Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

jam_mac_jam

hiram wrote: »

It's being reported everywhere...just google it.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Yes, I know that, no need for me to Google it. and its a complete repetition of the Irish Times article, word for word, which is my point. Nobody knows the full story here.

Lingua Franca

JackPerry wrote: »

"Apparently the women was told "this is a Catholic country, we don't have abortion"
I have not read all the comments on this issue but has anyone given consideration that these words may have been stated by a Non Catholic ,non Irish doctor or nurse who were actually criticising the situation as it stands and felt powerless to do anything. Equally the words could could have been stated by a Irish person who is critical of the present policies.

Yes, many. Even scientology was mooted.

When Savita's husband was speking on BBC news earlier he said that they were told "This is a Catholic country, it's the law" which sounds to me more like the consultant felt that his/her hands were tied rather than s/he wasenforcing their own personal morality on the couple.

Rodin

Rodin wrote: »

57 women have died while pregnant from sepsis in the UK between the years 2000-2008.

All those waving their placards and shouting aloud that she'd have been grand had she had a surgical evacuation really need to get their facts straight.

The sad truth is that things go wrong. Was someone negligent? A report will tell us in time. But there is no guarantee that a woman will make it through pregnancy with all the care in the world. Thankfully that case is much rarer in Ireland than in most other countries including those with much less scruples regarding abortion.

And i'm sure if any of those women wanted to terminate, their decision was granted.

Not here though.

Throw some more stats this way...... You know what they say about stats..

billybudd

JackPerry wrote: »

"Apparently the women was told "this is a Catholic country, we don't have abortion"
I have not read all the comments on this issue but has anyone given consideration that these words may have been stated by a Non Catholic ,non Irish doctor or nurse who were actually criticising the situation as it stands and felt powerless to do anything. Equally the words could could have been stated by a Irish person who is critical of the present policies.

We wont know until a report has been published but at least now people are debating it and asking questions, the only thing good to come out of this tragedy.

strandroad

JackPerry wrote: »

Equally the words could could have been stated by a Irish person who is critical of the present policies.

Apparently they said "unfortunately".
He said she continued to experience pain and asked a consultant if she could be induced.

"They said unfortunately she can't because it's a Catholic country," Mr Halappanavar said.

"Savita said to her she is not Catholic, she is Hindu, and why impose the law on her.

"But she said 'I'm sorry, unfortunately it's a Catholic country' and it's the law that they can't abort when the foetus is live."

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

mac.in

K-9 wrote: »

Legally it required attention which she got, just not abortion. That's the legality, not my opinion.

There was no substantial threat to her life initially so denying her and his wishes was fine. Some posters here seem ok with that as there is nothing wrong with our current laws whatsoever apparently. The current law nor indeed the X case addresses that scenario, IMO.

Dear brother, the lady continued to have agonizing pain for 2 and 1/2 days. On the second day she developed septicemia (fever, chills, collapse) which should have definitely been dealt with termination of pregnancy as the source of septicemia was most probably (it's infact high probability as there was no other source of septicemia in her case) from miscarried contents (E Coli being the cause of septicemia; E Coli is present in genito-urinary tract). Instead they gave antibiotics waited till next morning till septicemia could do all the worst. They gave a symptomatic treatment rather than a treatment of the cause. So, my point here is there hands were tied in the name of law.

saspeir

JackPerry wrote: »

"Apparently the women was told "this is a Catholic country, we don't have abortion"
I have not read all the comments on this issue but has anyone given consideration that these words may have been stated by a Non Catholic ,non Irish doctor or nurse who were actually criticising the situation as it stands and felt powerless to do anything. Equally the words could could have been stated by a Irish person who is critical of the present policies.

Then it needs to be asked what advice the medics gave the patient and husband regards legality of treatments should the situation worsen. It might be the 1 in 100,000 but it should be covered just in case.

Did they advise her to look at legal options in case? Even if religion didn't play a role here then how hospitals advise patients needs to be reviewed.

starlit

If they at least try to legislate the 'x case' what ever that means but I do know of the 'x case' just not sure of what they need to legislate, suppose they just have to place it in a position that doctors, patients and the law know where they stand.

