Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

gozunda

Wompa1 wrote: »

A little bit touchy for After Hours aren't ya? It's ok to be dismissive of one being but not the other? That doesn't seem fair, can't we mock both equally?

It's called Irony....ok?

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

"And exactly what is wrong with woman having control over their own reproductive health?"

I didnt say that there was.

But, as you raise the topic, there is almost universal support for some restriction in the choices women make regarding their reproductive health. No doubt you support some restrictions yourself.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

I didnt say that there was.

But, as you raise the topic, there is almost universal support for some restriction in the choices women make regarding their reproductive health. No doubt you support some restrictions yourself.

From your previous post you were advocating restricting what women could control regarding their own reproductive health and talking about something referred to as 'abortion on demand' - which is something that only exists in the minds of anti- women interests imo

Personally I would not support individuals advocating any 'restrictions' on women. No person that is not medically qualified and following best medical practice should be able to impose their personal beliefs or mores on anyone's health or life or the medical treatment that they may avail of. As to 'Restrictions' as you call them being universal - hardly realistic eh? I advocate That which allows for woman to have control of their own reproductive with regard to best medical practice. I quite like the Canadian model tbh - it appears to work well. Pity Ireland is such a backward country in this regard. But hey guess what looks like change is coming - about time imo

I believe the Taliban are quite found of advocating 'restrictions' on women ...

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

From your previous post you were advocating restricting that women could control regarding their own reproductive health and talking about something referred to as 'abortion on demand' - which is something hat only exists in the minds of anti- women interests imo

I wasnt advocating anything; I was pointing to the difficulties that a constitutional wording which seeks to permit abortion where there is a threat to a mother's health might create when it comes to obtaining sufficient votes to be passed.

gozunda wrote: »

Personally I would not support individuals advocating any 'restrictions' on women. No person that is not medically qualified should be able to impose their personal beliefs or mores on anyone's health or life or the medical treatment that they may avail of. As to 'Restrictions' as you call them being universal - hardly realistic eh? I advocate That which allows for woman to have control of their own reproductive with regard to best medical practice. I quite like the Canadian model tbh - it appears to work well. Pity Ireland is such a backward country in this regard. But hey guess what looks like change is coming - about time imo

Do you favour any time limit restrictions? ie. 24, 26, 28 weeks etc?

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

I wasnt advocating anything; I was pointing to the difficulties that a constitutional wording which seeks to permit abortion where there is a threat to a mother's health might create when it comes to obtaining sufficient votes to be passed.

You talked about making sure what you referred to as 'abortion on demand' wouldn't be snook in on the tails of any changes' and the prevention of any one who is pro choice in making any majority changes by restricting wording

Did you refer to the constitution?

Do you favour any time limit restrictions? ie. 24, 26, 28 weeks etc?

And as I said before it is nothing about imposing restrictions - it is about providing for the health of women and is the function for best medical practice with exceptions (if these are required) in all cases to provide for the life and health of the mother.

The imposition of personal opinion has no place in the control of a woman's reproductive health.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Did you refer to the constitution?

When i referred to 'referendum' and 'wording', what do you think i was referring to?

I agree with you but whatever about legislation, I really cant see the government going near a referendum at the moment.
Even if they do, the other problem is how they come up with a wording that ensures that a genuine risk to the health of the mother is covered whilst not leading to abortion on demand. Or more accurately perhaps, ensuring that the pro-life campaign dont succeed in painting the wording as permitting abortion on demand. The pro-life campaign might be concerned (perhaps accurately) that wording designed to protect the health of the mother might lead to abortion on demand (as happened in the UK).

gozunda wrote: »

You talked about making sure what you referred to as 'abortion on demand' wouldn't be snook in on the tails of any changes'

Nope, i talked about how that fear might make it very difficult for a referndum to be passed given the views of the pro-life lobby.

gozunda wrote: »

And as I said before it is nothing about imposing restrictions - it is about providing for the health of women and is the function for best medical practice with exceptions (if these are required) in all cases to provide for the life and health of the mother.

