Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
The statement (lest you've forgotten again) wassilverharp wrote: »but morality is tied to religion if you choose to let it , Muslims choose to let religion be tied to morality and come up with solutions which are incompatible with modern civilisation so your statement is wanting
"one thing I suspect almost everyone on this thread will agree with is that morality is not tied to religion; we are perfectly capable of being moral beings with or without faith"
Muslims may choose to tie their morality to their religion, but their morality is not, of itself, tied to their religion; that's their choice.
As to whether their solutions are incompatible with modern civilization, that's a matter of opinion. A rather large number of Muslims who live in modern civilizations would disagree with you; I suspect your opinion is a minority one in the grand scheme of things.
In fairness though, that's not evidence that links Dublins move on the charts to consigning catholic values to the bin, it's just more stuff that you're making up. Unless the evidence you're going to show includes the points scale that covers having religious based censorship laws, family planning laws , anti gay laws? I don't think it is; I think you're still making things up. It's ok though, it won't make me think any less of it when you admit it.silverharp wrote: »there are other factors, economic , taxes, transport etc. however if dublin had to live with catholic based laws for the last 20 or 30 years that were done away with, Dublin would be at a lower ranking because it would lose points for having religious based censorship laws, family planning laws , anti gay laws.
Oh, I'd say there are very definite reasons why cities are where they are on the scales I showed you. I just think you don't know what those reasons are and you're making reasons up to suit yourself. I'd be fascinated if you could demonstrate that you're telling the truth though?silverharp wrote: »In world terms there are reasons why a cities like Sydney or Berlin are at the top of the list while the first Muslim city is in 74th on one survey I saw which is Abu Dhabi where as it happens rape victims are charged with immoral acts0 -
You quite possibly edited for a typo? You can't say why you edited your own post, or you don't want to, in case someone produces a screen cap of the original post? I think we both know you added the question when you edited the post.Oooh, nasty. And dishonest, seeing as I posted that at 10:43, edited it at 10:47 (quite possibly for a typo) and you replied to it at 11:17. So it wasn't because of my edits that you didn't see the bit you don't have a reply for.
As for dishonest, this may be hard to believe, but I'm well able to read your post at 10:44 and have better things to do than reply to it until 11:17. I think you're overestimating your significance a tiny bit there....
So is that the sum of your understanding of the way in which women have to prove that their behaviour didn't contribute to the death of their child if their child was found dead in unexplained circumstances? Is that all we need to address, or are you thinking of introducing any other ways later?What do you think the Coroner's Court does? Unexplained deaths are usually investigated, and anyone in charge of someone who does unexpectedly while in their charge is likely to find themselves questioned extensively about what exactly happened.
Maybe you ought to explain what cognitive dissonance is as well then, just so we can be sure you understand what you're talking about in that regard too. Personally, I experience no discomfort at my understanding of what pregnancy is, or what a foetus is, or that either contradicts the other, or even that new information is likely to conflict with them. I think you like throwing words that you think make you look like you know what you're saying though, even when they demonstrate that you don't.You must know that. So I presume it's just another example of your cognitive dissonance about the issue of pregnancy and what a fetus is.
Dear me, that sounds awfully familiar!One thing it's not is a person. otherwise it would be treated as one all the time, not just when it doesn't cause too much trouble to the rest of society. Risking the mother's death is fine apparently, but God forbid we should have to pay child benefit to her!
Do you really want to recap the personhood as specified in the Constitution argument?
Article 40 (headed Personal Rights) defines Personal Rights..
In Article 40.3.3 3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn.
The right to life is enumerated as a Personal Right; the State acknowledges that the unborn, by having a personal right, is a person. Limited in many respects, but nevertheless a person. You may not want it to be a person, and it's not a child (though it's an unborn child) so the State doesn't pay Child Benefit for it, but really, you lost that argument a long time ago....0 -
The statement .....
Absalom , can we short circuit this can we just agree that Irish people are becoming more modern and secular in their thinking and if they were asked to vote in the morning that abortion for rape victims or parents carrying dead babies to be allowed that they would most probably vote yes. Why would they vote yes? because their thinking would be independent of any feeling that they would make an imaginary deity angry and instead would look at the reality of the situationA belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Are you asking can you avoid justifying any of your arguments and just have everyone agree with you? Personally, I have to say no, but someone else might go along with it, you never know.silverharp wrote: »Absalom , can we short circuit this can we just agree that Irish people are becoming more modern and secular in their thinking and if they were asked to vote in the morning that abortion for rape victims or parents carrying dead babies to be allowed that they would most probably vote yes. Why would they vote yes? because their thinking would be independent of any feeling that they would make an imaginary deity angry and instead would look at the reality of the situation
However, I will agree that Irish people are as modern and secular in their thinking as they have ever been, and would vote on any moral issue in accordance with their own moral compass just as they always have.
As for your speculation on what guides peoples morals, I'll leave that as your own speculation, since I suspect you can muster as little evidence for it as anything else you've posted.0 -
Are you asking can you avoid justifying any of your arguments and just have everyone agree with you? Personally, I have to say no, but someone else might go along with it, you never know.
However, I will agree that Irish people are as modern and secular in their thinking as they have ever been, and would vote on any moral issue in accordance with their own moral compass just as they always have.
As for your speculation on what guides peoples morals, I'll leave that as your own speculation, since I suspect you can muster as little evidence for it as anything else you've posted.
I justify based on what is observable. A country run on Sharia law will be backward and an uncivilised place to be, a model secular country like New Zealand or Denmark will be on the other side of the scale everywhere else is inching up or down the scale. If people have their moral compass sat beside a "religious magnet" the decisions will tend to be cruel for certain individuals or groups of people.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Advertisement
-
But you haven't justified a single thing you've said. There are countries subject to Sharia law which are not considered backward or uncivilized, and there are people who consider them to be better than countries like New Zealand and Denmark. There's no evidence that every person who bases their morals on their religion makes cruel decisions; in fact history is replete with examples to the contrary,as well as examples of non religious people who make cruel decisions despite the absence of a "religious magnet".silverharp wrote: »I justify based on what is observable. A country run on Sharia law will be backward and an uncivilised place to be, a model secular country like New Zealand or Denmark will be on the other side of the scale everywhere else is inching up or down the scale. If people have their moral compass sat beside a "religious magnet" the decisions will tend to be cruel for certain individuals or groups of people.
All you're doing is airing your own biases and trying to pretend they're facts. But they're just opinions, and fairly poorly founded ones at that.
The simple fact is both religious and non religious people are capable of both cruelty and kindness, and acting in both a civilised and barbarous fashion.