The government/law should pass what ever legalisation that be good and proper that on medical grounds can perform a termination with the consent of the parents if it meant it save the mother in the process.

Well by law depends on the medical circumstances it can and cannot be performed which be illegal so due to legals reasons he couldn't and he could have due to medical grounds under certain conditions so there is a rule that doctors are unsure under circumstances can happen other circumstances if they knew she was at risk they would have performed it unless maybe his hands were tied due to the catholic/law. So unless they pass a law that makes it clear then it might make doctor's decisions a bit more clear.

nervous_twitch

Rodin wrote: »

57 women have died while pregnant from sepsis in the UK between the years 2000-2008.

All those waving their placards and shouting aloud that she'd have been grand had she had a surgical evacuation really need to get their facts straight.

The sad truth is that things go wrong. Was someone negligent? A report will tell us in time. But there is no guarantee that a woman will make it through pregnancy with all the care in the world. Thankfully that case is much rarer in Ireland than in most other countries including those with much less scruples regarding abortion.

Irrespective of this particular case though, whatever medical issues arose with Savita, has it not taught us that we need clear legislation on what to do in this kind of situation? Even if the medical investigation reveals that sepsis was unavoidable, don't we need - as a nation - to absolutely ensure that medical authorities know exactly what they're legally allowed to do in such a scenario?

Lingua Franca

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes, I know that, no need for me to Google it. and its a complete repetition of the Irish Times article, word for word, which is my point. Nobody knows the full story here.

Praveen spoke to the Irish Times and to the BBC separately, as well as to other journalists. They are not word for word the same.

Here are the links so that you can comapre:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Is it really so surprising that his story remains the same?

MagicSean

ilovesleep wrote: »

Where was the demand for
- a plastic bag levy?
- a smoking ban?
- early closure of offlicenses?
- the banning of headshops?

And yet they were able to do all this without any demands. Why not abortion? Are we supposed to go into the Dail, hold their hands and do their work?

I was in favour of all those things actually.

JackPerry wrote: »

"Apparently the women was told "this is a Catholic country, we don't have abortion"
I have not read all the comments on this issue but has anyone given consideration that these words may have been stated by a Non Catholic ,non Irish doctor or nurse who were actually criticising the situation as it stands and felt powerless to do anything. Equally the words could could have been stated by a Irish person who is critical of the present policies.

Very few people seem to have considered it. I actually think it was very possible the doctor was not irish and not catholic going by my previous experience in hospital. i also think he was right in saying that abortion is not availble because it is a Catholic country. The catholic ethos in the country is the very reason abortion is not available.

Rodin

NoDrama wrote: »

And i'm sure if any of those women wanted to terminate, their decision was granted.

Not here though.

Throw some more stats this way...... You know what they say about stats..

Many may have had a termination. The fact is they died anyway.

The line being put out here is that termination would have saved this woman. There is no evidence to support that.

billybudd

MagicSean wrote: »

I was in favour of all those things actually.



Very few people seem to have considered it. I actually think it was very possible the doctor was not irish and not catholic going by my previous experience in hospital. i also think he was right in saying that abortion is not availble because it is a Catholic country. The catholic ethos in the country is the very reason abortion is not available.

Is it not the fact that its because a new referendum has not been made available for the people to decide seeing as alot has happended in the last few decades with the CC losing alot of faith?

franktheplank

dr.bollocko wrote: »

According to the widower they chose to terminate the nonviable foetus to protect the dwindling health of the mother. That choice was taken away from them.

Yes but they clearly didn't choose for her to become ill in the first place so I think it's perverse for her tragic death to become something of a rallying point for the 'pro-choice' movement.

If she had wanted an abortion because she was raped would that be 'pro-choice'?

You can't deny people aren't jumping on the bandwagon here, from what i caught on the news there was some kind of flash protest outside Leinster House. Where were these massive protests when other people died in the care of the HSE?

How many children died in HSE care in the last few years. I think it's somewhere around the 200 mark and they don't even know for sure. We're these same people outside protesting when this became news. not a chance. But when there's an opportunity to push a certain agenda we have outrage and public grief. Suspicious?

MagicSean

billybudd wrote: »

Is it not the fact that its because a new referendum has not been made available for the people to decide seeing as alot has happended in the last few decades with the CC losing alot of faith?

