twitter.com/JoanCollinsTD

This is the bit that I have the problem with. This tragedy clearly has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, it has to do (in my opinion), with a medical professional making the wrong call, and then trying to blame the fúcking church, which has absolutely nothing to do with medical practice & procedures in this state. The Irish Medical Council have clear guidelines that deal perfectly with this situation that emerged, an excellent blog has covered the subject clearly, I'm posting a link to it to save me quoting from it in bits & pieces:

http://thethirstygargoyle.blogspot.ie/

IsMiseLisa

Y'know, if this were India and an Irish girl suffered like this poor woman did (and medics/the government said it was for religious reasons), I wonder if our government would have a field day and push the Indian government for legislation to allow for legalised or even medical abortion?

Everything about this case is appalling. I feel so bad for her and her family. She would have been in agony and the doctors just sat there because they couldn't do anything. Given the Catholic church's general ****tiness, I think it's waaaay overdue that every institution and the church sever all ties.

I'm an atheist. I'm in the middle between pro and "anti" life. That said, I think I want an abortion, especially in a case like this, it should be something that's available to me. I hope there are at least a couple of politicians with balls big enough to push for new legislation because otherwise, we have a disgusting little system going on.

bruschi

Zulu wrote: »

Perhaps, however that is rarely the argument presented.

Very few, VERY FEW people are against abortions where the woman's life is at risk. Lots of people are against the option of abortions as a form of contraception - hence the problem.

but what about all the pro life campaigns saying abortion is never the answer? what about their claims that no woman has ever died because she wasnt given an abortion? Why is it a problem if it is very clear that women who medically need an abortion are still denied their right to this?

I dont think anyone on this thread has ever said it should be abortions for all, despite some trying to play up that they are. And especially those who are trying to pawn this off that people are using this case to push their own agendas. People are using this case to highlight that a life could have been saved were it not for archaeic laws and that things need to change. If people arent going to protest and be up in arms over a particualrily harrowing case where a woman needlessly lost her life, then when do people think they should be protesting and declaring that changes are needed?

Mint Sauce

Absolutly disgusted. Years after the x case, and a passed referendum. Continued debate and still no legislation, and we arrive at this point.

Whilst I repect the views of the pro lifers, and to an extent some of them of the youth defence, surely this will be a wake up for then and the government.

Morag

HellFireClub wrote: »

Right now, we have 2 of the left wing loo-laa brigade, Joan Collins & Clare Daly, of the United Left Alliance, organising a protest/demonstration outside the Dail for this evening. These two individuals have been demanding abortion services without restriction in this state for women for years now, and they are now organising demonstrations on the back of this appalling tragedy. Sadly this is the standard of the debate in this country when it comes to this subject of abortion.

They are not organizing it, they are going to twitting about it, much like I have been.

Brain Stroking

HellFireClub wrote: »

Right now, we have 2 of the left wing loo-laa brigade, Joan Collins & Clare Daly, of the United Left Alliance, organising a protest/demonstration outside the Dail for this evening. These two individuals have been demanding abortion services without restriction in this state for women for years now, and they are now organising demonstrations on the back of this appalling tragedy. Sadly this is the standard of the debate in this country when it comes to this subject of abortion.

https://twitter.com/ClareDalyTD

https://twitter.com/JoanCollinsTD

This is the bit that I have the problem with. This tragedy clearly has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, it has to do (in my opinion), with a medical professional making the wrong call, and then trying to blame the fúcking church, which has absolutely nothing to do with medical practice & procedures in this state. The Irish Medical Council have clear guidelines that deal perfectly with this situation that emerged, an excellent blog has covered the subject clearly, I'm posting a link to it to save me quoting from it in bits & pieces:

http://thethirstygargoyle.blogspot.ie/

So why did they refuse to operate? Why was there even a question about whether to operate? Why was a simple procedure so tied up in bureaucracy? Why does there even need to be a consultation when such a procedure is mooted? Why?

I'll tell you why. Because the Catholic Church have fought tooth and nail against abortion being legalised in this country. That fight has led to the crap implementation of the findings in the X-case and a typically Irish halfway-house approach to half-solving the problem whilst keeping everyone half-appeased.

To say this has nothing to do with the Catholic Church is a stupid opinion and one you should keep to yourself.

Sorcha16

bruschi wrote: »

I dont think anyone on this thread has ever said it should be abortions for all, despite some trying to play up that they are.