Statements like "but you statistically only have that view because you hold on to because you assume that some iron age fairy tails are true. The most civilised parts of the planet have moved on and Ireland will too the next time its asked hopefully. " add nothing to a discussion on what our values are; they simply show how willing some people are to dismiss other peoples values out of hand.0 -
But you haven't justified a single thing you've said. There are countries subject to Sharia law which are not considered backward or uncivilized, and there are people who consider them to be better than countries like New Zealand and Denmark. There's no evidence that every person who bases their morals on their religion makes cruel decisions; in fact history is replete with examples to the contrary,as well as examples of non religious people who make cruel decisions despite the absence of a "religious magnet".
All you're doing is airing your own biases and trying to pretend they're facts. But they're just opinions, and fairly poorly founded ones at that.
The simple fact is both religious and non religious people are capable of both cruelty and kindness, and acting in both a civilised and barbarous fashion.
Statements like "but you statistically only have that view because you hold on to because you assume that some iron age fairy tails are true. The most civilised parts of the planet have moved on and Ireland will too the next time its asked hopefully. " add nothing to a discussion on what our values are; they simply show how willing some people are to dismiss other peoples values out of hand.
give me an example of a country with Shria law that you are talking about? and we can kick it about , I brought up Malaysia before on one on one of the threads here which is by far not the worst and is a democracy and it is backward to the extend that it restricts the rights of minoritiesA belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Well the UN include Sri Lanka, Jordan, Indonesia, the Maldives, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Morocco in their top 100 countries on their (adjusted for inequality) Human Development Index. That adjustment downgrades countries for inequality, by the way. That would indicate they're civilised and not backwards from the UNs point of view, and they all incorporate Sharia Law to one degree or another.silverharp wrote: »give me an example of a country with Shria law that you are talking about? and we can kick it about , I brought up Malaysia before on one on one of the threads here which is by far not the worst and is a democracy and it is backward to the extend that it restricts the rights of minorities
However, I have a feeling you'll want us to go by your definition of civilised and backwards, and I suspect that anywhere that acknowledges Sharia Law will fall foul of those definitions by doing so. Regardless, it won't justify anything you've said, it just shows you're not a fan of Islam. Realistically no-one needs to care about that apart from you.0 -
Well the UN include Sri Lanka, Jordan, Indonesia, the Maldives, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Morocco in their top 100 countries on their (adjusted for inequality) Human Development Index. That adjustment downgrades countries for inequality, by the way. That would indicate they're civilised and not backwards from the UNs point of view, and they all incorporate Sharia Law to one degree or another.
However, I have a feeling you'll want us to go by your definition of civilised and backwards, and I suspect that anywhere that acknowledges Sharia Law will fall foul of those definitions by doing so. Regardless, it won't justify anything you've said, it just shows you're not a fan of Islam. Realistically no-one needs to care about that apart from you.
Sri Lanka? Are you sure? http://www.pangeatoday.com/official-sharia-law-in-sri-lanka-under-no-circumstances/
As for the others, the way they incorporate Sharia Law is often "just" in Family Law. That seems not to bother the UN in the way Sharia Criminal law would, but it means that women have significantly fewer rights in matters of divorce and inheritance than men. Given that many of those countries also have sanctions for apostasy, women have no choice in whether or not Sharia law shoudl apply to them.
Do you think it is possible to make a case that such a situation could possibly be considered fair and equal?0 -
Well the UN include Sri Lanka, Jordan, Indonesia, the Maldives, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Morocco in their top 100 countries on their (adjusted for inequality) Human Development Index. That adjustment downgrades countries for inequality, by the way. That would indicate they're civilised and not backwards from the UNs point of view, and they all incorporate Sharia Law to one degree or another.
However, I have a feeling you'll want us to go by your definition of civilised and backwards, and I suspect that anywhere that acknowledges Sharia Law will fall foul of those definitions by doing so. Regardless, it won't justify anything you've said, it just shows you're not a fan of Islam. Realistically no-one needs to care about that apart from you.
Well lets look at Iran then , how does Iran treat minorities? How are these state laws civilised? Leaving aside economic issues, why would I risk moving to Iran to raise my kids in preference to Australia or Denmark?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29832690Iran is one of a handful of countries where homosexual acts are punishable by death. Clerics do, however accept the idea that a person may be trapped in a body of the wrong sex. So homosexuals can be pushed into having gender reassignment surgery - and to avoid it many flee the country.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Advertisement
-
Yep, No. 53 on the list, and Sharia law is one of the personal law systems permitted in Sri Lankan Marriage LawsSri Lanka? Are you sure? http://www.pangeatoday.com/official-sharia-law-in-sri-lanka-under-no-circumstances/
I don't think I'd equate fair and equal with backwards and civilised. A civilisation (to borrow a definition) is a human society that has highly developed material and spiritual resources and a complex cultural, political, and legal organization. That qualifies all of the above as civilised (at very least compared to previous societies), without ever requiring them to be fair or equal.As for the others, <...>Do you think it is possible to make a case that such a situation could possibly be considered fair and equal?
Not that any of the above has any bearing whatsoever on Silverharps view on why I value a persons life more than a persons health, but I guess that's the rabbithole they led us down....0 -
Is Iran a human society? Yep.silverharp wrote: »Well lets look at Iran then , how does Iran treat minorities? How are these state laws civilised? Leaving aside economic issues, why would I risk moving to Iran to raise my kids in preference to Australia or Denmark?
Does it have highly developed material resources? Yep.
Does it have highly developed spiritual resources? You betcha.
Does it have a complex cultural, political, and legal organization? Apparently.
Sounds like it's civilised to me so....
Do you like it? Apparently not...
But does it matter to them? Probably not...0 -
Yep, No. 53 on the list, and Sharia law is one of the personal law systems permitted in Sri Lankan Marriage Laws
I don't think I'd equate fair and equal with backwards and civilised. A civilisation (to borrow a definition) is a human society that has highly developed material and spiritual resources and a complex cultural, political, and legal organization. That qualifies all of the above as civilised (at very least compared to previous societies), without ever requiring them to be fair or equal.
Not that any of the above has any bearing whatsoever on Silverharps view on why I value a persons life more than a persons health, but I guess that's the rabbithole they led us down....
Backwards and civilized? Shome mishtake there shurely?
Just to be clear, I certainly do equate fairness and equality (or at least genuine attempts to achieve those aims) with a civilized society, and institutionalized unfairness with an uncivilized society.
You seem to use the word as a mere synonym for organized/complex society, whereas I think there are enough synonyms for those, and in this context, using the word civilized to mean something rather more specific gives us a useful and necessary qualifier.