The imposition of personal opinion has no place in the control of a woman's reproductive health.

Sorry; i didnt catch the answer there; do you support the imposition of time limit restrictions (24, 26, 28 weeks etc.?)

Noreen1

seb65 wrote: »

Yes, but you're talking about a pregnant woman whose life is suddenly in danger, who has carried her baby almost to term, is faced with the decision to deliver early or abort. There's two factors in your scenario, not just a woman who would carry their baby past the point of viability and then abort. The odds of having a woman, who wants to abort her baby, but who carries it to viability, but then also encounters a life threatening situation - almost negligible.

It may be almost negligible until you consider that peoples circumstances can change during pregnancy.
Relationships can end, finances can become difficult, etc.
In these cases, some women might just consider an abortion as a "quick fix".
And some of them might regret it later.

Even if the risk were almost negligible, the question about a viable childs life is at issue. There is still the question about the pain involved for the child.
It was horrific what Savita had to go through, I know I winced at even the thought of it. Having said that, is the thought that an innocent child might go through needless suffering not equally horrific? Because I think it is.
I don't want to see any woman suffer the way Savita did - but I don't want to see a child suffer either.

seb65 wrote: »

I find it odd that a woman would travel from America to Britain just to terminate a pregnancy, when she could just go to Canada - Canada has no limit on when an abortion may be done. I also would like to know if there were any other factors - was their some inherent defect with the baby?

I don't know why that woman choose to travel to Britain, rather than Canada.
There were rumours that her husband was famous. If true, that might have had something to do with it. But I genuinely don't know.

I do know, that there were no birth defects, or financial difficulties.
She decided that she didn't want to change here lifestyle because her birth control failed.
I know this for sure, because I overheard her discussing it with one of the nurses.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

When i referred to 'referendum' and 'wording', what do you think i was referring to?
[SIZE="1"][/SIZE]

That which you actually referred to - "Legislation....

'

Nope, i talked about how that fear might make it very difficult for a referndum to be passed given the views of the pro-life lobby.

It does not read that way I'm afraid...

Sorry; i didnt catch the answer there; do you support the imposition of time limit restrictions (24, 26, 28 weeks etc.?)

As I said in my reply .you really don't take in answers that you don't like do you? Can't help you with that...

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

That which you actually referred to - "Legislation....

Sigh:)

I agree with you but whatever about legislation, I really cant see the government going near a referendum at the moment.

gozunda wrote: »

As I said in my reply .you really don't take in answers that you don't like do you? Can't help you with that...

Its a straightforward question. Do you support the imposition of time limit restrictions (24, 26, 28 weeks etc.?)

Noreen1

gozunda wrote: »

Like all such heartless unnatural woman out there she probably went dancing, drinking and whoring down Soho afterwards.....

Jeez ... I just love such urban myths written by the anti-women zealot brigade.

Well at least we're agreed that it was heartless.

It is not, however, an urban myth. It actually had a profound effect on my, until then, rarely thought about stance on abortion.

But sure go ahead and try to discredit someone who asks difficult questions that you have no glib answer to.
Furthermore, I'm neither a zealot just because I don't agree with your stance, nor anti-woman. In case the name didn't give you a clue, I am a woman.

gozunda

No the word 'Constitution' was not included in your post - so you were talking about legislation then?

drkpower wrote: »

Its a straightforward question. Do you support the imposition of time limit restrictions (24, 26, 28 weeks etc.?)

And I gave a straightforward answer. See above. *sigh*

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

And I gave a straightforward answer. See above. *sigh*

At no point did you answer whether you support the imposition of time limit restrictions (24, 26, 28 weeks etc.?).

Why the reluctance? Are you afriad that your answer might reveal that you support restricting a woman's right to choose?

seb65

Noreen1 wrote: »

It may be almost negligible until you consider that peoples circumstances can change during pregnancy.
Relationships can end, finances can become difficult, etc.
In these cases, some women might just consider an abortion as a "quick fix".
And some of them might regret it later.