I should have been clearer. I meant available to women in the situation Savita was in (i.e. a right to an abortion under the constitution but unable to obtain one because of religious led campaigning against legislation for two decades)

Rodin

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Irrespective of this particular case though, whatever medical issues arose with Savita, has it not taught us that we need clear legislation on what to do in this kind of situation? Even if the medical investigation reveals that sepsis was unavoidable, don't we need - as a nation - to absolutely ensure that medical authorities know exactly what they're legally allowed to do in such a scenario?

It is simply impossible to legislate for every medical possibility.

Terminations are already carried out in this country if the mother's life is deemed to be at threat. Perhaps the imminent threat to this woman's life was not recognised. That may be a clinical error and nothing to do with legislation or lack of.

Just what legislation exactly do people want?

billybudd

MagicSean wrote: »

I should have been clearer. I meant available to women in the situation Savita was in (i.e. a right to an abortion under the constitution but unable to obtain one because of religious led campaigning against legislation for two decades)

Or political cowardice.

Rodin

I think it unfair to label all anti-abortionists as raging Catholics.

billybudd

franktheplank wrote: »

Yes but they clearly didn't choose for her to become ill in the first place so I think it's perverse for her tragic death to become something of a rallying point for the 'pro-choice' movement.

If she had wanted an abortion because she was raped would that be 'pro-choice'?

You can't deny people aren't jumping on the bandwagon here, from what i caught on the news there was some kind of flash protest outside Leinster House. Where were these massive protests when other people died in the care of the HSE?

How many children died in HSE care in the last few years. I think it's somewhere around the 200 mark and they don't even know for sure. We're these same people outside protesting when this became news. not a chance. But when there's an opportunity to push a certain agenda we have outrage and public grief. Suspicious?

Good points, i think abortion and these kind of cases are more emotive and more personal because alot of people maybe had thought of it or were faced with it at one time or another for various reason, an example would be a college student who although not pregnant but who missed a period thinking they were pregnant and panicking and having these thoughts. Dont know if that made sense.

nervous_twitch

Rodin wrote: »

It is simply impossible to legislate for every medical possibility.

Terminations are already carried out in this country if the mother's life is deemed to be at threat. Perhaps the imminent threat to this woman's life was not recognised. That may be a clinical error and nothing to do with legislation or lack of.

Just what legislation exactly do people want?

I don't want to speculate or disrespect those close to her in any way, but surely a woman collapsing in pain - a woman who eventually died - should have been recommended a termination much earlier? I know we can't legislate for the exactitudes, but any medical practitioner should know where the line needs to be drawn, and should be able to draw that line themselves.

strandroad

franktheplank wrote: »

Yes but they clearly didn't choose for her to become ill in the first place so I think it's perverse for her tragic death to become something of a rallying point for the 'pro-choice'

Most abortions are caused by some sort of difficult circumstances or hardship, from medical to criminal, financial or psychological. Who sits down to ponder "ah well do I fancy this baby or not", which would constitute your real free choice.

mac.in

Noreen1 wrote: »

My niece has had three miscarriages.(None of them in Galway)
Standard practice in each case, even though the baby was already dead, was to wait until she miscarried naturally. On one occasion, that took two weeks.
Each time, she was given a course of antibiotics until the baby was miscarried, and for a week afterwards, to ward off infection/septicaemia.

It appears to be standard medical practice. My niece was told it was because the risk related to infection was regarded as lower than the risks associated with D&C.
Hence, afaik, the whole abortion thing appears to be a complete red herring.

My sincere condolences to the family involved. R.I.P.

Perfect. Antibiotics are given to prevent infection. But even after giving antibiotics if the person gets infection (in case of Savita, she developed chills, shivering, vomiting, collapse), there is no scope of any help from antibiotics; termination is the only choice. What was done here for Savita? She was still kept waiting till next day for the foetal heart to stop beating, in the name of law. The actual bone of contention, I feel, is this.
Anyways, my sincere condolences to the family involved too. R.I.P.

strandroad

Rodin wrote: »

Many may have had a termination. The fact is they died anyway.

The line being put out here is that termination would have saved this woman. There is no evidence to support that.

Those women could have had terminations after they had infections. Savita asked for hers before that stage.

ilovesleep

MagicSean wrote: »

I was in favour of all those things actually.

But did you propose those issues and demand for them or did you favour them after they were proposed? I'm going to guess the later.

Why is they were able to use their own initative on these smalls issues but not on the big issues such as abortion?

I read last year that the EU were after Ireland for years to move forward on abortion and bring us up to date and in line with the EU. I'll see if I can root it up.

Rodin

nervous_twitch wrote: »

I don't want to speculate or disrespect those close to her in any way, but surely a woman collapsing in pain - a woman who eventually died - should have been recommended a termination much earlier? I know we can't legislate for the exactitudes, but any medical practitioner should know where the line needs to be drawn, and should be able to draw that line themselves.

And perhaps they do know from their own experience.
They are not fortune tellers though. Not all outcomes are obvious.

It may well be that in the doctor's experience, people in this situation actually make it.

billybudd

Rodin wrote: »

It is simply impossible to legislate for every medical possibility.

Terminations are already carried out in this country if the mother's life is deemed to be at threat. Perhaps the imminent threat to this woman's life was not recognised. That may be a clinical error and nothing to do with legislation or lack of.

Just what legislation exactly do people want?

I suppose the mother who survives and sues the doctor because he aborted her baby who still had a heart beat.

Rodin

mhge wrote: »

Those women could have had terminations after they had infections. Savita asked for hers before that stage.

She didn't have the right to demand one.

Hippies!

billybudd wrote: »

Ireland does not own tragedy and religious attrocities.

Yes it does....obviously. :rolleyes:

billybudd

:rolleyes:

Hippies! wrote: »

Yes it does....obviously. :rolleyes:

ilovesleep

She is the only person that knew her own body. No body else but her. No doctors or nurses, nobody but her. She felt she needed a termination and she asked for it. But she was not allowed by law. The problem here is our law.

Enda Kenny the fcuking worm will sit on this no doubt.

alphabeat

speaking as a man,
if men could conceive tomorrow morning , we'd have abortion clinics in place by midday
church or no fcuking church

franktheplank

mhge wrote: »

Most abortions are caused by some sort of difficult circumstances or hardship, from medical to criminal, financial or psychological. Who sits down to ponder "ah well do I fancy this baby or not", which would constitute your real free choice.

I get that for some people it's not a decision taken lightly. At the same time there's a world of difference between hardship of some form, which we all face in life to some degree or another and something as horrific as rape or miscarriage and it's unfair to blurring the distinctions.

This is where I just can't see why the 'pro-choicers' keep pushing these issues. They're clearly not a choice and to even suggest so (as 'pro-choice' people obviously do) is horrible in my book.

By all means debate abortion but surely these situation (ie rape and miscarraige) can and should be categorized separately.

Rodin

ilovesleep wrote: »

She is the only person that knew her own body. No body else but her. No doctors or nurses, nobody but her. She felt she needed a termination and she asked for it. But she was not allowed by law. The problem here is our law.

Enda Kenny the fcuking worm will sit on this no doubt.

Are you advocating we let sick people decide what treatment they should have because they know their own body?

strandroad

Rodin wrote: »

She didn't have the right to demand one.

Your argument was that other pregnant women died of sepsis. She however could have avoided it if not for the law which places unviable life above hers.

cdaly_

HellFireClub wrote: »

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.

The people of Ireland have never been asked if they want abortion on demand. Every referendum on abortion in Ireland has had very restrictive wording which could not be construed as "abortion on demand". At every referendum proposing to qualify the restriction on abortion, the people of Ireland have voted for the more liberal option.* I would be interested to see what the vote would be for a referendum of the form: "abortion to be made available as provided for in law"...

1. 1992: More restrictive, Rejected "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."
2. 1992: More liberal, Approved "This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state."
3. 1992: More liberal, Approved "This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state."
4. 2001: More restrictive, Rejected " * Article 40.3.4:
   
   In particular the life of the unborn in the womb shall be protected in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act 2002.
   
   * Article 40.3.5:
   
   The provisions of section 2 of Article 46 [concerning constitutional amendments] and sections 1, 3 and 4 of Article 47 of this Constitution [concerning referendums] shall apply to any Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas containing a proposal to amend the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act, 2002, as they apply to a Bill containing a proposal or proposals for the amendment of this Constitution and any such Bill shall be signed by the President forthwith upon his being satisfied that the Bill has been duly approved by the people in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of Article 47 of this Constitution and shall be duly promulgated by the President as a law. "

Tasden

nervous_twitch wrote: »

I don't want to speculate or disrespect those close to her in any way, but surely a woman collapsing in pain - a woman who eventually died - should have been recommended a termination much earlier? I know we can't legislate for the exactitudes, but any medical practitioner should know where the line needs to be drawn, and should be able to draw that line themselves.

People make judgement calls. Sometimes they're wrong. Sometimes the consequences are tragic.

I fell pregnant very young. I was advised by many 'care' professionals to terminate the pregnancy. I was told and advised many things by many different people who had a responsibility to care for me and my child.

I was told if I continued with the pregnancy I would not be able to complete my education. I've a degree now.

When I was very sick early in my pregnancy I was told it would pass at twelve weeks. I was sick every day right up to labour. During this time I lost weight and collapsed regularly. One doctor dismissed this as minor and of no concern, the next thought if I had left it longer baby would have been in danger and sent me to hospital to be given an IV.

When I went into labour I was told it would be a quick easy labour. It was 30 hours long. Baby went into distress and was born with cord around her neck.

Obviously none of these mistakes/ misjudgements resulted in a tragedy however in each of these cases it was a person whom I believed I could trust and they were wrong. Maybe this further illustrates why the mother should be listened to more, I don't know. All I know is mistakes do happen. Even with the best intentions.

ilovesleep wrote: »

She is the only person that knew her own body. No body else but her. No doctors or nurses, nobody but her. She felt she needed a termination and she asked for it. But she was not allowed by law. The problem here is our law.

Enda Kenny the fcuking worm will sit on this no doubt.

Rodin

mhge wrote: »

Your argument was that other pregnant women died of sepsis. She however could have avoided it if not for the law which places unviable life above hers.

where is the evidence to support that claim?

Rodin

Rodin wrote: »

Are you advocating we let sick people decide what treatment they should have because they know their own body?

There is a lot of conditions where a good doctor would diagnose and make consideration from that information you speak of a patient, and not just from blood tests, etc.

Rodin

NoDrama wrote: »

There is a lot of conditions where a good doctor would diagnose and make consideration from that information you speak of a patient, and not just from blood tests, etc.

That sentence doesn't make sense.

strandroad

Rodin wrote: »

where is the evidence to support that claim?

Where's the evidence that she would have had sepsis anyway, had she received induction or termination?

Noreen1

mac.in wrote: »

Perfect. Antibiotics are given to prevent infection. But even after giving antibiotics if the person gets infection (in case of Savita, she developed chills, shivering, vomiting, collapse), there is no scope of any help from antibiotics; termination is the only choice. What was done here for Savita? She was still kept waiting till next day for the foetal heart to stop beating, in the name of law. The actual bone of contention, I feel, is this.
Anyways, my sincere condolences to the family involved too. R.I.P.

You're missing the point I made.

My niece has had a child die, in utero, three times.

Standard practice, each time, was to wait until the baby was expelled naturally.

Nothing to do with being pro-life , or pro-choice. It was deemed the less risky form of treatment.

Another poster has had five miscarriages - with the same treatment.
Again. Nothing to do with pro-life, or pro-choice.
Just standard medical practice. Despite the associated risk of infection, or septicaemia.

Hence, women whose child has died, in utero, are at just as much risk of septicaemia as those who miscarry over a longer period than the normal couple of hours.
But their medical treatment is the same - therefore, the decision to wait for the baby to be miscarried naturally is one associated with medical risk - not pro-life, or legal issues.

In Savitas case, she developed septicaemia.
We don't know whether she was on antibiotics.
We don't know how soon a diagnosis of septicaemia was made.
If septicaemia had already set in before she requested a termination, (which appears to be the case, given her symptoms) the termination would not have altered the fact that she already had septicaemia - and, therefore, would have had no bearing on whether she lived, or died.