Although your link describes a few women discriminated against by oddities of tribal and religious laws, which don't prove your case that Sharia is compatible with fairness, because 1) there are so few people concerned that the overall statistics in thecountry are unaffected by them, and also because they aren't mainly Sharia anyway.
Back to the countries which practice Sharia Law, that was my point - international bodies seem to content themselves with the fact that Criminal Law is not based on Sharia, which IMO is grossly insufficient. Women whose marriages are regulated by Sharia family law are living under all the inherent unfairness that Islam decrees wrt women. That's not a modern civilization, and it's evidence of a surmising degree of misogyny remaining in the international bodies who measure these things that they consider as acceptable for women conditions that would lead to calls for boycotts or even military intervention if they were being applied to men.
But yes, that is a little far from the topic of abortion, so we should probably leave it there.0 -
Nope, they were the terms Silverharp chose to discuss.Backwards and civilized? Shome mishtake there shurely?
I chose not to offer my own synonyms and debate whether or not they were synonymous, but rather lifted a definition from a dictionary. You may think these things are, or should be, synonymous with a civilised society, and that's fair enough, it just doesn't disbar them from being a civilised society if you think they don't accord with your ideals.You seem to use the word as a mere synonym for organized/complex society, whereas I think there are enough synonyms for those, and in this context, using the word civilized to mean something rather more specific gives us a useful and necessary qualifier.
The fact that international bodies don't take your view on the application of Sharia Law doesn't necessarily mean they are inherently misogynistic; I really think you'd need to discuss their reasoning with them before you level the accusation to be honest. I have a sneaking suspicion it may not have anything to do with an institutional view of women at all, never mind a dislike or hatred of them.Back to the countries which practice Sharia Law, that was my point - international bodies seem to content themselves with the fact that Criminal Law is not based on Sharia, which IMO is grossly insufficient. Women whose marriages are regulated by Sharia family law are living under all the inherent unfairness that Islam decrees wrt women. That's not a modern civilization, and it's evidence of a surmising degree of misogyny remaining in the international bodies who measure these things that they consider as acceptable for women conditions that would lead to calls for boycotts or even military intervention if they were being applied to men.0 -
Nope, they were the terms Silverharp chose to discuss.
I chose not to offer my own synonyms and debate whether or not they were synonymous, but rather lifted a definition from a dictionary. You may think these things are, or should be, synonymous with a civilised society, and that's fair enough, it just doesn't disbar them from being a civilised society if you think they don't accord with your ideals.
Context is all, Absolam. The Inca were a great civilization, with the highly developed organizational and engineering skills needed to rule an empire, but is it justifiable to say that a civilized society doesn't practice human sacrifice? I think it is. So what were the Inca? Civilized? Yes, if your definition means as opposed to non complex hunter-gather societies. No, if you mean a place with values we would recognize today as civilized. So not just my ideals.
But I know you think it rather "1950s" to even acknowledge that poor countries tend to have poorer health services than developed countries, so perhaps you are a fervent of extreme moral relativism. I'm not.The fact that international bodies don't take your view on the application of Sharia Law doesn't necessarily mean they are inherently misogynistic; I really think you'd need to discuss their reasoning with them before you level the accusation to be honest. I have a sneaking suspicion it may not have anything to do with an institutional view of women at all, never mind a dislike or hatred of them.
No you're right, there are of course other possible interpretations. Fear of attacks by Muslim extremists being one, and an excessive respect for things done in the name of religion is another. So I shouldn't really interpret their actions, and will just stick to identifying them.
After all, my point still stands : IMO there's no meaning of the word "fair" which can be stretched to include an institutionalized system of lower rights for women. Therefore any country which has Sharia Marraige law is inherently discriminatory against women, and is therefore, in this context, uncivilized.0 -
Lucky I didn't offer the Incans as examples of societies with Sharia law that were civilised and not backwards, eh? I would have been so wrong... But I didn't so all's well that ends well as someone said recently. As for what we would recognise today as civilised... I'll probably lean towards the we of large international cooperative organisations rather than the we of individuals looking to promote their agenda.... I think they might be less biased.Context is all, Absolam. The Inca were a great civilization, with the highly developed organizational and engineering skills needed to rule an empire, but is it justifiable to say that a civilized society doesn't practice human sacrifice? I think it is. So what were the Inca? Civilized? Yes, if your definition means as opposed to non complex hunter-gather societies. No, if you mean a place with values we would recognize today as civilized. So not just my ideals.
Since you and I both know I never said that, should we just rack it up to the climbing count of deliberate misrepresentations you've tried to use to justify your position?But I know you think it rather "1950s" to even acknowledge that poor countries tend to have poorer health services than developed countries, so perhaps you are a fervent of extreme moral relativism. I'm not.
Not being concerned with the Volchitsa agenda would be another; if you're looking for more? Or the fact that the remit of the HDI is to measure the composite statistics of life expectancy, education, and income indices and adjust them by inequality in the distribution of health, education and income. So it simply is not supposed to measure how marraiges are regulated. Context being everything, as you say, it's difficult to call not measuring how marriages are regulated misogyny, when they're just not supposed to measure it.No you're right, there are of course other possible interpretations. Fear of attacks by Muslim extremists being one, and an excessive respect for things done in the name of religion is another. So I shouldn't really interpret their actions, and will just stick to identifying them.
And nevertheless, regardless of what you think is fair, or what you decide is uncivilised as a result, the world still recognises these countries as being civilised.After all, my point still stands : IMO there's no meaning of the word "fair" which can be stretched to include an institutionalized system of lower rights for women. Therefore any country which has Sharia Marraige law is inherently discriminatory against women, and is therefore, in this context, uncivilized.0 -
Ok I got that bit wrong - in my defence I admit I find many of your posts extremely difficult to follow - and that is what I'd remembered that post as saying. When I went back to look, I see that you didn't.Lucky I didn't offer the Incans as examples of societies with Sharia law that were civilised and not backwards, eh? I would have been so wrong... But I didn't so all's well that ends well as someone said recently. As for what we would recognise today as civilised... I'll probably lean towards the we of large international cooperative organisations rather than the we of individuals looking to promote their agenda.... I think they might be less biased.
Since you and I both know I never said that, should we just rack it up to the climbing count of deliberate misrepresentations you've tried to use to justify your position?
Not being concerned with the Volchitsa agenda would be another; if you're looking for more? Or the fact that the remit of the HDI is to measure the composite statistics of life expectancy, education, and income indices and adjust them by inequality in the distribution of health, education and income. So it simply is not supposed to measure how marraiges are regulated. Context being everything, as you say, it's difficult to call not measuring how marriages are regulated misogyny, when they're just not supposed to measure it.