Even if the risk were almost negligible, the question about a viable childs life is at issue. There is still the question about the pain involved for the child.
It was horrific what Savita had to go through, I know I winced at even the thought of it. Having said that, is the thought that an innocent child might go through needless suffering not equally horrific? Because I think it is.
I don't want to see any woman suffer the way Savita did - but I don't want to see a child suffer either.

So, we're also agreed that to allow a dying fetus to suffer for three days is not okay? How about a child who is born missing half his head? Forcing him to be born and to suffer is not okay either, right? What about Jewish babies who are born with tay-sachs and will experience nothing but pain for their short lives?

How about pregnant women who have cancer having health professionals say it's okay to give chemo after so many weeks? How about testing those theories on defenseless fetuses? Because that's what the "never any need for an abortion to save the mother's life" are doing.

I swear, the Catholic church's stance and those of the likes of O'Dwyer and Youth Defence have got to be some of the most selfish I have heard.


The risk remains negligible because what are the chances those women's lives will become threatened? Those who see it as a "quick fix".

I'll have to take your word on the woman who suddenly decided the baby wasn't worth it at 28 weeks, though the story sounds quite fishy to me. However, plenty of women neglect and abuse their children after they are born too, as do men.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

No the word 'Constitution' was not included in your post - so you were talking about legislation then?

What does the word 'referendum' mean to you?

gozunda

Noreen1 wrote: »

Well at least we're agreed that it was heartless.

My my I must stop using ironic statements - ye don't appear to understand the concept.

It is not, however, an urban myth. It actually had a profound effect on my, until then, rarely thought about stance on abortion.

....

But sure go ahead and try to discredit someone who asks difficult questions that you have no glib answer to.
Furthermore, I'm neither a zealot just because I don't agree with your stance, nor anti-woman. In case the name didn't give you a clue, I am a woman.

There are always stories - some are true some are not. No offence but it is unrealistic to expect people to believe unsubstantiated tales on a public forum especially where something as divisive as abortion is under discussion.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

What does the word 'referendum' mean to you?

Well depends on the context I suppose - but no you definitely did not mention the 'Constitution'..

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Well depends on the context I suppose - but no you definitely did not mention the 'Constitution'..

In what context do the words 'referendum' and 'wording' not relate to the constitution?!:)

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

At no point did you answer whether you support the imposition of time limit restrictions (24, 26, 28 weeks etc.?).

Tut tut always the same methodology ... Well go back and check - I gave you my answer. If you don't like it tough.

Here's a question - are you a qualified medical professional?

Why the reluctance? Are you afriad that your answer might reveal that you support restricting a woman's right to choose?

Don't even bother to attempt to use such pathetic provocative arguments to further your evident bias. They are beneath contempt. Read that which was written - if you don't like it I can't help you

By the way what actual qualifications do you have or professional associations do you belong to?

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Don't even bother to attempt to use such pathetic provocative arguments to further your evident bias. They are beneath contempt. Read that which was written - if you don't like it I can't help you

You havent answered the question; 5th time: Do you support the imposition of time limit restrictions (24, 26, 28 weeks etc.?)

gozunda wrote: »

By the way what actual qualifications do you have or professional associations do you belong to?

Is this relevant? If so, I'll tell you if you tell me.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

In what context do the words 'referendum' and 'wording' not relate to the constitution?!:)

Well if you had a dictionary then you could look up the word with regard to the word 'referendum'
Referendum. Noun.

A general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision.

Wording:

How something is written or phrased

So you see not a single reference to 'Constitution'

You were talking about 'Legislation'. We are not mind readers you know

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Well if you had a dictionary then you could look up the with regard to the word 'referendum'
Referendum. Noun.



Wording:



So you see not a single reference to 'Constitution'

You were talking about 'Legislation'. We are not mind readers you know

I think you are just embarrassing yourself now.

I agree with you but whatever about legislation, I really cant see the government going near a referendum at the moment.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

You havent answered the question; 5th time: Do you support the imposition of time limit restrictions (24, 26, 28 weeks etc.?)

You do know how to actually read? Don't mean to be intrusive but you obviously Haven't read the answer I provided for some reason...