This charming individual certainly seems to think so:

Brain Stroking wrote: »

And if they were, so what? What is wrong with a mentally capable person making a decision as to their own body?

HellFireClub

bruschi wrote: »

but what about all the pro life campaigns saying abortion is never the answer? what about their claims that no woman has ever died because she wasnt given an abortion? Why is it a problem if it is very clear that women who medically need an abortion are still denied their right to this?

I dont think anyone on this thread has ever said it should be abortions for all, despite some trying to play up that they are. And especially those who are trying to pawn this off that people are using this case to push their own agendas. People are using this case to highlight that a life could have been saved were it not for archaeic laws and that things need to change. If people arent going to protest and be up in arms over a particualrily harrowing case where a woman needlessly lost her life, then when do people think they should be protesting and declaring that changes are needed?

But that's exactly what women's rights campaigners like Clare Daly, Ivana Bacik, and other left wing campaigners have been demanding. "Our Body Our Choice", that only has one meaning as far as I can see.

Our laws are not archaic, they allow for any operation or surgical procedure that may be required to save or preserve the life of a woman who is pregnant, even if that causes the loss of life of a foetus she may be carrying.

That didn't happen here.

billybudd

IsMiseLisa wrote: »

Y'know, if this were India and an Irish girl suffered like this poor woman did (and medics/the government said it was for religious reasons), I wonder if our government would have a field day and push the Indian government for legislation to allow for legalised or even medical abortion?

Everything about this case is appalling. I feel so bad for her and her family. She would have been in agony and the doctors just sat there because they couldn't do anything. Given the Catholic church's general ****tiness, I think it's waaaay overdue that every institution and the church sever all ties.

I'm an atheist. I'm in the middle between pro and "anti" life. That said, I think I want an abortion, especially in a case like this, it should be something that's available to me. I hope there are at least a couple of politicians with balls big enough to push for new legislation because otherwise, we have a disgusting little system going on.

What has the CC got to do with this? because they were name checked? This is a political problem, People elect governments and so its a joint problem between the governments cowardly ways and the peoples laziness of only having a problem with this when a tragic event happens. Wat to blame someone? blame me, yourself and anyone else who didnt bother their hole making this an issue that should be dealt with, because when the last election was being run i bet you abortion or legislation of it was the last thing on peoples mind as opposed to protecting social welfare, houses and materialistic things in general.

Brain Stroking

Sorcha16 wrote: »

This charming individual certainly seems to think so:

Excuse me?

The quote you used from me asks a pretty rational question

LeeHoffmann

This charming individual certainly seems to think so:

what makes this person so ´charming´ in your view? I see nothing wrong with the manner in which he expressed his opinion

Zulu

bruschi wrote: »

but what about...

what about whatabouttery?

I dont think anyone on this thread has ever said it should be abortions for all,

Perhaps they haven't, but there are plenty of people who seek abortion on demand. Clare Daily etc. as have been mentioned here, feminist lobby groups etc.. If people were only pushing for abortion to be available in situations where the womans life was in real danger, there would be little credible opposition.

blacklilly

Brain Stroking wrote: »

Excuse me?

The quote you used from me asks a pretty rational question

I think you should stroke your brain some more

Brain Stroking

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

what makes this person so ´charming´ in your view? I see nothing wrong with the manner in which he expressed his opinion

I find asking mind-numbingly simple questions of people in these situations usually sorts the wheat from the chaff.

Brain Stroking

blacklilly wrote: »

I think you should stroke your brain some more

What do you specifically disagree with?

Or is that all you've got?

billybudd

HellFireClub wrote: »

But that's exactly what women's rights campaigners like Clare Daly, Ivana Bacik, and other left wing campaigners have been demanding. "Our Body Our Choice", that only has one meaning as far as I can see.

Our laws are not archaic, they allow for any operation or surgical procedure that may be required to save or preserve the life of a woman who is pregnant, even if that causes the loss of life of a foetus she may be carrying.

That didn't happen here.

There does seem to be a breakdown in understanding and the clairty of that law, plenty of doctors have come out today saying that before they can do this they need to be protected and free from law suits after the event and i would agree with them, the law just needs to be 100% clarified.