And nevertheless, regardless of what you think is fair, or what you decide is uncivilised as a result, the world still recognises these countries as being civilised.
(I 'm not quite sure what you were saying though : was it an objection to the term "third-world countries"? I'm not aware that it's more objectionable than any other term. And it makes the rest of that post even more unclear to me, tbf.)
But anyway, I was wrong there, apologies.
And I never deliberately misrepresent anything anyone says.0 -
These are reasonable points, but a too simplistic IMO, because they attempt to portray abortion as the "cure" for Savita's condition. If that was the case, then pregnancy must have been the disease.
You do realize there is no logic to this at all? Women have traditionally died in childbirth, so does that mean childbirth is a disease? Or even that all such deaths nowadays are due to negligence? Yet you go on to base the rest of your post on what is basically just a variant on the "appalling vista" scenario.
Normal pregnancy is not an illness, and nor is childbirth. But women can die of the particular complications which arise from them, and playing medico-semantic games of how close to actual death does "at risk of death" signify in practise is a good way to ensure that from time to time some women will die.
That approach is crazy : it turns any miscarriage, and to some extent pregnancy and childbirth in general, into a potentially lethal situation for no medical reason.
The woman was miscarrying, no-one was trying to save her fetus because they knew there was no point - so what was the point in doing anything other than ending the pregnancy when she requested it? It's the normal procedure internationally. The reason it isn't in Ireland and that women are left to develop chorioamniotitis before the pregnancy can be terminated (and Peter Boylan acknowledged this is the same in other maternities on, iirc, Primetime) is because of the equal value given by the constitution to the fetus as to the woman, even when the fetus is dying.
The rest of your post contains the usual rewriting of facts so as to avoid admitting the simple fact that she needed a termination, and has been gone over many times before - but just as an example of what's wrong with it :
- you say there was a failure to monitor her closely enough : how does that square with the repeated monitoring of the fetal heartbeat? There was plenty of monitoring going on, but it was of the fetus. And yet no-one was hoping for the fetus to be okay. They were waiting for it to die, so they could intervene.
- if GUH are as reckless as you describe, would you not say that a woman would be ill-advised now to give birth there, since the problems are (in your version) so widespread as to be insoluble - especially as no-one was found guilty of incompetence by the investigations, so what has changed since?0 -
It doesn't mean childbirth is a disease; but that does not mean that abortion was a 'cure' for Ms Halappanavars condition either; the cure was antibiotics.You do realize there is no logic to this at all? Women have traditionally died in childbirth, so does that mean childbirth is a disease? Or even that all such deaths nowadays are due to negligence? Yet you go on to base the rest of your post on what is basically just a variant on the "appalling vista" scenario.
You mean medico-semantic games like asking people what their 'solution' is for pregnant women? I've noticed people doing that in fairness..... But to the point, neither pregnancy nor childbirth require a cure. Abortion doesn't cure any of the above; it's not a panacea.Normal pregnancy is not an illness, and nor is childbirth. But women can die of the particular complications which arise from them, and playing medico-semantic games of how close to actual death does "at risk of death" signify in practise is a good way to ensure that from time to time some women will die.
But pregnancy and childbirth are already potentially lethal; again abortion doesn't 'cure' their potential lethality. It may in some circumstances be one of a number of steps that may be taken to preserve life, but in Ireland that is all it may be.That approach is crazy : it turns any miscarriage, and to some extent pregnancy and childbirth in general, into a potentially lethal situation for no medical reason.
Because, as has been pointed out, there is a difference between allowing someone to die (or being unable to save them), and causing them to die; causing Ms Halappanavars foetus to die falls on the wrong side of that line.The woman was miscarrying, no-one was trying to save her fetus because they knew there was no point - so what was the point in doing anything other than ending the pregnancy when she requested it?
Really? That sounds familiar.... almost like something from a couple of days ago. You must have forgotten already that it's an option only in some countries; do we have to go back already to the fact that it's illegal in 33% of countries?It's the normal procedure internationally.
Yes, Ireland only permits unborn people to be killed when they pose a risk to the life of their mother. I think we know........ but the 'left to develop' is a little bit overegging things; I suspect no one intentionally leaves women to develop chorioamnionitis. Still, if it's due to the equal value given by the constitution to the fetus as to the woman, even when the fetus is dying, as you say, you should be able to show a statistically higher rate in the Republic than say the States, where it complicates as many as 40–70% of preterm births with premature membrane rupture or spontaneous labor? Where they don't give equal value to the foetus...The reason it isn't in Ireland and that women are left to develop chorioamniotitis before the pregnancy can be terminated (and Peter Boylan acknowledged this is the same in other maternities on, iirc, Primetime) is because of the equal value given by the constitution to the fetus as to the woman, even when the fetus is dying.
Saying she needed a termination is itself rather rewriting the facts don't you think? The investigations found she needed antibiotics; you yourself know that a termination might have formed part of a course of treatment that might have saved her life, but the only thing that definitely would have formed part of a treatment that could have saved her life was... antibiotics. Antibiotics whether or not she had a termination. That was what would have made a difference. Regardless of how you try to rewrite it.The rest of your post contains the usual rewriting of facts so as to avoid admitting the simple fact that she needed a termination, and has been gone over many times before - but just as an example of what's wrong with it :
How well does monitoring the foetal heartbeat illuminate the progress of sepsis? I think you're really wriggling there; you know the reports recommended better monitoring, but oddly didn't recommend the availability of termination. Almost as if they didn't think having a termination would have cured her.- you say there was a failure to monitor her closely enough : how does that square with the repeated monitoring of the fetal heartbeat? There was plenty of monitoring going on, but it was of the fetus. And yet no-one was hoping for the fetus to be okay. They were waiting for it to die, so they could intervene.0 -
It doesn't mean childbirth is a disease; but that does not mean that abortion was a 'cure' for Ms Halappanavars condition either; the cure was antibiotics.
You mean medico-semantic games like asking people what their 'solution' is for pregnant women? I've noticed people doing that in fairness..... But to the point, neither pregnancy nor childbirth require a cure. Abortion doesn't cure any of the above; it's not a panacea.
But pregnancy and childbirth are already potentially lethal; again abortion doesn't 'cure' their potential lethality. It may in some circumstances be one of a number of steps that may be taken to preserve life, but in Ireland that is all it may be.
Because, as has been pointed out, there is a difference between allowing someone to die (or being unable to save them), and causing them to die; causing Ms Halappanavars foetus to die falls on the wrong side of that line.