Is this relevant? If so, I'll tell you if you tell me.

What are you not answering a question ? :shocked:

Yes

Do tell...

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

You do know how to actually read? Don't mean to be intrusive but you obviously Haven't read the answer I provided for some reason...

Can you point me to where you answered the question because nowwhere in your posts do you answer this question (6th time): Do you support the imposition of time limit restrictions (24, 26, 28 weeks etc.?) If you did answer the question, it should be easy to point out where.

gozunda wrote: »

What are you not answering a question ? :shocked:
.

You havent explained why it is relevant and you have not declared your own profession. If my profession is relevant, then surely yours is too. Explain why it is relevant, declare your own profession, and i willl gladly divulge my own.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

I think you are just embarrassing yourself now.
[SIZE="1"][/SIZE]

Oh deary me...

No still no mention of the constitution.

You know this is actually fun...

Look you can ignore my answers for the nth time - I really don't care tbh

But You are really making a holy (sic) show of yerself now by ignoring what the answer I gave you...

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

But You are really making a holy (sic) show of yerself now by ignoring what the answer I gave you...

Just point me to the answer to the question (7th time): Do you support the imposition of time limit restrictions (24, 26, 28 weeks etc.?)

You seem insistent that you provided an answer to it, but you cant point to where. It seems quite clear that your failure to do so is on the basis that you, in fact, do support such a restriction but cannot bear to admit that fact.

If my conclusion is not accurate, simply point me to the answer.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

...,


You havent explained why it is relevant and you have not declared your own profession. If my profession is relevant, then surely yours is too. Explain Whyit is relevant, declare your own profession, and i willl gladly divulge my own.

Ah now here ... You didn't ask me to explain Why it was relevant - you simply asked was it? And I replied that Yes it was and even after I answer that question now you still won't answer the question I asked you AND then instead you ask me what I do

If you can't answer questions properly and won't read my answers and expect me to be a mind reader to boot what can I possibly do?

I can lend you my dictionary if that would help?

Flier

Seriously lads, when was the last time we had a referendum that didn't involve the constitution? This is all very entertaining, but I think I'm off to bed now. I'll catch up with y'all in the morning.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Ah now here ... You didn't ask me to explain why it was relevant - you simply asked was it? And I replied that Yes it was and even after I answer that question now you still won't answer the question I asked you AND then instead you ask me what I do

Im afraid i cant simply accept your word that it is relevant. If it is indeed relevant, then it should be very straightforward for you to give a reason.

And you also havent told me your own profession.

Answer those questions, and i will gladly divulge my own.

gozunda

Flier wrote: »

Seriously lads, when was the last time we had a referendum that didn't involve the constitution? This is all very entertaining, but I think I'm off to bed now. I'll catch up with y'all in the morning.

Don't know but I believe DP was talking about legislation

I think I'll join you ( not literally of course )

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

Im afraid i cant simply accept your word that it is relevant. If it is indeed relevant, then it should be very straightforward for you to give a reason.

Oh well you can't accept my word - pity that

And you also havent told me your own profession.

Well I did ask first!

Answer those questions, and i will gladly divulge my own.

As I said I did ask first....

Good night ...

Noreen1

[QUOTE=seb65;81950723]So, we're also agreed that to allow a dying fetus to suffer for three days is not okay? How about a child who is born missing half his head? Forcing him to be born and to suffer is not okay either, right? What about Jewish babies who are born with tay-sachs and will experience nothing but pain for their short lives?

How about pregnant women who have cancer having health professionals say it's okay to give chemo after so many weeks? How about testing those theories on defenseless fetuses? Because that's what the "never any need for an abortion to save the mother's life" are doing.

I swear, the Catholic church's stance and those of the likes of O'Dwyer and Youth Defence have got to be some of the most selfish I have heard.


The risk remains negligible because what are the chances those women's lives will become threatened? Those who see it as a "quick fix".

I'll have to take your word on the woman who suddenly decided the baby wasn't worth it at 28 weeks, though the story sounds quite fishy to me. However, plenty of women neglect and abuse their children after they are born too, as do men.[/QUOTE]

gozunda wrote: »

My my I must stop using ironic statements - ye don't appear to understand the concept.