I hope this womans life has not been taken in vain and that alot of good comes out of such a tragic event and it stops it from ever happening again, i really hope like so many other things in Ireland that it is just not swept under the carpet after a few weeks and then people forget about it until the next time.

Sorcha16

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

what makes this person so ´charming´ in your view? I see nothing wrong with the manner in which he expressed his opinion

I don't agree with advocating abortion on demand in such a cavalier fashion

bruschi

Zulu wrote: »

what about whatabouttery?

Perhaps they haven't, but there are plenty of people who seek abortion on demand. Clare Daily etc. as have been mentioned here, feminist lobby groups etc.. If people were only pushing for abortion to be available in situations where the womans life was in real danger, there would be little credible opposition.

again, missing the point.

If its a case that, in your own words, very few people are against abortions when the womans life is at risk, then why is it a problem? why can that legislation not be asted upon and why can safe clinics be set up for this practice? One of these clinics was set up in Belfast, and they still have protestors outside it. And there are countless pro life campaigns stating that abortion is never the answer and that abortions will not save womens lives.

IsMiseLisa

Pro-life campaign's response.

Text:
PLC rejects “deplorable” calls for abortion legislation in the wake of tragic case

Medical Council Guidelines are perfectly clear that women in pregnancy must be given all necessary medical treatment

14th November 2012

Responding to the tragic death of Mrs Savita Halappanavar who was 17 weeks pregnant and died in University College Hospital, Galway, Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro Life Campaign said:

“We extend our deepest sympathies to the husband and family of Ms Savita Halappanavar who died from pregnancy related complications.

It is deplorable that those who want to see abortion available here are exploiting Mrs Halappanavar’s tragic death when the Medical Council Guidelines are very clearat all necessary medical treatment must be given to women in pregnancy. Given this, we welcome the fact that a thorough investigation to establish what went wrong is taking place.

It is also vitally important to acknowledge at this time that Ireland, without induced abortion, is recognised by the UN and World Health Organisation as a world leader in protecting women in pregnancy and is safer than places like Britain and Holland where abortion is widely available."

Oy.

blacklilly

Brain Stroking wrote: »

What do you specifically disagree with?

Or is that all you've got?

Do you see no moral or ethical obstructions with allowing abortion on demand? Remember that includes gender specific abortion, abortion due to disability, abortion because its not convenient etc

ash23

I am pro-choice but I appreciate that there is a large gap between no abortion to abortion readily available.

For now, I would be happy to see women whose pregnancies are incompatible with life, given the choice to abort.
No woman should have to proceed with a pregnancy knowing her child will die. No woman should be left miscarrying for days because the heart is beating. No woman should be forced to England to have an abortion when they find out their baby will never take a breath.

I really don't see how anyone can logically argue against that. I really really don't.

GLaDOS

Seems to me that the doctor is the one at fault here, and not necessarily the state. However I can't help but feel this should have been clarified (by bringing in legislation) so that absolutely noone was left in doubt as to what was legal, and if we had the poor woman might still be alive.

Sorcha16

blacklilly wrote: »

Do you see no moral or ethical obstructions with allowing abortion on demand? Remember that includes gender specific abortion, abortion due to disability, abortion because its not convenient etc

At least one person gets my point

HellFireClub

Brain Stroking wrote: »

So why did they refuse to operate? Why was there even a question about whether to operate? Why was a simple procedure so tied up in bureaucracy? Why does there even need to be a consultation when such a procedure is mooted? Why?

I'll tell you why. Because the Catholic Church have fought tooth and nail against abortion being legalised in this country. That fight has led to the crap implementation of the findings in the X-case and a typically Irish halfway-house approach to half-solving the problem whilst keeping everyone half-appeased.

To say this has nothing to do with the Catholic Church is a stupid opinion and one you should keep to yourself.

Nothing to do with the Catholic Church, if the person who made the call on this occasion, made a decision to involve his/her own private religious opinions into the health of a patient under his/her care, then this is not just professional negligence but also criminal negligence.

I'm not a Catholic, but I do not believe in abortion on demand, I do not believe in "my body - my choice", I do not believe it would be good for this country and I don't want to see it here. Many other people in this country, independent of their religious persuasion, feel the exact same way and this has been proven by the outcome of the several referendums that we have had on this subject, subsequent to which, the people have stated that they do not want abortion on demand in this country.

