Death of Savita Halappanavar and the abortion issue

Silvio.Dante

28064212 wrote: »

The 25,000 figure aside (which is tenuous at best), which Pro-Life promise is this? Is it this one.


Which promise are they breaking exactly?

Read the first link of the letter...:)

28064212

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Read the first link of the letter...:)

I thought abortion already happens in Irish hospitals where medically necessary?

Of course, if the first line is confusing, you can just read the rest of the statement which clarifies it in great detail

Death and Taxes

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

While we got 25,000 on the street all the 'other side' could muster was 170...;)

The other side stayed at home.
25,000 (mostly Priests,nuns, youth duffence, the leigon of mary and young kids who dont have a vote) , hardly a ringing endorsement of public support!

Silvio.Dante

28064212 wrote: »

I thought abortion already happens in Irish hospitals where medically necessary?

Of course, if the first line is confusing, you can just read the rest of the statement which clarifies it in great detail

The language couldn't be clearer. FG are opposed to legislating for abortion...:)

Silvio.Dante

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

The other side stayed at home.
25,000 (mostly Priests,nuns, youth duffence, the leigon of mary and young kids who dont have a vote) , hardly a ringing endorsement of public support!

Were you there..?

I saw very few Priests and the vast majority in attendance were women...:)

28064212

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

The language couldn't be clearer. FG are opposed to legislating for abortion...:)

And? Did they promise they won't? If it's constitutionally required, "opposition" isn't a factor. And to make clear that this is possible, they included a detailed breakdown of what would be happening, and did happen, under their leadership (the Oireachtas committee, a response to the ECHR ruling).

Again, what promise did they break?

Silvio.Dante

28064212 wrote: »

And? Did they promise they won't? If it's constitutionally required, "opposition" isn't a factor. And to make clear that this is possible, they included a detailed breakdown of what would be happening, and did happen, under their leadership (the Oireachtas committee, a response to the ECHR ruling).

Again, what promise did they break?

None as of yet and we're determined to unsure legislation for X will not be passed...

28064212

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

None as of yet and we're determined to unsure legislation for X will not be passed...

If they legislate for X, what promise will they break?

K-9

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

None as of yet and we're determined to unsure legislation for X will not be passed...

And Labour have promised it will be legislated for. What FG promised in the election is irrelevant, what both parties agreed in the coalition talks is what matters, and the X case will be legislated for by the looks of it.

oscarBravo

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

None as of yet and we're determined to unsure legislation for X will not be passed...

You can't ensure that. The constitution requires either legislation or amendment.

Silvio.Dante

28064212 wrote: »

If they legislate for X, what promise will they break?

This paragraph expresses a clear commitment...:

Fine Gael’s representatives will bring to the proposed all-party committee a clear commitment that women in pregnancy will receive whatever treatments are necessary to safeguard their lives, and that the duty of care to preserve the life of the baby will also be upheld.

As it stands mothers get every treatment necesary to ensure their lives are saved.

Legislating for X will bring about a whole new vista of intentionally killing unborn babies in Irish hospitals.

We are calling on FG to keep their promise highlighted above...

BlaasForRafa

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Were you there..?

I saw very few Priests and the vast majority in attendance were women...:)

The vast majority of women there were oul biddies who are long past the age when they could have children.

Silvio.Dante

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The vast majority of women there were oul biddies who are long past the age when they could have children.

Ridiculous comment and just plain wrong...

28064212

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Fine Gael’s representatives will bring to the proposed all-party committee...

Did they not bring that to the committee? If the committee takes that on board and recommends a different course of action, how have Fine Gael broken a promise?

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

As it stands mothers get every treatment necesary to ensure their lives are saved.

They don't actually, as you are well aware, but I have no interest in repeating your inevitable merry-go-round you perpetuated in A+A.

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Legislating for X will bring about a whole new vista of intentionally killing unborn babies in Irish hospitals.

Conjecture.

Once again, what exact action have Fine Gael taken that has broken which exact promise?

Silvio.Dante

28064212 wrote: »

Once again, what exact action have Fine Gael taken that has broken which exact promise?

They haven't. Thats what we want to ensure continues...

28064212

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

They haven't. Thats what we want to ensure continues...

If Fine Gael legislate for X, what exact action will Fine Gael have taken that has broken which exact promise?

The Waltzing Consumer

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

This paragraph expresses a clear commitment...:

Fine Gael’s representatives will bring to the proposed all-party committee a clear commitment that women in pregnancy will receive whatever treatments are necessary to safeguard their lives, and that the duty of care to preserve the life of the baby will also be upheld.

As it stands mothers get every treatment necesary to ensure their lives are saved.

Legislating for X will bring about a whole new vista of intentionally killing unborn babies in Irish hospitals.

We are calling on FG to keep their promise highlighted above...

Silvio, here's the 2011 Manifesto
http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/Fine%20Gael%20Manifesto%20low-res.pdf
Show us the promise please

On a side note: Both FG and LAB would have had pledges and promises if elected. The mandate they got from the electorate was a coalition though so therefore, compromise. Election promises mean nothing when the electorate gives a mandate for a coalition.