Ah! So now Savitas baby did suffer?
I thought a baby at 17 weeks gestation was incapable of feeling pain?

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your questions, because
A: Where that that line of thinking stop? If a child has half a head? What if that child has half a head and isn't suffering? What about other handicaps?
Just eliminate them before birth?:eek:

B; I know nothing other than what a quick google throws up about Tay-Sachs.

We could go around and around, and get further off-topic on that issue for weeks.

In any case, the basic question remains the same.
Why was it not alright for Savita to suffer, but perfectly acceptable for (an unquantifiable number of) babies to suffer?


....

gozunda wrote: »

There are always stories - some are true some are not. No offence but it is unrealistic to expect people to believe unsubstantiated tales on a public forum especially where something as divisive as abortion is under discussion.

I can appreciate that someone would question internet stories. However, I assure you, this one is 100% true, since I personally loathe lies, which is why I answered honestly that I didn't know why that woman travelled to the UK.
I could also have added other details that were unsubstanciated rumour, in the form of midwives opinions. I neglected to do so, precisely because I cannot substanciate those opinions.

Finally, I represent neither the Catholic Church, nor Youth Defence, so why do you keep referring to them in your responses to me?

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Ah! So now Savitas baby did suffer?
I thought a baby at 17 weeks gestation was incapable of feeling pain?

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your questions, because
A: Where that that line of thinking stop? If a child has half a head? What if that child has half a head and isn't suffering? What about other handicaps?
Just eliminate them before birth?:eek:

I just don't get this reasoning, the poor unborn baby may have been in pain but according to the consultants was going to die anyway. If the mother wanted an "abortion", why not?

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

I just don't get this reasoning, the poor unborn baby may have been in pain but according to the consultants was going to die anyway. If the mother wanted an "abortion", why not?

The point is that earlier in the thread, it was posted that a foetus was incapable of feeling pain before 18-20 weeks gestation.

I don't know how accurate that is, but it does reflect general medical thinking right now.

The reason I queried it, is that, Savitas case was referred to earlier in the thread as "the perfect storm" - precisely because the foetus was unviable, and couldn't, presumably, feel pain.

I've never said Savita shouldn't have had an abortion. I've refused to come to a conclusion as to whether or not an abortion could have saved her life until all the evidence is in.

I find it quite disturbing, then, that an argument used earlier in the thread (and I don't remember who posted it!) to say that Savita should have been granted an abortion, is now totally ignored, and twisted to suit one posters agenda. ie. All of a sudden, when asked, repeatedly, why it's ok for a baby to suffer, there's a concern for the suffering of the child that has never been previously alluded to. In addition, I believe this same poster has suggested that he/she favours the Canadian model, where there is no time limit on abortion.

gozunda wrote: »

From your previous post you were advocating restricting what women could control regarding their own reproductive health and talking about something referred to as 'abortion on demand' - which is something that only exists in the minds of anti- women interests imo

Personally I would not support individuals advocating any 'restrictions' on women. No person that is not medically qualified and following best medical practice should be able to impose their personal beliefs or mores on anyone's health or life or the medical treatment that they may avail of. As to 'Restrictions' as you call them being universal - hardly realistic eh? I advocate That which allows for woman to have control of their own reproductive with regard to best medical practice. I quite like the Canadian model tbh - it appears to work well. Pity Ireland is such a backward country in this regard. But hey guess what looks like change is coming - about time imo

I believe the Taliban are quite found of advocating 'restrictions' on women ...

No evidence of concern for the suffering of a child, there.

opinion guy

Noreen1 wrote: »

The reason I queried it, is that, Savitas case was referred to earlier in the thread as "the perfect storm" - precisely because the foetus was unviable, and couldn't, presumably, feel pain.