Really? That sounds familiar.... almost like something from a couple of days ago. You must have forgotten already that it's an option only in some countries; do we have to go back already to the fact that it's illegal in 33% of countries?
Yes, Ireland only permits unborn people to be killed when they pose a risk to the life of their mother. I think we know........ but the 'left to develop' is a little bit overegging things; I suspect no one intentionally leaves women to develop chorioamnionitis. Still, if it's due to the equal value given by the constitution to the fetus as to the woman, even when the fetus is dying, as you say, you should be able to show a statistically higher rate in the Republic than say the States, where it complicates as many as 40–70% of preterm births with premature membrane rupture or spontaneous labor? Where they don't give equal value to the foetus...
Saying she needed a termination is itself rather rewriting the facts don't you think? The investigations found she needed antibiotics; you yourself know that a termination might have formed part of a course of treatment that might have saved her life, but the only thing that definitely would have formed part of a treatment that could have saved her life was... antibiotics. Antibiotics whether or not she had a termination. That was what would have made a difference. Regardless of how you try to rewrite it.
How well does monitoring the foetal heartbeat illuminate the progress of sepsis? I think you're really wriggling there; you know the reports recommended better monitoring, but oddly didn't recommend the availability of termination. Almost as if they didn't think having a termination would have cured her.
Along with providing anti-biotics, would you have left the feotus in Savita's womb or removed it, knowing that there was sepsis in Savita?0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not a clinician, so I'm not in a position to say what I would or would not have done.aloyisious wrote: »Along with providing anti-biotics, would you have left the feotus in Savita's womb or removed it, knowing that there was sepsis in Savita?
However, it was already established in jurisprudence at that time that the right to life of the mother held precedence over the right to life of the unborn. Had doctors believed that terminating the life of the foetus would save the life of the mother they had both an obligation and a mandate to do so.
The fact that they didn't, and further, were not censured in the investigations for not doing so, suggests strongly to me that
a) doctors did not initially believe the sepsis was life threatening
and/or
b) did not believe that terminating the life of the foetus would alleviate that threat.
By the time Dr Astbury felt that there was a threat to Ms Halappanavar's life, and that terminating the life of the foetus would alleviate the threat (and, significantly, was prepared to do so despite believing the foetus was still alive so was obviously aware of her mandate), the foetus was already dead.
If it helps you feel more like I'm not deliberately avoiding the question though; were I an experienced obgyn in full possession of the necessary facts I believe I would have terminated the life of Ms Halappanavar's foetus as soon as I was certain it posed an immediate threat to her life and that termination was the only way to remove that threat.0 -
It doesn't mean childbirth is a disease; but that does not mean that abortion was a 'cure' for Ms Halappanavars condition either; the cure was antibiotics.
Saying she needed a termination is itself rather rewriting the facts don't you think? The investigations found she needed antibiotics; you yourself know that a termination might have formed part of a course of treatment that might have saved her life, but the only thing that definitely would have formed part of a treatment that could have saved her life was... antibiotics. Antibiotics whether or not she had a termination. That was what would have made a difference. Regardless of how you try to rewrite it.
How well does monitoring the foetal heartbeat illuminate the progress of sepsis? I think you're really wriggling there; you know the reports recommended better monitoring, but oddly didn't recommend the availability of termination. Almost as if they didn't think having a termination would have cured her.
So do you really imagine this better monitoring would have indicated that nothing more needed to be done than to give more antibiotics? :mad:
Ending the pregnancy at 17 weeks is "performing an abortion", ie an abortion is what she needed. Followed by (Not "instead of") energetic treatment with a wide spectrum antibiotic, and not one that is regularly given to pregnant women and babies, such as the one she got. Again, she needed treatment that was incompatible with an ongoing pregnancy, and the only plausible explanation as to why she was treated as a pregnant woman was the people treating her feared falling foul of Ireland's 8th amendment.
It's not that the doctors didn't do anything - they did : they checked and rechecked the condition of the fetus, multiple times, while ignoring the clinically deteriorating woman in front of them. The fact that Dr Astbury or anyone else haven't been struck off for that can only indicate that this is considered a valid course of action for an obstetrician in Ireland.
But the internationally-approved treatment for chorioamnionitis is not just a better course of antibiotics : it is termination of pregnancy as soon as possible and antibiotics :
From a U.S. Obstetrician's blog on the subject:In Canada and the United States, once chorioamnionitis is diagnosed the treatment is antibiotics and delivery. An “expeditious delivery…regardless of gestational age,” according to the guidelines of the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). If the fetus is not viable there is no waiting for the fetal lungs to mature or waiting for the fetus to succumb. The recommendation is delivery. This is because chorioamnionitis kills women and if a fetus is on the cusp of viability it has a far greater chance of survival without an infection than with one. The infection
https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/savita-halappanavars-inquest-the-three-questions-that-must-be-answered/
BTW - name some of these 33% of countries please: how many have proper health services and are any of them Western European or other developed economies? I already asked you this, and you have so far declined to reply. Your link is completely illegible on my screen and I can't see anything like 33% in any of the figures I've seen.0 -
Actually while getting that link I came across an earlier one by Dr Gunter, reacting to the Irish Bishops' statement after Savita Halappanavar's death. Their statement reminds me furiously of several posters here, so I thought it worth reminding everyone that doctors, not lawyers or bishops, should be the only "experts" whose opinion on when a termination is indicated should be sought. Not lawyers, still less bishops.I've spent quite sometime trying to understand how one could possibly translate this statement (by the bishops) into medical care. I’ve been a doctor for 22 years and an OB/GYN for 17 years and I admit that I am at a bit of a loss. ...
The statement is an attempt to distinguish induction of labour from a D & E (you’ll have to bear with me on this one as neither “induction of labor” nor “D &E” are specifically mentioned). “Abortion” could be Irish Catholic Bishop code for D & E (a surgical procedure) and “medical treatments” code for induction of labor.* After all, with an induction of labor (medication placed in the vagina or given intravenously to bring on contractions and empty the uterus) the fetus technically dies as a result of the mother getting medication and not by something that “directly” touches the fetus. Sort of in the way that if you tell a lie and your fingers are crossed you’re not really lying. Under this if-you-just-knew-the-secret-code-because-we-don’t-know-or understand-appropriate-medical-terminology interpretation, Dr. Halappanavar could clearly have had an induction of labor at 17 weeks and thus the blame for her death sits squarely on the shoulders of her medical team. However, under this interpretation should a uterus fail to contact with medication (as infected uteri are wont to do) a woman with previable ruptured membranes couldn’t have a D & E on an alive infected fetus with 0% chance of survival, but she could have a far more invasive hysterectomy, because that is “intentionally” destroying the uterus not the fetus.