Back to topic at hand, please let us know where in manifesto the promise is?

rodento

Its a horrible case but it proves people do commit suicide because of pregency

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235714/Mother-pregnant-boy-twins-Dublin-jumps-death-cliff-wanted-girl.html

Silvio.Dante

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Silvio, here's the 2011 Manifesto
http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/Fine%20Gael%20Manifesto%20low-res.pdf
Show us the promise please

On a side note: Both FG and LAB would have had pledges and promises if elected. The mandate they got from the electorate was a coalition though so therefore, compromise. Election promises mean nothing when the electorate gives a mandate for a coalition.

Back to topic at hand, please let us know where in manifesto the promise is?

Its not in the manifesto.

In a specific letter to the Pro Life Campaign they commit to...:

Fine Gael’s representatives will bring to the proposed all-party committee a clear commitment that women in pregnancy will receive whatever treatments are necessary to safeguard their lives, and that the duty of care to preserve the life of the baby will also be upheld.

Clear as crystal and one we intend FG to keep to...:)

Silvio.Dante

rodento wrote: »

Its a horrible case but it proves people do commit suicide because of pregency

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235714/Mother-pregnant-boy-twins-Dublin-jumps-death-cliff-wanted-girl.html

Are you advocating sex selection abortions at 38 weeks..?

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Ridiculous comment and just plain wrong...

I believe you'll find they are right. Every other independent picture shows a wide angle of the vigil and the majority are Old women and grand children. Only biased pro life organisation photos show the front, where they orchestrated the few "young people" to go.

The mathematics and physical space for a human show that it is impossible to fit 25000 people into that space.

A party in coalition can not pick and choose what they keep and what they don't. And if it is not in the manifesto, it is not on their agenda to be in government. So all they are breaking is a pandering letter they used for votes.

Also, welcome back Silvio

_rebelkid

Savita was yet another needless death due to the Catholic Churches Irish Governments abortion policy.

She was forced into the footsteps of Sheila Hodger and Michelle Harte. If we legislated for X in 1992, even earlier, we would still have mothers alive today.

X needs to be legislated for. It will not lead to abortion on demand, but it will greater strengthen human rights for all, and will ensure to choose the best medical course for the mother, or the foetus, or both.

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

I believe you'll find they are right. Every other independent picture shows a wide angle of the vigil and the majority are Old women and grand children

I humbly disagree with you. I was there and saw people in the most part between 30-50 with a large minority younger and indeed a healthy number of older folk...

Thank you for the welcome but I'd not gone away you know...;)

Sierra 117

X will be legislated for, despite the attempts of Youth Defense and their protests. Nothing they can do will stop it so they can try all they want, they'll accomplish nothing.

Morag

Even if there were 25,000 that is still only 1/5 of the irish women who have traveled that we know about. That's 150,000 votes before we even look at the people who love and support them.

Morag

Sierra 117 wrote: »

X will be legislated for, despite the attempts of Youth Defense and their protests. Nothing they can do will stop it so they can try all they want, they'll accomplish nothing.

The problem will be the pressure to narrow the legislation so much that it does more harm to women's lives and health then good, or that regulations which stem from it do the same.

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I humbly disagree with you. I was there

So why aren't you in any of the Propoganda photos? Or are you?

It still doesn't disprove the maths. Nor does referencing any "Garda Confirmation" as YD only had estimates, which can't be confirmed.

rainbow kirby

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Are you advocating sex selection abortions at 38 weeks..?

Nobody was advocating that, it's just proving that mental health issues do occur in pregnancy.

Silvio.Dante

Sierra 117 wrote: »

X will be legislated for, despite the attempts of Youth Defense and their protests. Nothing they can do will stop it so they can try all they want, they'll accomplish nothing.

You may be right. That won't stop us putting up one heck of a campaign though...:)

The thought of unborn babies being intentionally killed has that effect on us...

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

Savita was yet another needless death due to the Catholic Churches Irish Governments abortion policy.
.

Are you the Coronor..?

Silvio.Dante

Morag wrote: »

Even if there were 25,000 that is still only 1/5 of the irish women who have traveled that we know about. That's 150,000 votes before we even look at the people who love and support them.

Tragic slaughter of innocence...:(

Silvio.Dante

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Nobody was advocating that, it's just proving that mental health issues do occur in pregnancy.

No one's denying that.

Would you restrict a woman's right to an abortion after a certain gestation period..?

Morag

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

You may be right. That won't stop us putting up one heck of a campaign though...:)

The thought of unborn babies being intentionally killed has that effect on us...

So does the though of the jobs paid for by american anti abortion money not being there any more I assume.

Bannasidhe

Silvio.

Would you support pregnant women being denied treatment for cancer as it would harm the fetus?

Silvio.Dante

Morag wrote: »

So does the though of the jobs paid for by american anti abortion money not being there any more I assume.

I don't get you...

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

No one's denying that.

The entire pro life argument against legislating X is that they say "Suicide and other mental health issues are never a reason for abortion".

If that is not the argument, why campaign against X?

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Silvio.

Would you support pregnant women being denied treatment for cancer as it would harm the fetus?

No, of course not...

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

The entire pro life argument against legislating X is that they say "Suicide and other mental health issues are never a reason for abortion".

If that is not the argument, why campaign against X?

Of course mental health issues do occur in pregnancy. But take me from there to killing the unborn baby please...

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Are you the Coronor..?

No, but it is quite clear what caused her death.

Her septicemia was caused by a non-viable foetus being kept in her body, poisoning the blood supply she was providing it with. That then spread to her organs, shutting them down and killing her.

If she had an abortion, the septicemia would if not have been non-existent, it would have been much more treatable.

X legislation would have ensured that he death would not have happened.

28064212

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Its not in the manifesto.

In a specific letter to the Pro Life Campaign they commit to...:

Fine Gael’s representatives will bring to the proposed all-party committee a clear commitment that women in pregnancy will receive whatever treatments are necessary to safeguard their lives, and that the duty of care to preserve the life of the baby will also be upheld.

The committee on abortion is on-going. Have Fine Gael's representatives failed to bring that clear committment? If the committee recommend legislation for X, and Fine Gael implement it, will Fine Gael have broken its promise? How?

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Of course mental health issues do occur in pregnancy. But take me from there to killing the unborn baby please...

They won't be killed. X legislation will be used if the mother will die, and if the foetus, in the majority of cases, is unviable.

No killing of foetuses, no killing of mothers. A better Ireland for us all.

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

No, of course not...

Then what do you think should happen?

There are only 4 options:

a) Deny cancer treatment until after the birth placing the mothers Health, and, possibly but by no means certainly, at risk.

b) Give the women the cancer treatment she needs which will, most likely, fatally harm the fetus or cause serious birth defects but allow the pregnancy to continue with either a non-viable or a severely damaged fetus.

c) Terminate the pregnancy and give the woman the treatment she needs.

d) Allow the woman to decide what she wants.

At the moment only one of these is available as an option. Do you agree with that ?

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

No, but it is quite clear what caused her death.

Her septicemia was caused by a non-viable foetus being kept in her body, poisoning the blood supply she was providing it with. That then spread to her organs, shutting them down and killing her.

If she had an abortion, the septicemia would if not have been non-existent, it would have been much more treatable.

X legislation would have ensured that he death would not have happened.

You've not just jumped the gun, you've leaped the whole flaming arsenal...

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

They won't be killed. X legislation will be used if the mother will die, and if the foetus, in the majority of cases, is unviable.

No killing of foetuses, no killing of mothers. A better Ireland for us all.

I don't understand your wording here...

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then what do you think should happen?

There are only 4 options:

a) Deny cancer treatment until after the birth placing the mothers Health, and, possibly but by no means certainly, at risk.

b) Give the women the cancer treatment she needs which will, most likely, fatally harm the fetus or cause serious birth defects but allow the pregnancy to continue with either a non-viable or a severely damaged fetus.

c) Terminate the pregnancy and give the woman the treatment she needs.

d) Allow the woman to decide what she wants.

At the moment only one of these is available as an option. Do you agree with that ?

Sadly, b)

Silvio.Dante

28064212 wrote: »

The committee on abortion is on-going. Have Fine Gael's representatives failed to bring that clear committment? If the committee recommend legislation for X, and Fine Gael implement it, will Fine Gael have broken its promise? How?

Their commitment to a duty of care to preserve the life of the baby being upheld...

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

You've not just jumped the gun, you've leaped the whole flaming arsenal...

Well would you care to put forward your theory?

_rebelkid

A story raised by User "Morag" on the abortion issue n A+A:

http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people


Hypocrisy abounds!

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Sadly, b)

Then why not let the pregnancy be terminated?

Would you prefer to allow the radiotherapy/chemotherapy/x rays etc to slowly poison the fetus - because that is what happens.

I have had cancer treatment twice and I barely survived it - a fetus would have no chance against the chemical cocktail - never mind the radiotherapy which causes burns from the inside out. As for the effect of X-rays on a fetus....:eek:

The treatment will slowly kill the fetus in most cases - should it survive to birth it will have serious defects, most likely be riddled with cancer and little chance of survival with no quality of life.

That is why pregnant women in Ireland are currently denied cancer treatment - it is considered that such treatment will terminate the pregnancy making it essentially an abortion - but one that inflicts a lingering death.

_rebelkid

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then why not let the pregnancy be terminated?

Would you prefer to allow the radiotherapy/chemotherapy/x rays etc to slowly poison the fetus - because that is what happens.

I have had cancer treatment twice and I barely survived it - a fetus would have no chance against the chemical cocktail - never mind the radiotherapy which causes burns from the inside out. As for the effect of X-rays on a fetus....:eek:

The treatment will slowly kill the fetus in most cases - should it survive to birth it will have serious defects, most likely be riddled with cancer and little chance of survival with no quality of life.

That is why pregnant women in Ireland are currently denied cancer treatment - it is considered that such treatment will terminate the pregnancy making it essentially an abortion - but one that inflicts a lingering death.

Happy to know that you're through it. I don't think anyone can doubt your knowledge on the subject of the affects of cancer treatments.

Nice to see that someone has sense after such a terrible thing. Good on you, Bannasidhe