Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

whatdoicare

franktheplank wrote: »

Hey i got nothing to do with Youth Defense. As of yet I just haven't seen any evidence that people are at risk of avoidable death because of the X case.

Hey Franktheplank, I notice you didn't really acknowledge my reply to you there, I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Lyaiera

franktheplank wrote: »

Hey i got nothing to do with Youth Defense. As of yet I just haven't seen any evidence that people are at risk of avoidable death because of the X case.

They're at risk of avoidable death because the government hasn't legislated for abortions in circumstances where the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother. This went to the Supreme Court. The country has voted on it. Unless another referendum is called on abortion then it's inevitably going to become part of legislation.

Carry

franktheplank wrote: »

I get that a lot.

Seriously, I think it's nuts and doesn't belong in a reasonable debate. The Catholic church and the medical establishment have conspired to have torturous un-anesthetized abortions, while at the same time the church is forcing people not to have abortions so there's more kids to abuse.

You do a lot to get it a lot...

Did you read my post completely or are you just picking the cherries for your arguments?

My story happened in Germany, a country which has a democratic constitution which is not linked to the church - unlike Ireland. Abortion is legal over there under certain circumstances and even catholic run hospitals have to adhere to the law. But they love to undermine it the only way they can - by practising their misogynic mindset.

My story is true, and I don't care if you believe it or not. I have to live with the consequences, of which you have no idea whatsoever.

franktheplank

whatdoicare wrote: »

Well, that's your own opinion and you're entitled to it.
My mother is a survivor of sympysiotomy, in case you don't know what that is, it was when instead of a cesarean (which the church didn't approve of as it encouraged use of contraception ) they broke the mothers pelvis during labour, damaging them for life-there's a film coming out soon all about it, the story she has told me about my birth would make a grown man cry. This happened in Ireland until the late 1970s early 1980s and is still happening in parts of Africa. The doctors destroyed all the files and it is only now my mother knows the full extent of what happened her as she is in the middle of bringing her case to court.

This was all done because of catholic rule. So, long story short, I do indeed believe what this lady wrote, every word of it.

Ok, I can't get around to them all straight away. Yes, sounds true to me, how much the Catholic church influenced these policies is unknown to the best of my knowledge is unknown. Sure the Catholic Church did terrible things. While i have the utmost sympathies for your mothers situation I don't fully see the relevance?

And just to clarify, I'm not a member of the Catholic Church or religious for that matter.

whatdoicare

franktheplank wrote: »

Ok, I can't get around to them all straight away. Yes, sounds true to me, how much the Catholic church influenced these policies is unknown to the best of my knowledge is unknown. Sure the Catholic Church did terrible things. While i have the utmost sympathies for your mothers situation I don't fully see the relevance?

And just to clarify, I'm not a member of the Catholic Church or religious for that matter.

I didn't say you were part of any church, I showed you another example of how barbaric the church is in relation to women and reproduction. Giving an example of why the other girls story is completely plausible. By the way, it is documented and will be spoken about at length in the film, that the catholic Church had 100 percent involvement in the decision to use this method banned in England in the early 1800s.

franktheplank

Carry wrote: »

You do a lot to get it a lot...

Did you read my post completely or are you just picking the cherries for your arguments?

My story happened in Germany, a country which has a democratic constitution which is not linked to the church - unlike Ireland. Abortion is legal over there under certain circumstances and even catholic run hospitals have to adhere to the law. But they love to undermine it the only way they can - by practising their misogynic mindset.

My story is true, and I don't care if you believe it or not. I have to live with the consequences, of which you have no idea whatsoever.

I just don't believe it because with all the church bashing that goes on, if the church was forcing people to have some sort of sadistic torture abortions, I think there would be some evidence, or other victims speaking out.

And likewise the church being against abortion so there's more kids to abuse is just plain crazy.

I think you might be delusional, do you get that a lot?

franktheplank

whatdoicare wrote: »

I didn't say you were part of any church, I showed you another example of how barbaric the church is in relation to women and reproduction. Giving an example of why the other girls story is completely plausible. By the way, it is documented and will be spoken about at length in the film, that the catholic Church had 100 percent involvement in the decision to use this method banned in England in the early 1800s.

I know there's a lot of animosity towards the church in this country, much of it justified.

But can you appreciate that something can be right or wrong on it's own merits regardless of past or present church teachings on it.

whatdoicare

franktheplank wrote: »

I know there's a lot of animosity towards the church in this country, much of it justified.