The statement from the Irish Catholic Bishops is medically nonsensical, contradictory, and immoral and asit represents a group of men who have never practiced medicine opining on an aspect of medical care that they clearly can’t understand.
https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/irish-catholic-bishops-reveal-ignorance-in-statement-on-death-of-savita-halappanavar/
* My bolding : this business of referring obliquely to something so as to be able to pretend one meant something entirely contradictory if necessary is typically Irish or maybe just catholic - it's why Absolam relies so heavily in the fact that the investigation into SH's death don't actually say what treatment she needed - just that better observation should have led to that mysterious "appropriate treatment", whatever it was, being given. That's because the treatment was a termination of her pregnancy, and without that, no antibiotic was ever going to be enough on its own.0 -
Because, as has been pointed out, there is a difference between allowing someone to die (or being unable to save them), and causing them to die; causing Ms Halappanavars foetus to die falls on the wrong side of that line.
Yes, Ireland only permits unborn people to be killed when they pose a risk to the life of their mother.If it helps you feel more like I'm not deliberately avoiding the question though; were I an experienced obgyn in full possession of the necessary facts I believe I would have terminated the life of Ms Halappanavar's foetus as soon as I was certain it posed an immediate threat to her life and that termination was the only way to remove that threat.
Isn't there a contradiction in logic here? You say the fetus is a person, and compare an abortion with causing "someone" to die - but surely it is never acceptable to kill one person in order to save someone else's life?
Note I'm not asking you to clarify the law for me, we're aware of the law - I'm asking you what you think is the right thing to do and why. If the fetus is a person, then the woman's right to life at the expense of her fetus should logically be no greater than someone who needs a liver transplant being allowed to take my liver. Yet we can't even legally force someone to donate their blood or their bone marrow to save someone's life.
So in fact the fetus has much greater rights than existing people in Irish law - but only over the woman carrying it, not over its father or the rest of society. The logical conclusion of that is that in reality it is the pregnant woman who has fewer rights than anyone else in society - including fetuses which have no legal existence whatsoever.0 -
AFAIK Savita died of blood poisoning, septicaemia. Which is more serious than chorioamniotitis. If Peter Boylan is saying that abortions are/were regularly carried out after a diagnosis of chorioamniotitis, then a legal abortion could have been carried out before septicaemia set in. Which presumably is the reason the obstetrician was so keen to point out that the frontline monitoring staff failed to make her aware of the seriousness of the situation. If she had been aware of it, but had failed to go ahead with the abortion, she would be at risk of a medical malpractice charge.The woman was miscarrying, no-one was trying to save her fetus because they knew there was no point - so what was the point in doing anything other than ending the pregnancy when she requested it? It's the normal procedure internationally. The reason it isn't in Ireland and that women are left to develop chorioamniotitis before the pregnancy can be terminated (and Peter Boylan acknowledged this is the same in other maternities on, iirc, Primetime) is because of the equal value given by the constitution to the fetus as to the woman, even when the fetus is dying.
You are probably right about that. I'm just saying it didn't have to be that way. Once a risk to the mothers life was identified, an abortion was legal.- you say there was a failure to monitor her closely enough : how does that square with the repeated monitoring of the fetal heartbeat? There was plenty of monitoring going on, but it was of the fetus. And yet no-one was hoping for the fetus to be okay. They were waiting for it to die, so they could intervene.
If the foetus was already doomed, IMO abortion should be available immediately, regardless of any risk to the life of the mother. But that was not, and is not the position in Irish law.
AFAIK some staff were "disciplined". The nurse who gave the opinion "this is a catholic country" as the reason for not proceeding with the abortion was publicly ridiculed. I presume the hospital policy has been clarified or altered since. Certainly there is new legislation now, which clarifies these matters more.- if GUH are as reckless as you describe, would you not say that a woman would be ill-advised now to give birth there, since the problems are (in your version) so widespread as to be insoluble - especially as no-one was found guilty of incompetence by the investigations, so what has changed since?
1.The foetus can quite legally be killed to save the mother, unlike you or I, therefore it has less rights than existing (born) people.So in fact the fetus has much greater rights than existing people in Irish law - but only over the woman carrying it, not over its father or the rest of society. The logical conclusion of that is that in reality it is the pregnant woman who has fewer rights than anyone else in society - including fetuses which have no legal existence whatsoever.
2. The foetus has a legal existence from implantation.
Both of these points are covered in the legislation.0 -
What he actually said was that because of Irish law it is impossible to do as would be done in any other developed country, ie terminate before there was a risk to the woman's life, and that yes, in Ireland, chorioamnionitis must be allowed to develop before a termination becomes legal.AFAIK Savita died of blood poisoning, septicaemia. Which is more serious than chorioamniotitis. If Peter Boylan is saying that abortions are/were regularly carried out after a diagnosis of chorioamniotitis, then a legal abortion could have been carried out before septicaemia set in. Which presumably is the reason the obstetrician was so keen to point out that the frontline monitoring staff failed to make her aware of the seriousness of the situation. If she had been aware of it, but had failed to go ahead with the abortion, she would be at risk of a medical malpractice charge.
In most cases, that doesn't kill the woman (though - and this is my own point, not his - there must certainly be some women who end up with permanent sequels such as infertility as a result of Ireland's laisser-faire attitude to such a dangerous infection) but his claim is that the strain of bacterium causing Savita Halappanavar's miscarriage was particularly toxic, so that it was probably too late once the chorioamnionitis became diagnosable, even had there been no extra delays there at all.
I think that is the reason the "discipline" practiced seems to have been limited to a scolding and some retraining, certainly nothing that could be considered a sanction for reckless actions leading to a woman's death.
Dr Boylan says it was too late by then, as I said.You are probably right about that. I'm just saying it didn't have to be that way. Once a risk to the mothers life was identified, an abortion was legal.1.The foetus can quite legally be killed to save the mother, unlike you or I, therefore it has less rights than existing (born) people.
2. The foetus has a legal existence from implantation.
Both of these points are covered in the legislation.
I may have been unclear there, for one thing. I wasn't asking what the law says, in fact I think I said I wasn't asking that. I was doing two things and may not have made the distinction clear :
First, I was pointing out a contradiction in Absolam's posts : if the fetus is a person then yes, you are right that since it would be unacceptable to kill someone in order to save another person, the fetus has fewer rights than a person. So when Absolam calls the fetus a person he is not being logical with his own stance when he says a termination should be allowed if the woman's life is a risk.