I described this case as a "perfect storm". I wasn't using that term for the reasons you describe regarding pain. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.
(ignore if someone else also used the term in a different context)

Noreen1

opinion guy wrote: »

I described this case as a "perfect storm". I wasn't using that term for the reasons you describe regarding pain. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.
(ignore if someone else also used the term in a different context)

Fair enough. Apologies. It's been a long thread.
I think it may also have been used in a different context, but I'm honestly not willing to go back over the whole thread again to find out!

As a matter of interest, why did you describe the case as the "perfect storm"?

opinion guy

Noreen1 wrote: »

Fair enough. Apologies. It's been a long thread.
I think it may also have been used in a different context, but I'm honestly not willing to go back over the whole thread again to find out!

As a matter of interest, why did you describe the case as the "perfect storm"?

More the circumstances for the HSE. An unexpected death. An uncompromising spouse. The media interest. The international element. oh yes and the abortion aspect. They simply cannot ignore it. This is unprecedented in this country.

Noreen1

opinion guy wrote: »

More the circumstances for the HSE. An unexpected death. An uncompromising spouse. The media interest. The international element. oh yes and the abortion aspect. They simply cannot ignore it. This is unprecedented in this country.

Fair enough. I'd pretty much agree with all of that, though I'm not too sure how much interest the HSE has in acting, as opposed to engaging in damage limitation.

opinion guy

Noreen1 wrote: »

Fair enough. I'd pretty much agree with all of that, though I'm not too sure how much interest the HSE has in acting, as opposed to engaging in damage limitation.

Oh i'm sure they have no interest and would bury this if they could. I mean look at the whole thing of putting 3 Galway staff on the board. But they can't shirk this. Its too big. They didn't get away with that rubbish. Literally the eyes of the world are on this. If they try to pull any shenanigans, several tonnes of bricks will come down on them.

I have to say though I have sympathy for the junior doctors and nurses who are caught up in all this but weren't the ones making the decisions

gozunda

*Edited*

OP - Personal Preferences et al....


I apologies now for the necessary length of this reply...

Noreen1 - You have somehow managed to misquote, misunderstand and take out of context nearly everything I have posted to far. For your benefit I have gathered all the relevant posts to point out Where and How this has been the case. However even after reviewing all for your comments the Why remains a complete mystery to me ....

This is the sequence of posts (other posters included so it makes Sense)

Noreen1 wrote: »

I actually met a woman who traveled all the way from America to Britain to have a perfectly viable baby aborted just before the (then) 28 week limit.
So, yes, some women would make that call.

seb65 wrote: »

...
I find it odd that a woman would travel from America to Britain just to terminate a pregnancy, when she could just go to Canada - Canada has no limit on when an abortion may be done. I also would like to know if there were any other factors - was their some inherent defect with the baby?

Wompa1 wrote: »

She could have gone to Canada but it was also Fashion week in London so she figured she could take in a few shows while she was there....

gozunda wrote: »

Like all such heartless unnatural woman out there she probably went dancing, drinking and whoring down Soho afterwards. Jeez ... I just love such urban myths written by the anti-women zealot brigade.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Well at least we're agreed that it was heartless.
It is not, however, an urban myth. It actually had a profound effect on my, until then, rarely thought about stance on abortion.
But sure go ahead and try to discredit someone who asks difficult questions that you have no glib answer to. Furthermore, I'm neither a zealot just because I don't agree with your stance, nor anti-woman. In case the name didn't give you a clue, I am a woman.

gozunda wrote: »

... I must stop using ironic statements - ...
There are always stories - some are true some are not. No offense but it is unrealistic to expect people to believe unsubstantiated tales on a public forum especially where something as divisive as abortion is under discussion.

In the reply above I added to this relative aside an obvious ironic statement that the woman (& not 'it' btw) was 'Heartless'. ie I dont believe she was "Heartless". This statement was ironic in its phrasing... Btw neither am I attempting to 'discredit someone who asks difficult questions' - you related an uncorroborated story. Excuse me if I put on my "ya right shades" for a moment....I do not have to believe this take solely on the basis you have related it - OK! I also said that such stories appaer to have their origins in groups (aka anti-women) with extreme views (zealots). I did not question your gender or state your membership of such a group. But that is where this type of story originates from ..I also take it you are a 'Noreen' as well....

You then posted the following:

Noreen1 wrote: »

Originally Posted by gozunda
My I must stop using ironic statements - ye don't appear to understand the concept.

Ah! So now Savitas baby did suffer?
I thought a baby at 17 weeks gestation was incapable of feeling pain?
I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your questions, because
A: Where that that line of thinking stop? If a child has half a head? What if that child has half a head and isn't suffering? What about other handicaps?
Just eliminate them before birth?

Ehh? What??? How in hades does my Post which related to the supposed story of some mystery woman equate in your mind with your reply of 'Ah! So now Savitas baby did suffer? a baby at 17 weeks gestation was incapable of feeling pain?' ??????????????????????????????? How would a child 'with half a head' not suffer one way or the other? Foetus that have severe non viable development issues may well be terminated prior to birth - quite often biology steps in and does the work iteslf in the form of miscarriage - should we rescue these miscarriages and keep them in a bucket until they are fully gestated?

I dont get any of your logic ? Perhaps there is some mysterious subtext in there I dont observe - But nope dont get your reply - Your reply has NOTHING to do with what I posted whatsoever!

Noreen1 wrote: »

I can appreciate that someone would question internet stories. However, I assure you, this one is 100% true, since I personally loathe lies, which is why I answered honestly that I didn't know why that woman traveled to the UK.

I could also have added other details that were unsubstantiated rumor, in the form of midwives opinions. I neglected to do so, precisely because I cannot substantiate those opinions.
Finally, I represent neither the Catholic Church, nor Youth Defense, so why do you keep referring to them in your responses to me?

Noreen -no offence but I dont know you from Adam (:rolleyes:) You can relate any 'personal' story's you wish - but as I said I take all such revelations with a bucket of sodium chloride. I not know who you represent but on reflection your views on the rights of woman to control their reproductive health appear to be closely aligned with these groups.

And finally in response to another poster - you quoted the following post from me...

gozunda wrote: »

From your previous post you were advocating restricting what women could control regarding their own reproductive health and talking about something referred to as 'abortion on demand' - which is something that only exists in the minds of anti- women interests imo Personally I would not support individuals advocating any 'restrictions' on women. No person that is not medically qualified and following best medical practice should be able to impose their personal beliefs or mores on anyone's health or life or the medical treatment that they may avail of. As to 'Restrictions' as you call them being universal - hardly realistic eh? I advocate That which allows for woman to have control of their own reproductive with regard to best medical practice. I quite like the Canadian model tbh - it appears to work well. Pity Ireland is such a backward country in this regard. But hey guess what looks like change is coming - about time imo
I believe the Taliban are quite found of advocating 'restrictions' on women ...

Noreen1 wrote: »

I find it quite disturbing, then, that an argument used earlier in the thread (and I don't remember who posted it!) to say that Savita should have been granted an abortion, is now totally ignored, and twisted to suit one posters agenda. ie. All of a sudden, when asked, repeatedly, why it's ok for a baby to suffer, there's a concern for the suffering of the child that has never been previously alluded to. In addition, I believe this same poster has suggested that he/she favors the Canadian model, where there is no time limit on abortion.

Where exactly did I post that collection of cobblers??? You yourself satated that a Foetus of 17 weeks doesnt feel pain - then how in hades can you state that someone (Me?) is saying that I want de little babbies to suffer?

You then add that in relation to my quote above re the candaian model that...

Noreen1 wrote: »

...No evidence of concern for the suffering of a child, there.

A child? what are we talking here - toddlers, pre-schoolers, what??

Do you know anything of the Canadian model? Have you actually looked up how it is actually administered?

Believe what you like but it is one of the most enlightened regimes in the world - where both the life of the mother and fetus are taken into consideration in a balanced and rational way. Another poster has already posted details about this in this Thread - so I suggest you look that up at least...

This endless banging on about 'the suffering of little children' fcs - give me a break. You really appear to have absolutrly no concern whatsoever for the life and health of the mother - the person who must have precedence as a full human being without whom there would be no 'little babies' in any state of gestation...Its like something straight out of some 1950's convent school tbh..

I dont know if you have perhaps just taken umbrage at what I have said in this Thread but please do reply without putting words in my mouth or at least without taking what I have said out of context.

Thanks

opinion guy

gozunda wrote: »

Opinion guy - I hope you do not mind me reiterating your summarisation in relation to the above posters replies....

Just as I don't want Noreen putting words in my mouth I don't want you recruiting me into your argument. Honestly I've stopped paying attention to both your posts, so I've no idea what you are arguing about at this point - Noreen's post just caught my eye because a) it was short and b) I spotted the phrase I had used on a glance.

Your post is waayyyyy too long - I ain't reading it.

Mods forgive me if I'm overstepping lines here, but my advice to you both is to give it a rest because your continuing row has now monopolised the thread to the detriment of actual discussion.

gozunda

opinion guy wrote: »

Just as I don't want Noreen putting words in my mouth I don't want you recruiting me into your argument. Honestly I've stopped paying attention to both your posts, so I've no idea what you are arguing about at this point - Noreen's post just caught my eye because a) it was short and b) I spotted the phrase I had used on a glance.
Your post is waayyyyy too long - I ain't reading it.
Mods forgive me if I'm overstepping lines here, but my advice to you both is to give it a rest because your continuing row has now monopolised the thread to the detriment of actual discussion.

Well Opinion Guy _ I dont like being Misquoted either. I'll take that as is BUT just like you I had "Words put in my mouth" and I had to follow a torturous phasing to showhow that this was so. No more than you have had a "argument" with the poster you quoted either .

My sincere apologies if You dont wish for any one else quoting you.
I will remove it anon. Will that make things better?

However If you "have not read my post" then You have no idea what I have written - then you cannot attempt to summarise .

Re the monopolisation of the Thread - until my reply above I had not posted in 3 days. Thanks for your insight anyway.

Red Pepper

Can someone please summarise this thread for me in less than 15 words?

kunst nugget

Red Pepper wrote: »

Can someone please summarise this thread for me in less than 15 words?

Can the foetus come to greet us or should we maybe slay de baby?

old hippy

Red Pepper wrote: »

Can someone please summarise this thread for me in less than 15 words?

Abortion is wrong. No it isn't. Yes it is. Ad infinitum.

HeyThereDeliah

Red Pepper wrote: »

Can someone please summarise this thread for me in less than 15 words?

I could but it would be better if you read it, you might learn something.

gozunda

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I could but it would be better if you read it, you might learn something.

It has been an interesting thread at least.

Gives a good cross section of the state of the nation imo in relation to this and relavant issues..

HeyThereDeliah

gozunda wrote: »

It has been an interesting thread at least.

Gives a good cross section of the state of the nation imo in relation to this and relavant issues..

It has been interesting and I think we will see this government making the necessary changes to ensure this does not happen again.
People have stopped talking about it now but I hope this does not mean it will be forgotten.

Ceasar the Wheezer

Interesting Marc Coleman interview on Newstalk where he manages to weed out major discrepancies between Kitty Holland's Irish Times story and her Observer story as she admits that Praveen Hallapanavars account "May have been a little muddled" and that "We only have praveen and HIS SOLICITORS take on the situation".
Phil Prendergast the Labour Party MEP now says that Savita's case should not be mixed up with the debate on abortion! I wonder if Clare Daly and the rest of the looney left abortionistas were listening??
Very interesting interview.

Listen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQmc-eeNXCU

Lingua Franca

...looney left abortionistas?


Psst, your bias is showing.

Ceasar the Wheezer

Lingua Franca wrote: »

...looney left abortionistas?


Psst, your bias is showing.

Hope so, but as Obama would say "This isn't about me".
It's more about single source journalism at its worst and how one B grade journo (Kitty Holland) can mislead a country with vital facts left out of a story and the nations "Newspaper of Record" going along with it. She should be asked why she kept her gob shut for this long.
Wouldn't be because of her "alternative" agenda would it? Just asking like.