But can you appreciate that something can be right or wrong on it's own merits regardless of past or present church teachings on it.

Well, these two examples are wrong on merit of the church, do you not like this reality?
You don't seem to like to believe these things happened Frank, or that the church was directly involved.
Why is that?

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

Would you believe I took the political compass thing and it tells me I'm left liberal and I'm also not religous. So no hidden agenda (or opinions if you wanna call it that here).

I just strongly believe that there has to be sufficient evidence before conclusions can be drawn from this case. Thats just logical and Im happy to be upfront about it.I appreciate the complexities of the debate when it comes to the mothers life and rape cases (I don't believe in bowing to mass hysteria as appears to be the case here). What I fail to see is how the so called 'pro-choice' crowd are so quick to jump on the bandwagon in situations where there is no choice.

To my body your 'liberalism' is an Iron bar.

I am pro MY choice...it is my body....



There is no complexity ....

I also believe the unborn child is a valid human life.

You believe that do you???

Okaaaay


Incidently my body has to support this other valid human life by force why???


And really it is the issue...only most Irish people are too nice to say to you


A RED C POLL 2 YEARS AGO FOUND 60% OF IRISH PEOPLE SUPPORTED A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.


THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO.


And yes you would be correct the pro-choice Agenda is loud right now ...guess why??? Because it is the majority agenda.


Oh yeah and also the small fact that women are dying.

And to clarify ....I don't believe the fetus is a valid life in the early stages of development. But i have never understood why that is a valid pro-life arguement.


I mean if i woke up tomorrow and i found the catholic church and hooked my womb up to another person would i have the right to pull the plug? It might not be a generous decision but it might still be my right.


Do you carry a donor card Frank? Would you give a kidney right now to someone who needed it? You give blood regularly?

I give blood ...they can have my body when I am dead.


I support a woman's right to choose up to twelve weeks. Why twelve weeks?? It is enough time to choose. And abortion is sad there is no need to make it sadder.


I also support a woman's right to NOT have an abortion even against medical advice if she so chooses....it is her right to see the pregnancy through if she chooses....and NO ONE has the right to perform the procedure if a woman does not want it.



'If she needed one' ...pfssshhhh.....OF COURSE IT IS ABOUT CHOICE....what if she had ' needed one' ..but did not want one?? What if she was prepared to risk her life or even die??

It is a very very personnal choice....I know pro-choice women who would die for a planned pregnancy ....


It is NOT about need....you always make a choice...you always have one...just because they are uncomfortable does not mean they are not there.


Some women choose to endanger their health or life for a pregnancy
..some die..some choose abortion...neither is wrong or right..it is a personnal choice.

franktheplank

whatdoicare wrote: »

Well, these two examples are wrong on merit of the church, do you not like this reality?
You don't seem to like to believe these things happened Frank, or that the church was directly involved.
Why is that?

Hey like i said, I got no affiliations with the Church. I believe your story about your mum, it's documented there's plenty of evidence. Fine, like i said it's a terrible thing, i just don't see the relevance.

I just don't believe the other story. It's not beyond the realms of possibility but it just doesn't ring true. It's sounds like crazy talk because it is crazy talk. Try reading it in an analytical fashion, it just doesn't add up at all.

There are people who genuinely suffer in the world. There are also people who create fantasy tales of terrible cruelties bestowed upon them because of whatever is going on in their heads.

franktheplank

poeticseraphim wrote: »

To my body your 'liberalism' is an Iron bar.

And so on and so on and so on.

I couldn't read much further. Are you a grown up, or some teenager with pretentious delusions of being some sort of a radical feminist beat poet?

whatdoicare

franktheplank wrote: »

Hey like i said, I got no affiliations with the Church. I believe your story about your mum, it's documented there's plenty of evidence. Fine, like i said it's a terrible thing, i just don't see the relevance.

I just don't believe the other story. It's not beyond the realms of possibility but it just doesn't ring true. It's sounds like crazy talk because it is crazy talk. Try reading it in an analytical fashion, it just doesn't add up at all.

There are people who genuinely suffer in the world. There are also people who create fantasy tales of terrible cruelties bestowed upon them because of whatever is going on in their heads.

Well, I already explained why because of my mothers story that I believe the other story was entirely plausible.

I watch my 50 year old mum suffer incontinence, anxiety attacks, severe pelvic pain, early onset menopause, all of which she has been suffering since her early twenties. The pain and suffering she was put through for no reason at all. None.