Secondly : if one considers a pregnancy from the woman's point of view, (bear with me, I know that isn't the norm here!) no person would ever be allowed to use another person's body against their will just because their own survival depended on it. But that is the situation for a woman whose health is being damaged by a fetus, and for whom an abortion would stop that harm.
So from that point of view, the fetus has far more rights than an existing person.
Hope that is clearer.0 -
I'm pretty sure it should have indicated she had sepsis before she had severe sepsis....So do you really imagine this better monitoring would have indicated that nothing more needed to be done than to give more antibiotics? :mad:
Again... antibiotics is what she needed. None of the reports indicated she needed to end the pregnancy or perform an abortion, whichever term you choose.Ending the pregnancy at 17 weeks is "performing an abortion", ie an abortion is what she needed.
You mean, she needed antibiotics intended for treating sepsis? I think everyone agreed that, just the bit about needing to precede them with an abortion is what is curiously absent from HIQAs recommendations. Almost as if they didn't think it was necessary.....Followed by (Not "instead of") energetic treatment with a wide spectrum antibiotic, and not one that is regularly given to pregnant women and babies, such as the one she got.
Is that in any of the reports, or are you just making assumptions that line up with your own agenda? Hmmm...Again, she needed treatment that was incompatible with an ongoing pregnancy, and the only plausible explanation as to why she was treated as a pregnant woman was the people treating her feared falling foul of Ireland's 8th amendment.
But no one said they didn't do anything?It's not that the doctors didn't do anything - they did : they checked and rechecked the condition of the fetus, multiple times, while ignoring the clinically deteriorating woman in front of them. The fact that Dr Astbury or anyone else haven't been struck off for that can only indicate that this is considered a valid course of action for an obstetrician in Ireland.
Surely the fact that the Doctors haven't been struck off is much more likely to indicate that your assessment is simply inconsistent with the facts as found by the investigations?
Ah, again with the misdirection.But the internationally-approved treatment for chorioamnionitis is not just a better course of antibiotics : it is termination of pregnancy as soon as possible and antibiotics :
Would it not be considerably more accurate to say that termination is an approved option as part of a wider course of action which requires antibiotics, in certain countries?
Actually, it would.
She's from Canada actually. And part of a very elite group of Doctors; those who are prepared to make a diagnosis without ever meeting a patient or reviewing their records. Though that may because, unlike the Doctors who actually dealt with Ms Halappanavar, she is not subject to any professional scrutiny of or responsibility for her diagnosis.From a U.S. Obstetrician's blog on the subject:
Actually, I named some here, about an hour after you asked... hardly a declination to reply! And we did afterwards discuss how you wanted to change your (already altered) assertion that any other developed country allows abortions to preserve health, to other developed countries generally allow abortions to preserve health. In the course of which I pointed out that I had already mentioned those countries....BTW - name some of these 33% of countries please: how many have proper health services and are any of them Western European or other developed economies? I already asked you this, and you have so far declined to reply.
In fairness, it's less that I'm declining to answer, and more that you're (repeatedly) declining to read the answer...
I do appreciate that you are desperately trying to row back from your assertion that Ireland is the only country that would not permit an abortion for health reasons by hedging your premise down to 'the only economically developed Western European country with a proper health service' but it's a bit late; you might as well just say 'the only country in which this specific event occurred' and be done with it.
I'm afraid I simply can't do anything about your screen; if you want to look at the link I suggest you use a different screen?Your link is completely illegible on my screen and I can't see anything like 33% in any of the figures I've seen.
Soo.... if the doctors in Ms Halappanavar's case didn't feel a termination was indicated, it would be worth reminding internet posters that they ought not to face censure for that? You seem to have done quite a lot of second guessing the doctors on this thread alone in fairness.......Actually while getting that link I came across an earlier one by Dr Gunter, reacting to the Irish Bishops' statement after Savita Halappanavar's death. Their statement reminds me furiously of several posters here, so I thought it worth reminding everyone that doctors, not lawyers or bishops, should be the only "experts" whose opinion on when a termination is indicated should be sought. Not lawyers, still less bishops.
So, you're second guessing the investigations as well as the doctors?this business of referring obliquely to something so as to be able to pretend one meant something entirely contradictory if necessary is typically Irish or maybe just catholic - it's why Absolam relies so heavily in the fact that the investigation into SH's death don't actually say what treatment she needed - just that better observation should have led to that mysterious "appropriate treatment", whatever it was, being given. That's because the treatment was a termination of her pregnancy, and without that, no antibiotic was ever going to be enough on its own.
I'm sure your medical knowledge is extensive, but I suspect if 'no antibiotic was ever going to be enough on its own' it would have been mentioned in the investigations. It wasn't though, was it? The reason I rely so heavily on what the investigations said is that they were conducted by people considerably more qualified that you or I, who we have no reason to believe had an agenda to push; they were tasked with discovering facts and recommending courses of action that would reduce the risk of similar incidents in the future.
I suspect you'd be far more in favour of their findings if they had recommended terminations... but they didn't.
Why not?Isn't there a contradiction in logic here? You say the fetus is a person, and compare an abortion with causing "someone" to die - but surely it is never acceptable to kill one person in order to save someone else's life?
It's an odd thing to preface with 'surely' then; is that what you think is the right thing to do? Why?Note I'm not asking you to clarify the law for me, we're aware of the law - I'm asking you what you think is the right thing to do and why.
It's an interesting notion. I think it comes apart when you consider that the person in need of a liver transplants' life isn't actually dependent on your liver; just a liver (and generally, not all of a liver). So, if you're asking if a persons life is entirely dependent on another person, specifically and exclusively, and by being so necessarily deprives that person of a portion of their health, should the dependee be entitled to kill the dependent, or allow the dependent to die by withdrawing the means by which their health is being damaged, then I think I would say in the first instance no, and in the second instance probably not, but I'd like to see more specificity before coming to a conclusion.If the fetus is a person, then the woman's right to life at the expense of her fetus should logically be no greater than someone who needs a liver transplant being allowed to take my liver. Yet we can't even legally force someone to donate their blood or their bone marrow to save someone's life.
What would you say in the same circumstances?
No, I don't think so. Your analogy above was flawed, so the argument doesn't follow; non one in society is entitled to kill someone who is dependent on them (or even isn't dependent on them), so in that regard the rest of society has the same protection as a foetus. However, a foetus can be killed with impunity if it threatens the life of someone else, whereas killing a born person who threatens the life of someone else will at least result in a charge of manslaughter, which shows the foetus has lesser consideration in law than a born person. Of course born people have (as discussed on the thread) the right to equality before the law, the right to personal liberty, the right to freedom of expression, and association, and assembly, and the right to privacy, the right to inherit, the right to vote, the right to a good name... those are just off the top of my head. A foetus doesn't have any of those, so no.... it really doesn't have much greater rights than existing people in Irish law, that's just silly.So in fact the fetus has much greater rights than existing people in Irish law - but only over the woman carrying it, not over its father or the rest of society. The logical conclusion of that is that in reality it is the pregnant woman who has fewer rights than anyone else in society - including fetuses which have no legal existence whatsoever.