Sadly, because of this tragedy, which was completely avoidable on the basis of the legal position right now, today, and the irrational and cunning left lobby that we have in this country, we will probably end up with abortion on demand in this country where it will be reduced to a form filling exercise where you will only have to tick a box and sign your name at the bottom to say you are feeling suicidal.

Zulu

bruschi wrote: »

again, missing the point.

What point did I miss previously? Care to point it out??

If its a case that, in your own words, very few people are against abortions when the womans life is at risk, then why is it a problem?

There is a problem, clearly, because a significant portion of our society are against abortion on demand, and do not want to see it introduced.

why can that legislation not be asted upon and why can safe clinics be set up for this practice?

Why would "safe clinics" be required? Hospitals are where one goes to have medical care where their live is at real risk.

billybudd

IsMiseLisa wrote: »

Pro-life campaign's response.

Text:
PLC rejects “deplorable” calls for abortion legislation in the wake of tragic case

Medical Council Guidelines are perfectly clear that women in pregnancy must be given all necessary medical treatment

14th November 2012

Responding to the tragic death of Mrs Savita Halappanavar who was 17 weeks pregnant and died in University College Hospital, Galway, Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro Life Campaign said:

“We extend our deepest sympathies to the husband and family of Ms Savita Halappanavar who died from pregnancy related complications.

It is deplorable that those who want to see abortion available here are exploiting Mrs Halappanavar’s tragic death when the Medical Council Guidelines are very clearat all necessary medical treatment must be given to women in pregnancy. Given this, we welcome the fact that a thorough investigation to establish what went wrong is taking place.

It is also vitally important to acknowledge at this time that Ireland, without induced abortion, is recognised by the UN and World Health Organisation as a world leader in protecting women in pregnancy and is safer than places like Britain and Holland where abortion is widely available."

Oy.

That is fine and nice, but doctors even with those interpretations are still at risk of lawsuits arising from it, that is the fundamental problem here.

LeeHoffmann

I don't agree with advocating abortion on demand in such a cavalier fashion

I see nothing cavalier about it. It´s a good point and relevant, whether you agree with the point or not. He wasn´t disrespectful in expressing his opinion. It seems thus unfair to ironically label him a ´charming individual´ just because you disagree with him

Ellis Dee

Now it's made the Indian papers. Here's an example from her local daily, the Deccan Herald, which is published in Bengaluru, the capital of her home state of Karnataka (undelining mine):


http://www.deccanherald.com/content/291923/karnataka-woman-dies-being-refused.html

Karnataka woman dies after being refused abortion in Ireland
London, Nov 14, 2012 (PTI)

A 31-year-old Indian woman died in Ireland from blood poisoning after doctors allegedly refused to perform an abortion stating "this is a Catholic country".

Irish authorities have launched a probe into the death of Savita Halappanavar, a dentist, who was 17 weeks pregnant and suffering a miscarriage and septicaemia at University Hospital Galway last month, The Irish Times reported today.

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, said that she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated.

Praveen said having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Savita asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, "this is a Catholic country".

The dead foetus was later removed and Savita was taken to the high dependency unit and then the intensive care unit, where she died of septicaemia on October 28.

An autopsy carried out two days later found she died of septicaemia "documented ante-mortem" and E.coli ESBL. A hospital spokesperson confirmed the Health Service Executive had begun an investigation while the hospital had also instigated an internal investigation.

Abortion is illegal in the Republic of Ireland.

Zulu

ash23 wrote: »

I am pro-choice but I appreciate that there is a large gap between no abortion to abortion readily available.

For now, I would be happy to see women whose pregnancies are incompatible with life, given the choice to abort.
No woman should have to proceed with a pregnancy knowing her child will die. No woman should be left miscarrying for days because the heart is beating. No woman should be forced to England to have an abortion when they find out their baby will never take a breath.

I really don't see how anyone can logically argue against that. I really really don't.

I'm "anti-abortion", but I've no issue with this post. It pretty much sums up my feelings on this case.

Nonoperational

Without knowing the facts of the case it's hard to imagine the doctor stood back and knowingly let her die. If that's the case it's truly shameful. Once again a controversial piece of legislation is ignored due to fear of loosing votes.


For what it's worth, if it was clear that terminating the pregnancy (which had no chance of survival apparently) would save the life from day one then I'm pretty sure many many doctors would have done so.The supreme court is pretty clear on the matter, however having no concrete legislation in place does not make it easy.

Maybe it's been quoted already but the ruling from the supreme court was

"the proper test to be applied is that if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40, s.3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution (Finlay CJ, [37])"

As was mention, the Irish medical Council guidelines (I know they're guidelines not laws) also back this up.

Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and
substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide. You should undertake a full assess- ment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.

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.

There are a few questions that are really important and I'm sure they're the main focus of investigation...

Was the risk to the life of the mother clear and apparent, or what is the opinion of the medical practitioner that the risk was not as great as it ultimately proved.

Was the septicaemia present/diagnosed during the 3 days? The fact that blood cultures were taken and anti-biotics initiated late in the day suggest maybe it wasn't...

While in hindsight it looks like a cut and dried case of an abortion saving the life, I would be very interested in the details. Would it be possible that the doctor was monitoring the patient and although in pain, decided that this was not necessarily extremely serious or life threatening and when miscarriage would occur as the doctor suggested it would, that the mother would be OK physically and no abortion would have been necessary? Did the septicaemia come on suddenly and unexpectedly?

Personally I think that legislation needs to be brought forward to give women the right to choose, and it needs to be brought in ASAP. I'd just question the posts that state that the the doctor stood back and allowed the patient to die when we don't really know all the facts.

Even if we did legislate for the X-Case, it would be if there was a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. I think it's a huge question here if that risk was obvious from day 1 or if things took a very nasty turn later in the day.

Horrible story and horrible story. RIP

Khannie

Zulu wrote: »

I'm "anti-abortion", but I've no issue with this post. It pretty much sums up my feelings on this case.

Same and same.

Zulu

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Now it's made the Indian papers.

She was Indian, is this surprising to you? Unless your post was intended to add some wright to the situation, like we should probably be paying attention to what Indian media has to say about the governing of our country, I don't see the point?

In other news...

billybudd

gpf101 wrote: »

Without knowing the facts of the case it's hard to imagine the doctor stood back and knowingly let her die. If that's the case it's truly shameful. Once again a controversial piece of legislation is ignored due to fear of loosing votes.


For what it's worth, if it was clear that terminating the pregnancy (which had no chance of survival apparently) would save the life from day one then I'm pretty sure many many doctors would have done so.The supreme court is pretty clear on the matter, however having no concrete legislation in place does not make it easy.

Maybe it's been quoted already but the ruling from the supreme court was

"the proper test to be applied is that if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40, s.3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution (Finlay CJ, [37])"

As was mention, the Irish medical Council guidelines (I know they're guidelines not laws) also back this up.

Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and
substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide. You should undertake a full assess- ment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.

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.

There are a few questions that are really important and I'm sure they're the main focus of investigation...

Was the risk to the life of the mother clear and apparent, or what is the opinion of the medical practitioner that the risk was not as great as it ultimately proved.

Was the septicaemia present/diagnosed during the 3 days? The fact that blood cultures were taken and anti-biotics initiated after the termination suggest to me that maybe it wasn't.

While in hindsight it looks like a cut and dried case of an abortion saving the life, I would be very interested in the details. Would it be possible that the doctor was monitoring the patient and although in pain, decided that this was not necessarily extremely serious or life threatening and when miscarriage would occur as the doctor suggested it would, that the mother would be OK physically and no abortion would have been necessary? Did the septicaemia come on suddenly and unexpectedly after the miscarriage?

Personally I think that legislation needs to be brought forward to give women the right to choose, and it needs to be brought in ASAP. I'd just question the posts that state that the the doctor stood back and allowed the patient to die when we don't really know all the facts.

And that is really the problem, especially if you flip the case and the doctor did do the abortion and afterwards was prosecuted for man slaughter of a lving being as the baby still had a heart beat. the bolded bit is really at the heart of this case.

ilovesleep

I'm pro choice in that I think abortion should be legalised and no body's views and opinions on abortion should be forced upon others. Legalise it and make it for to those who may need it or want it.

It's horrific that woman died and even more horrific catholism was mentioned. The catholic church did so much damage to this country and to think they still have a hold on us on many issues such as abortion and entuasia (sp?) is sickening. The catholic church is a fcuking abusive cult and that's all it is. Preeching about doing good yet turn around and do bad. The people who support it are for the most part fcuking hypocrites - up in fcuking mass every Sunday yet given half a chance they wouldn't do a good turn for you. They wouldn't cross the road to piss on you if you were on fire. Just this morning myself and my sister were talking. I never hid the fact here on boards that I have an Irish mammy - that's she idolises her sons and her daughters are b1tches. We were saying anyways with the abuse that she threw at us, sheer sexism included, if the madenlin laudries were open we would have been dumped in one.

Why have kids if you don't want them? Holy catholic Ireland won't allow abortion and makes it a shameful act. Why have kids and raise them if you don't want them? The holy catholic neighbours will be talking if you give them away like animals. Much better to keep them and abuse them.

The holy catholic church is for abuse and abuse only and that's all it's for.

Enda Kenny and his mighty words to the Vatican in aug 2011. Cheaps fcuking words followed with no action.

ibarelycare

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Now it's made the Indian papers. Here's an example from her local daily, the Deccan Herald, which is published in Bengaluru, the capital of her home state of Karnataka (undelining mine):


http://www.deccanherald.com/content/291923/karnataka-woman-dies-being-refused.html

Of course it has made the Indian papers. It's made news world wide. There have been two separate threads on the front page of Reddit about it for the past 6 hours at least, so plenty of Americans will be waking up to it as well.

General Zod

Sorcha16 wrote: »

This charming individual certainly seems to think so:

I'll say it also.

Abortion should be safe and available in the 32 counties.

Sorcha16

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

It´s a good point and relevant, whether you agree with the point or not. He wasn´t disrespectful in expressing his opinion. It seems thus unfair to ironically label him a ´charming individual´ just because you disagree with him

I find it inherently disrespectful to condone abortion on demand Lee, if that's ok and on that basis consider it a pretty ridiculous point actually.

For one, I'd like to know how Brain Stroking would go about differentiating between who is 'mentally capable' enough to make decisions 'as to their own body' (??) and who is not.

Naive at best and presumptuous all round to be honest.

Abortion in medical circumstances and specific instances of unwanted pregnancy, yes. On demand, no

Zulu

bruschi wrote: »

I dont think anyone on this thread has ever said it should be abortions for all, despite some trying to play up that they are.

...looks like there are plenty of poster saying just that. I trust you are happy to retract that point now? Perhaps now you have a little bit more of an understanding of our position? (although clearly I don't expect you to agree with it)

ash23

General Zod wrote: »

I'll say it also.

Abortion should be safe and available in the 32 counties.

I agree but at the moment would be happy with the starting point of abortions being available for women whose pregnancies are non-viable.

We wouldn't put an animal through what that poor woman went through. It's a disgrace.

bruschi

Zulu wrote: »

What point did I miss previously? Care to point it out??

There is a problem, clearly, because a significant portion of our society are against abortion on demand, and do not want to see it introduced.

Why would "safe clinics" be required? Hospitals are where one goes to have medical care where their live is at real risk.

the point being that the pro choice campaigns state that no abortion is right.

the point that the vast majority on here, and myself, are not talking about abortions on demand, so I fail to see why there should be a problem. with regards to this specific case, abortions on demand is a completely serperate issue, and I still dont see people clamouring for that. The vast majority are talking specifically about medical conditions where the mothers life is in danger. abortions on demand should not be a factor in allowing medically advised abortions.

safe clinics are better equipped to deal with not just the termination, but the psychological problems that can ensue when a woman loses a baby to save her own life. just because women have abortions, does not necessarily mean everything will be fine once its done. Yes, hospitals can also provide that service, but a specialised clinic would be best served for the purposes of treatment. Either way, it makes no odds, it would be a least a step in the right direction if hospitals were able to do this.

Lyaiera

Zulu wrote: »

...looks like there are plenty of poster saying just that. I trust you are happy to retract that point now? Perhaps now you have a little bit more of an understanding of our position? (although clearly I don't expect you to agree with it)

What does abortions for all have to do with your position? You're against savings someone life because of something totally unrelated?

bruschi

Zulu wrote: »

...looks like there are plenty of poster saying just that. I trust you are happy to retract that point now? Perhaps now you have a little bit more of an understanding of our position? (although clearly I don't expect you to agree with it)

if you want me to retract I will. And I see other posters have since said they want abortions available all over. But again, that is not the issue in this case. this wasnt a woman who wanted it on demand. it shouldnt be a case of if you allow some, it will mean the whole thing falls down, regardless of either of our positions on it.