Forcibg a young mother to hobble around in constant pain for the rest of her life in case she might use a condom is in the same line of reasoning as a young woman unable to have children because the church didn't like being forced to give abortions.

Carry

franktheplank wrote: »

I just don't believe it because with all the church bashing that goes on, if the church was forcing people to have some sort of sadistic torture abortions, I think there would be some evidence, or other victims speaking out.

And likewise the church being against abortion so there's more kids to abuse is just plain crazy.

I think you might be delusional, do you get that a lot?

No, actually not. I'm quite rational.
I'm so rational that I wouldn't, like you do, try to demean and belittle someone with the accusation that they are delusional if they don't agree with me.
You are apparently running out of arguments. Just leave it so.
You've had enough of attention for tonight, don't you think?

franktheplank

whatdoicare wrote: »

Forcibg a young mother to hobble around in constant pain for the rest of her life in case she might use a condom is in the same line of reasoning as a young woman unable to have children because the church didn't like being forced to give abortions.

No what she's saying is that the church colluded in some way with the medical establishment to keep her awake during an especially violent abortion to torture her. The result of which, according to some unspecified source is an inability to have children.

For this to be true there would have to be systematic collusion and we could reasonable expect more than one victim. In which case given the horror of whats being suggested I would expect there to have been some sort of uncovering at this stage especially given the lack of power the Catholic Church now has. It also doesn't make sense that a victim would come half way forward on an unrelated forum and then not follow up the claim.

Lets not forget, she's also claiming the Catholic Church is against abortion so there are more kids to abuse. Like I said nuts.

poeticseraphim

For God's sake Frank we are talking about an institution that teaches a woman conceived a child as a virgin from a supernatural being.

Her womb is referred to as the 'chalice' her body is the 'vessel'.


In the old testament Lilith is turned into a demon that gives birth to hundreds of demons a day just because she refuses to lie under Adam.

They believe this and teach this....or really they don't believe it but base morality on it.


Bat **** crazy is right up their alley. They subscribe to unusual and impossible laws and dogma that are fictional and entirely impossible. A lot of these surround surround fertility and a woman's body.


It has been proven time and time again case by case the crimes they are guilty of. Yet still people defend them or refuse to believe the victim.


It is worrying for the safety of future young people to be honest that these cases are dismissed as implausible after all that has been revealed.

It is attitudes like this that allow the Jimmy Saville situation to occur....close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears.

franktheplank

Carry wrote: »

You've had enough of attention for tonight, don't you think?

Yup, im the attention seeker (read her original post!)

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

And so on and so on and so on.

I couldn't read much further. Are you a grown up, or some teenager with pretentious delusions of being some sort of a radical feminist beat poet?

You have no answer do you?


Why does my body have to support a valid life against my will? If i was hooked up to another human and wanted out ???


Do you donate blood ..your kidneys??? To save valid humanlives???Why don't we all pool our physical biological resources then????


Enforced kidney donations..humans only need one....it saves lives....and it is actually less invasive than pregnancy. It could save children.


Medical research..saves lives...are you sure you don't want to give a person ownership of their body???


Read the post in the thread....if you are going to give it you have to take it .

Or do you have no answers.

whatdoicare

franktheplank wrote: »

No what she's saying is that the church colluded in some way with the medical establishment to keep her awake during an especially violent abortion to torture her. The result of which, according to some unspecified source is an inability to have children.

For this to be true there would have to be systematic collusion and we could reasonable expect more than one victim. In which case given the horror of whats being suggested I would expect there to have been some sort of uncovering at this stage especially given the lack of power the Catholic Church now has. It also doesn't make sense that a victim would come half way forward on an unrelated forum and then not follow up the claim.

Lets not forget, she's also claiming the Catholic Church is against abortion so there are more kids to abuse. Like I said nuts.

Well Frank, I can't break it down or simplify any better for you. It wasn't priests that performed the sympysiotomy on my mam but it was doctors colluding with catholic teaching that carried out their wishes. Priests preached what they wanted and doctors did what they were told. They knew it was wrong, hence the destroying of files.

She also said,if I'm not mistaken, it was a nun that performed the abortion.

Go on away and bury yr head under yr duvet, reality of how evil the church can be in relation to women is too scary a place for you. It's women who have to live with the consequences of the reality. Weither you believe in it or not.

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

No what she's saying is that the church colluded in some way with the medical establishment to keep her awake during an especially violent abortion to torture her. The result of which, according to some unspecified source is an inability to have children.

For this to be true there would have to be systematic collusion and we could reasonable expect more than one victim. In which case given the horror of whats being suggested I would expect there to have been some sort of uncovering at this stage especially given the lack of power the Catholic Church now has. It also doesn't make sense that a victim would come half way forward on an unrelated forum and then not follow up the claim.

Lets not forget, she's also claiming the Catholic Church is against abortion so there are more kids to abuse. Like I said nuts.

No she is not. Where did she seriously suggest this without any hint of sarcasm?

franktheplank

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Read the post in the thread....if you are going to give it you have to take it .

Or do you have no answers.

I just don't hear a real argument to answer, just some hugely outdated pseudo-artistic feminist clichés and waffle.

But hey sister maybe logic is the stick of oppression i beat your body with sister?

Why are you asking me, as a man you think i'm not entitled to an opinion anyway?

In a future abortion referendum, by your logic (sorry) I shouldn't be allowed to vote right?

Carry

franktheplank wrote: »

Yup, im the attention seeker (read her original post!)

Right - women who tell their stories are attention seekers now?
Scared, are you?
Better we shut up, girls. We don't want to have the Plank spending the night with nightmares of women's stories - or don't we?
Savita's case certainly should bring up a lot of nightmares for people with frankyplanky-mindsets.

Her is me, btw. I have a name.

franktheplank

poeticseraphim wrote: »

No she is not. Where did she seriously suggest this without any hint of sarcasm?

Read her original post, it's all in there.

Unless me telling you to read a post is like, you know, oppressive or something?

whatdoicare

franktheplank wrote: »

Read her original post, it's all in there.

Unless me telling you to read a post is like, you know, oppressive or something?

Oh Frank, that is shameful flailing about out of you..... You were very coherent there for a good while but you've gone a bit silly.

franktheplank

Carry wrote: »

Her is me, btw. I have a name.

Sorry was I being oppressive. You see it's just people make stuff up on the INTERNET so that might not be you're name.

Some things I can take to be true because they clearly and sadly are, others I dismiss as crazy waffle because they clearly and sadly are.

franktheplank

whatdoicare wrote: »

Oh Frank, that is shameful flailing about out of you..... You were very coherent there for a good while but you've gone a bit silly.

Oh come on im still being coherent (but i gotta sleep soon) it's just your not keeping up.

Her revelation was clearly very nuts. That's not misogyny or some big church conspiracy it just was. It's time to move the debate on from there.

whatdoicare

franktheplank wrote: »

Oh come on im still being coherent (but i gotta sleep soon) it's just your not keeping up.

Her revelation was clearly very nuts. That's not misogyny or some big church conspiracy it just was. It's time to move the debate on from there.

Ah now, you have used the word oppression too much you see, it's like hiding behind a "I can't think of a valid response so ill throw crazy buzz words at you!" kind of silliness.
Now we've had the discussion about how likely it is that carrys story is true, you had no real comeback but to sideline the responses I gave with word distraction, I gave valid reasons why it could be true and you gave none why it couldn't beyond your own ideals.
Then you moved your same argument to someone else.
It's all a bit silly. So, I gotta sleep now too, so we'll leave it at that for now.

franktheplank

franktheplank wrote: »

No what she's saying is that the church colluded in some way with the medical establishment to keep her awake during an especially violent abortion to torture her. The result of which, according to some unspecified source is an inability to have children.

For this to be true there would have to be systematic collusion and we could reasonable expect more than one victim. In which case given the horror of whats being suggested I would expect there to have been some sort of uncovering at this stage especially given the lack of power the Catholic Church now has. It also doesn't make sense that a victim would come half way forward on an unrelated forum and then not follow up the claim.

Lets not forget, she's also claiming the Catholic Church is against abortion so there are more kids to abuse. Like I said nuts.

These are the valid reason I gave for her story being nuts. The reason I keep saying oppressive is because i keep getting this outdated feminism claptrap thrown at me (this could go round in circles) Gnite!

whatdoicare

franktheplank wrote: »

These are the valid reason I gave for her story being nuts. The reason I keep saying oppressive is because i keep getting this outdated feminism claptrap thrown at me (this could go round in circles) Gnite!

Go on to bed Frank, you're trying to explain away your use of buzz words now, not making you look good, I must admit. Gnight.

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

I just don't hear a real argument to answer, just some hugely outdated pseudo-artistic feminist clichés and waffle.

But hey sister maybe logic is the stick of oppression i beat your body with sister?

Why are you asking me, as a man you think i'm not entitled to an opinion anyway?

In a future abortion referendum, by your logic (sorry) I shouldn't be allowed to vote right?

AGAIN YOU ARE AVOIDING MY QUESTIONS...BLATANTLY

No you cannot logically extrapolate that from what I said. Your opinion as an individual should not affect my body. You are entitled to an opinion.You are not entitled to force me to go through pregnancy i am against.

And we are talking about forcing women.



I believe in universal suffrage. You have not answered my questions still.

DO NOT DERIDE FEMINISM.....it is like saying racism is cool....feminism never happened in Ireland as it did in America or Sweden for example we still have a way to go.


Obviously it is only the unborn little boys you care about.

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

Read her original post, it's all in there.

Unless me telling you to read a post is like, you know, oppressive or something?

Telling?? YES


Asking??? NO


When i asked YOU to read MY posts you refuse.


You are actually simply sexist.....you keep bringing up feminism not me. You are obsessed with it. You actually do come across as snide and misogynistic.


I am speaking as a human. I am asking for my human rights. The right to one's body.

I am asking for my human rights...genuinely.....it is time.

BizzyC

Here's some petrol to the fire....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172940/

The Irish Medical Council has voted to shift its stance on abortion. The council voted last week, after rancorous internal debate, to move away from its outright ban on abortions. Previously the council's guidelines stated that the deliberate and intentional destruction of an unborn child was professional misconduct (though it was not misconduct if a child in utero lost its life as a side effect of standard medical treatment of the mother).

The new guidelines say that a termination of pregnancy is permissible where there is "a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother." The medical circumstances in which such a risk might exist are spelt out by guidelines from the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, whose position on termination the meeting voted to adopt.

Dated 2001.

What ever happened to this change of law?

MagicSean

BizzyC wrote: »

Here's some petrol to the fire....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172940/


Dated 2001.

What ever happened to this change of law?

That's not law.

BizzyC

It's the set of standards by which doctors operate in the country, as good as law.

The new guidelines will be circulated to Ireland's 5500 working doctors and take immediate effect.

MagicSean

poeticseraphim wrote: »

And to clarify ....I don't believe the fetus is a valid life in the early stages of development. But i have never understood why that is a valid pro-life arguement.

I mean if i woke up tomorrow and i found the catholic church and hooked my womb up to another person would i have the right to pull the plug? It might not be a generous decision but it might still be my right

You appear to be confused as to how babies are made. The catholic church don't put them in you. Pregnancy is a result of sex.

MagicSean

BizzyC wrote: »

It's the set of standards by which doctors operate in the country, as good as law.

Did you read the guidelines? They're about two lines long. Absolutely useless.

fishy fishy

Vicxas wrote: »

I wouldnt blame the church for it. As they didnt intervene directly. I blame an outdated, barely modern applicable constitution that was moulded to appease the Catholic church nearly 100 years ago.

bizarre statement - didn't the doctor say it was a "catholic country" or was that a misprint.

the church intervenes directly with everything in this country.

Red Pepper

Excellent article by David Quinn on this sad case.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judgment-but-we-dont-know-the-facts-3294515.html

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

Did you read the guidelines? They're about two lines long. Absolutely useless.

These guidelines have already been pointed out many times on this thread - they are nothing new - are you just waking up to smell the coffee? The medical council took their direction from the Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court - the highest court in the land

Is that not good enough for you? Do you pretend to know more than the Medical Council? Are you somehow more knowledgable than everyone else including the body responsible for medical ethics?

You say they are "absolutely useless"

Really to whom?

The woman that risks death because of pregnancy

To those that insist that reproductive health is a moral issue and would withhold life saving treatment from those that need it

To the every "sperm is sacred" movement

To the right wing doctrine of the RCC that holds that woman are there to have babies, and must be ruled by men?

Ms will you continue to advocate the brutalisation of women to promote some misogynist rcc agenda?

I am tired of your ramblings and attacks against the provision of basic rights of pregnant women. It is really amazing that there are such barbaric individuals out there that would deny others such rights

pauldla

Red Pepper wrote: »

Excellent article by David Quinn on this sad case.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judgment-but-we-dont-know-the-facts-3294515.html

And we must also repeat for the umpteenth time that Ireland has one of the lowest maternal death rates in the world. It is lower than the British rate where abortion is available on demand.

Why is this relevant...?

wp_rathead

Red Pepper wrote: »

Excellent article by David Quinn on this sad case.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judgment-but-we-dont-know-the-facts-3294515.html

that is an oxymoron no?

gozunda

Red Pepper wrote: »

Excellent article by David Quinn on this sad case.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judgment-but-we-dont-know-the-facts-3294515.html

'Excellent' only if you are card carrying right wing apologist

It smacks of desperation at best. Oh look we are not that bad - look what others do!
The treatment of Savita Halappananaver was a disgrace no matter how the Catholic Independant attempt to dress it up

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

You appear to be confused as to how babies are made. The catholic church don't put them in you. Pregnancy is a result of sex.

Yes but they are the ones preaching that every sperm is sacred and insisting that a woman's reproductive health is a moral issue that they have dominion over because 'this is a catholic country'

MS - do you like sex? Do you have unprotected sex? Is rape and incest sex?
What about artificial insemination that results in pregnancy is that sex?

Red Pepper

gozunda wrote: »

'Excellent' only if you are card carrying right wing apologist

It smacks of desperation at best. Oh look we are not that bad - look what others do!
The treatment of Savita Halappananaver was a disgrace no matter how the Catholic Independant attempt to dress it up

We need to hear both sides of the story before we can pass judgement. Simple as that.

Solair

Ireland had an appalling history in the area of anything to do with sexuality and reproduction. It just adopted the most conservative interpretation of Catholic teachings and enacted them in law.

It's not just on this issue of abortion, we even banned condoms completely until the late 1970s and then they were only available by prescription until 1985!!!!!!!!!

Being gay was illegal until the 1990s and the state had to be sued in the European Courts before it would decriminalise it. It was basically dragged and humiliated into accepting even basic gay rights.

We turned a blind eye to orders of nuns locking up women who got pregnant outside marriage (in a country with no contraception). These women were then forced to work in slave labour conditions.

We turned a blind eye to the practice of cutting women's pelvic bones to widen their birth canal as Catholic teaching was
so anti contraception that medics wouldn't carryout C sections as it would mean the couple would have to stop having kids and plan their pregnancies.

This put the women through hell and left them disabled in many cases.

Many young men were sent to brutal industrial 'schools' for all sorts of minor issues ranging from being poor to mildly stepping out of line. They were beaten, starved, forced into slave labour and in many cases subject to serious sexual assaults.

This was one seriously, seriously screwed up nation and this case just highlights that old, twisted, ultra conservative Ireland is still alive and well in a few protected corners of society.

frojay

It's sad to see the anti-Catholic brigade jump on what is a personal tragedy for this family. Any excuse to bash the church.

pablomakaveli

frojay wrote: »

It's sad to see the anti-Catholic brigade jump on what is a personal tragedy for this family. Any excuse to bash the church.

The church has done so much to anger people, it shouldnt be a surprise that they do.

Its pretty hard to justify defending the church anymore.

Solair

frojay wrote: »

It's sad to see the anti-Catholic brigade jump on what is a personal tragedy for this family. Any excuse to bash the church.

Nope, not just the church but the ultra conservative state and the people who blindly supported it too.

What went on and still clearly goes on here is contrary to basic human rights.

The church has a huge role in it, but the political parties and their supporters who pandered to it are even worse. They implemented the laws and allowed themselves to be bullied, refused to debate awkward topics, allowed leadership of society to be outsourced to the most conservative aspects of the church & turned a blind eye to all sorts of horrendous abuse.

The church shouldn't have been able to wield the kind of power it did in a functioning democracy.

It was basically a religious, corporatist state like Spain during the dictatorship only our Government had to face elections, so I can only conclude that a majority of Irish voters in the past liked a bit of Franco style theocratic brutality.

Rascasse

Broadsheet.ie have posted excerpts from this post by respected OB/GYN Doctor Jen Gunter of the San Francisco Medical Center.

Its pretty damning and well worth spending five minutes to read.

Leftist

frojay wrote: »

It's sad to see the anti-Catholic brigade jump on what is a personal tragedy for this family. Any excuse to bash the church.

''this is a catholic country''

therefore you can't recieve the treatment to save your life.

''Any excuse to bash the church'' :D

NamelessPhil

As of August 27th 2012 a report in the Irish Times stated that the Catholic bishops were set to lobby politicians not legislate for abortion.

"Dáil deputies and Ministers will be lobbied by bishops and priests as part of a full-scale campaign of opposition if there is any attempt by the Government to legislate for abortion."

The Catholic church is still trying to interfere in political and secular matters.