It's a tragic case.
But to state that a termination would have saved her life is pure speculation, at this point.
What we need right now are facts - and what we seem to be getting is people pushing an agenda.

I think Savita - and every other woman of child-bearing age (and below) - deserve better than that.

Women need to know the risks associated with "normal" (a couple of hours) miscarriage, as opposed to prolonged miscarriage, (irrespective of whether the baby is dead , or alive) and how they compare to the risks associated with D&C, for instance.
It seems logical to me that the risk of septicaemia is higher for a woman carrying a dead baby than a live one, for obvious reasons.
Yet that appears to have gone completely unnoticed in the hue and cry for "choice".
Or does it not matter whether a woman has a choice if her baby is already dead, because there's no agenda to push?

ilovesleep

Rodin wrote: »

Are you advocating we let sick people decide what treatment they should have because they know their own body?

I'm not advocating what you are saying. This is different to say for example to someone diagnosed with cancer.

She was the only person who knew her own body well enough to think that this is not right so much so that she asked for a termination. No body else. No one knew just how badly her pain and suffering was but her so much so she asked for a termination.

Just like something called a mother's instinct. When she feels her child is for example ill and she takes her child to a doctor to be told - ah yeah, take this antib and kid will be grand. Mother then feels that something is just not right and seeks a second opinion and turns out there is something much more serious happening.

nervous_twitch

Tasden wrote: »

People make judgement calls. Sometimes they're wrong. Sometimes the consequences are tragic.

I fell pregnant very young. I was advised by many 'care' professionals to terminate the pregnancy. I was told and advised many things by many different people who had a responsibility to care for me and my child.

I was told if I continued with the pregnancy I would not be able to complete my education. I've a degree now.

When I was very sick early in my pregnancy I was told it would pass at twelve weeks. I was sick every day right up to labour. During this time I lost weight and collapsed regularly. One doctor dismissed this as minor and of no concern, the next thought if I had left it longer baby would have been in danger and sent me to hospital to be given an IV.

When I went into labour I was told it would be a quick easy labour. It was 30 hours long. Baby went into distress and was born with cord around her neck.

Obviously none of these mistakes/ misjudgements resulted in a tragedy however in each of these cases it was a person whom I believed I could trust and they were wrong. Maybe this further illustrates why the mother should be listened to more, I don't know. All I know is mistakes do happen. Even with the best intentions.

I really respect what you went through, I honestly do; and fair play to you for getting through your difficult pregnancy relatively unharmed.

However, this woman in pain requested a termination. She wanted to abort. It was denied, and unfortunately she lost her life for it.

Shinaynay

Handfull of students speak for entire college

Rodin

mhge wrote: »

Where's the evidence that she would have had sepsis anyway, had she received induction or termination?

I don't believe I made the claim that it was inevitable.

Rodin

ilovesleep wrote: »

I'm not advocating what you are saying. This is different to say for example to someone diagnosed with cancer.

She was the only person who knew her own body well enough to think that this is not right so much so that she asked for a termination. No body else. No one knew just how badly her pain and suffering was but her so much so she asked for a termination.

Just like something called a mother's instinct. When she feels her child is for example ill and she takes her child to a doctor to be told - ah yeah, take this antib and kid will be grand. Mother then feels that something is just not right and seeks a second opinion and turns out there is something much more serious happening.

And the mother's who bring the child to hospital convinced there is something serious but actually the child is perfectly fine?

Rodin

Shinaynay wrote: »

Handfull of students speak for entire college

Do they want the vote or something?

tolosenc

Fox News presenter just criticised Ireland's abortion laws as overly restrictive live on air.

We've literally hit rock bottom.

phoenix999

tolosenc wrote: »

Fox News presenter just criticised Ireland's abortion laws as overly restrictive live on air.

We've literally hit rock bottom.

That is thoroughly depressing.

eyescreamcone

I'd like to see an opinion poll done this week

Do you agree with abortion in the following cases??
If the mothers life is at risk?
If the mothers health is at risk?
If the pregnancy is due to rape or incest?
If the unborn child is not viable?
If the child was to be disabled or DS?
On demand??

(Any other relevant questions??)

The answers to these questions would be very useful to the discussion