The notion that a foetus has no legal existence whatsoever is obvious nonsense (especially after claiming it has more rights than existing people!); it is given specific recognition in the constitution and has a body of law and jurisprudence most of which is devoted to consideration of how it's existence is to be protected and when it's existence can be legally terminated. The legal existence of a foetus is far, far beyond dispute.0 -
No, actually, my original point was "civilized countries". Your reply, such as it was, was to something that was a repeat of a point I'd made before, and I'd left out a qualifier such as developed, civilized, one where women have the same rights as men, or whatever.
Be that as it may, you seem to think you have scored a point because countries such as the UAE, that bastion of democracy and women's rights, oil rich but an abusive regime nevertheless, has similar laws to Ireland.
Personally, I think that proves my point. If you'd named, oh, let's say Germany, Spain, Italy, or even the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ etc, you might have had a point - which would still not have been that it is acceptable to leave a woman in pain just because she is miscarrying and suffering from some non pregnancy related illness, just that it happens. Only of course it doesn't. Except in a few undeveloped or religion-infested places like Malta or some of the Islamic-influenced states, Ireland, and the of course all the places with no decent health service whatsoever.
So yeah, if you want to add "quasi-theocracies" to my description of the type of country with abortion laws similar to Ireland, then sure, I agree I probably should have said that. It just gets a bit long and unwieldy, for something that is a simple point really :
Only countries with which I would never wish Ireland to be considered comparable - for reasons apart from the abortion issue - have similar abortion laws.
None of the countries with systems which Ireland should be emulating on any level have such laws.
That isn't a coincidence. It's because counries that are decent places to live and which respect human rights cannot have such restrictive abortion laws, because they are a refusal of women's rights to health.
And just so we can all see the places you are crowing about, because you want Ireland to remain like them, here is a more legible link : it's almost 33% of countries, as you said, and 25% of the world's population (which is still shockingly high):
http://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/AbortionMap_Factsheet_2013.pdf (second page)
Afghanistan, Iran, Congo, South Sudan, Syria, Nigeria et al are the sot of country you're telling us we should be comparing ourselves to? Okaaay.
Oh and you're wrong for UAE - they do allow it, they just require spousal or parental authorization, because women themselves couldn't possibly be allowed make such decisions as adults.
I told you your wall chart thingy was illegible. You should always read your own links before assuming they support the point you're trying to make. Unless that point is that there are a surprising number of undeveloped or clergy-ridden countries still left in the world. That's true alright - but not a reason for Ireland to remain part of that group.0 -
Usual treatment for an infection is 1. Antibiotics and 2. Remove the source. She needed both. She didn't get 1 for reasons already discussed. She didn't get 2 because of Irish law.0
-
Advertisement
-
I'm afraid not:No, actually, my original point was "civilized countries".
Nothing about civilised in there... just only the Irish health care system.Do you dispute that only the Irish health care system forbids doctors from ending a pregnancy because the woman's health is at risk, even when she requests that?
Nope, my reply was:Your reply, such as it was, was to something that was a repeat of a point I'd made before, and I'd left out a qualifier such as developed, civilized, one where women have the same rights as men, or whatever.
But you knew both statements were untrue, didn't you? Because you have been referring to the link to the chart I posted in my reply above.I do. Would you like to refer to the United Nations statistics on the number of nations who forbid abortions being carried out in order to preserve a womans health (33%), or to preserve a womans mental health (37%)?
Not at all; I'm just trying to get you to stick to the facts instead of constantly deliberately misdirecting the discussion to try and push your agenda.Be that as it may, you seem to think you have scored a point because countries such as the UAE, that bastion of democracy and women's rights, oil rich but an abusive regime nevertheless, has similar laws to Ireland.
Personally, I think you just proved mine; facts are incidental to you soapboxing on behalf of your 'cause'.Personally, I think that proves my point. If you'd named, oh, let's say Germany, Spain, Italy, or even the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ etc, you might have had a point - which would still not have been that it is acceptable to leave a woman in pain just because she is miscarrying and suffering from some non pregnancy related illness, just that it happens. Only of course it doesn't. Except in a few undeveloped or religion-infested places like Malta or some of the Islamic-influenced states, Ireland, and the of course all the places with no decent health service whatsoever.
Which is your own aspirational statement, and entirely different to the statement you presented as fact; a hallmark of most of what you've said on the thread so far.So yeah, if you want to add "quasi-theocracies" to my description of the type of country with abortion laws similar to Ireland, then sure, I agree I probably should have said that. It just gets a bit long and unwieldy, for something that is a simple point really :Only countries with which I would never wish Ireland to be considered comparable - for reasons apart from the abortion issue - have similar abortion laws. None of the countries with systems which Ireland should be emulating on any level have such laws.
I never crowed about them, nor did I say i wanted Ireland to remain like them, nor did I say we should be comparing ourselves to them. Seriously, if you actually held a tenable position, don't you think you'd be able to rely on facts rather than constantly throwing out untruths just to look like you've got something to say?And just so we can all see the places you are crowing about, because you want Ireland to remain like them, here is a more legible link : it's almost 33% of countries, as you said, and 25% of the world's population (which is still shockingly high) Afghanistan, Iran, Congo, South Sudan, Syria, Nigeria[/B] et al are the sot of country you're telling us we should be comparing ourselves to? Okaaay.
I'll be sure to tell the UN to update their wallchart.Oh and you're wrong for UAE - they do allow it, they just require spousal or parental authorization, because women themselves couldn't possibly be allowed make such decisions as adults.
I think however they may question your because women themselves couldn't possibly be allowed make such decisions as adults. Is that a quite from the UAE? Or is it something you made up? I think you probably made it up.....
Do you think? I can read it quite well.I told you your wall chart thingy was illegible. You should always read your own links before assuming they support the point you're trying to make.
Well, to return to what you said, the point is that contrary to your assertion, the Irish health care system is not the only health care system to forbid doctors from ending a pregnancy because the woman's health is at risk, even when she requests that. That's all. Your statement was untrue.Unless that point is that there are a surprising number of undeveloped or clergy-ridden countries still left in the world. That's true alright but not a reason for Ireland to remain part of that group.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement