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

woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Options
1…6162646667…95

Comments

  • Options
    #1892
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    You'd also wonder how many Irish women and up having later stage abortions abroad because no option to have an early stage one in Ireland exists.

    The reality is we have a fairly unremarkable and normal level of abortions in Ireland we just outsource them to pretend we don't.

    A huge amount of women travelling from Ireland, not all of whom are Irish remember, have to have more expensive and risky later term surgical abortions. It is not easy to get money for travel and the procedure quickly and there's myriad reasons as to why a woman can't travel at an early stage like organising childcare or not knowing you're pregnant for a month or more.


  • Options
    #1893
    Philo Beddoe
    Registered Users Posts: 560 ✭✭✭Philo Beddoe


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    We also pretended marriages didn't breakdown until 1995... That was utterly mindbogglingly ridiculous!

    Sure it was illegal for two people to have sex together if they happened to be the same gender until 1993.


  • Options
    #1894
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Philo Beddoe wrote: »
    Sure it was illegal for two people to have sex together if they happened to be the same gender until 1993.

    I think it was only the male gays who weren't allowed the loving, Queen Victoria didn't believe in lesbianism.


  • Options
    #1895
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    lazygal wrote: »
    I think it was only the male gays who weren't allowed the loving, Queen Victoria didn't believe in lesbianism.

    Sure what would they do???


  • Options
    #1896
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    eeepaulo wrote: »
    How did that work out for Savita Halappanavar?

    I believe she was told 'sorry dear this is a catholic country'

    Read the reports, she was not given the proper necessary treatment.

    Does it take two days after going into hospital to get an infection investigated?


    The protection of life/abortion act would not have saved Savita, as she didn't get proper care for starters.

    What good is it have procedures if they are not followed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1897
    eyescreamcone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭eyescreamcone


    It's a funny country we live in:
    Regarding donors we need permission to harvest organs from the dead. However we can force feed women to act as baby making machines .

    It seems that the dead have more say on how their body is used than the living in this country.


  • Options
    #1898
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Read the reports, she was not given the proper necessary treatment.

    Does it take two days after going into hospital to get an infection investigated?


    The protection of life/abortion act would not have saved Savita, as she didn't get proper care for starters.

    What good is it have procedures if they are not followed?

    If abortion had been available Savita would be alive. Doctors dither- patients die.

    Ethos and a awful pastiche of regulations killed her.


  • Options
    #1899
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Philo Beddoe wrote: »
    Sure it was illegal for two people to have sex together if they happened to be the same gender until 1993.

    Yeah that was nuts too. We've come a LONG way on that particular issue though over the last 20 years.


  • Options
    #1900
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    efb wrote: »
    If abortion had been available Savita would be alive. Doctors dither- patients die.

    Ethos and a awful pastiche of regulations killed her.

    Regulations were not followed.


  • Options
    #1901
    Philo Beddoe
    Registered Users Posts: 560 ✭✭✭Philo Beddoe


    lazygal wrote: »
    I think it was only the male gays who weren't allowed the loving, Queen Victoria didn't believe in lesbianism.

    Well, I mean, the very notion!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1902
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    You'd also wonder how many Irish women and up having later stage abortions abroad because no option to have an early stage one in Ireland exists.

    The reality is we have a fairly unremarkable and normal level of abortions in Ireland we just outsource them to pretend we don't.

    We also pretended marriages didn't breakdown until 1995... That was utterly mindbogglingly ridiculous!

    Most women who travel to the uk have surgical abortions which take place from 9 weeks onwards and the price is the same until 14 weeks, so often they have to wait longer to try and get cheaper flights, instead of missing a period and at 6 weeks going to the dr to have a medical abortion.

    Also given the long wait time for passports .....


  • Options
    #1903
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Regulations were not followed.

    Because they are so vague and unworkable- deliberately

    From the IT:
    During seven days of often graphic and upsetting evidence, the jury heard that Mrs Halappanavar would probably still be alive today if the law had allowed an abortion as she miscarried before there was a real risk to her life, by which time it was too late to save her.


  • Options
    #1904
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Regulations were not followed.

    The bible is simpler to decode than Ireland's abortion laws


  • Options
    #1905
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    efb wrote: »
    Because they are so vague and unworkable- deliberately

    From the IT:
    During seven days of often graphic and upsetting evidence, the jury heard that Mrs Halappanavar would probably still be alive today if the law had allowed an abortion as she miscarried before there was a real risk to her life, by which time it was too late to save her.

    The Irish Times is a joke to quote from given it is a propaganda newspaper for liberals.

    ESBL and the type Savita had, has a death rate in the 30% area. Probably still be alive as article says, it is just guessing.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/savitas-death-may-have-been-due-to-resistant-bacteria-strain-214431.html


  • Options
    #1906
    Aniya Stale Ham
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Aniya Stale Ham


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The Irish Times is a joke to quote from given it is a propaganda newspaper for liberals.

    ESBL and the type Savita had, has a death rate in the 30% area. Probably still be alive as article says, it is just guessing.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/savitas-death-may-have-been-due-to-resistant-bacteria-strain-214431.html

    Would you like to define probably for us? Given that probability of survival would be the most likely outcome (given that probabilities must sum to 100% and 70 > (100 - 70)), the 70% survival rate is pretty probable no?


  • Options
    #1907
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    efb wrote: »
    The bible is simpler to decode than Ireland's abortion laws

    Nah, what is clear is when a something tragic happens, pro-choice people are like flies to a dead carcase looking to use it for their own means, as in use the tragedy for the purpose of getting the laws changed to make it easier to kill the unborn in this and other cases.

    Ivana Bacik was on the TV/radio arguing not enough unborn are being killed and we need to remove the protection of life to the unborn so laws can be changed so more of the unborn can be killed.

    Prochoice are always using specific cases to try and benefit from the tragedy.
    Making it easier to kill the unborn is seen somehow as a success.


  • Options
    #1908
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Nah, what is clear is when a something tragic happens, pro-choice people are like flies to a dead carcase looking to use it for their own means, as in use the tragedy for the purpose of getting the laws changed to make it easier to kill the unborn in this and other cases.

    Ivana Bacik was on the TV/radio arguing not enough unborn are being killed and we need to remove the protection of life to the unborn so laws can be changed so more of the unborn can be killed.

    Prochoice are always using specific cases to try and benefit from the tragedy.
    Making it easier to kill the unborn is seen somehow as a success.


    Good man Robert, good to see you keeping a level head.


  • Options
    #1909
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Would you like to define probably for us? Given that probability of survival would be the most likely (given that probabilities must sum to 100% and 70 > (100 - 70)), the 70% survival rate is pretty probable no?


    No, I used the word the Irish Times used. It is the only reason I used that word. Ask them to explain their liberal views which included 'probably' be alive.


  • Options
    #1910
    Aniya Stale Ham
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Aniya Stale Ham


    RobertKK wrote: »
    No, I used the word the Irish Times used. It is the only reason I used that word. Ask them to explain their liberal views which included 'probably' be alive.

    Liberal or not, a 70% survival rate = a probable survival.

    That is a fact, regardless of viewpoint.


  • Options
    #1911
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Nodin wrote: »
    Good man Robert, good to see you keeping a level head.

    Does an abortion kill the unborn, or what I have said not true?
    Attacking the poster and not addressing the point there Nodin with your sarcasm.

    Looking for the 8th amendment to be abolished is removing the right to life of the unborn.
    There is only one reason why one would want that right removed, it would be to allow more of the unborn to be killed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1912
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The Irish Times is a joke to quote from given it is a propaganda newspaper for liberals.

    ESBL and the type Savita had, has a death rate in the 30% area. Probably still be alive as article says, it is just guessing.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/savitas-death-may-have-been-due-to-resistant-bacteria-strain-214431.html

    What were her odds of contracting it with an earlier abortion?? Much less chance of infection


  • Options
    #1913
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Liberal or not, a 70% survival rate = a probable survival.

    That is a fact, regardless of viewpoint.

    Not when one is getting the wrong antibiotic for over 2 days and they being totally ineffective.


  • Options
    #1914
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    efb wrote: »
    What were her odds of contracting it with an earlier abortion?? Much less chance of infection

    Did the infection cause the miscarriage.


  • Options
    #1915
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Does an abortion kill the unborn, or what I have said not true?
    Attacking the poster and not addressing the point there Nodin with your sarcasm.

    Looking for the 8th amendment to be abolished is removing the right to life of the unborn.
    There is only one reason why one would want that right removed, it would be to allow more of the unborn to be killed.

    It staggers me that you can "discuss" abortion without even mentioning women once.


  • Options
    #1916
    takamichinoku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭takamichinoku


    RobertKK wrote: »
    pro-choice people are like flies to a dead carcase looking to use it for their own means, as in use the tragedy for the purpose of getting the laws changed to make it easier to kill the unborn in this and other cases.
    I've yet to see a facebook page of pro-choice group smiling beside posters of dead babies and whathaveyou

    meanwhile, on the pro life side....


  • Options
    #1917
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Does an abortion kill the unborn, or what I have said not true?
    Attacking the poster and not addressing the point there Nodin with your sarcasm.

    Looking for the 8th amendment to be abolished is removing the right to life of the unborn.
    There is only one reason why one would want that right removed, it would be to allow more of the unborn to be killed.


    Allow women more integrity over their own body
    Allow earlier interventions regarding medical difficulty


  • Options
    #1918
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Does an abortion kill the unborn, or what I have said not true?
    Attacking the poster and not addressing the point there Nodin with your sarcasm.

    Looking for the 8th amendment to be abolished is removing the right to life of the unborn.
    There is only one reason why one would want that right removed, it would be to allow more of the unborn to be killed.


    Simplistic nonsense. The notion is to allow abortions for those women who want them, not have some 'abortions for all, miniature flags for some' festival.


  • Options
    #1919
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Muise... wrote: »
    It staggers me that you can "discuss" abortion without even mentioning women once.

    Why does abortion happen in thin air and no woman involved?

    I have mentioned many previous times in this thread.

    Do you mention the unborn life that is killed in an abortion and how his or her future is wiped out when discussing it as a woman's right?


  • Options
    #1920
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Looking for the 8th amendment to be abolished is removing the right to life of the unborn.


    No, it is about allowing women to decide what to do with their bodies and taking away that power from misogynist, conservative, Catholic men.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1921
    Aniya Stale Ham
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Aniya Stale Ham


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Not when one is getting the wrong antibiotic for over 2 days and they being totally ineffective.

    Are you using this letter to a newspaper, apparently from a doctor (who wasn't the patient's doctor) as evidence that this is likely to be what has happened? (Consider we're discussing probability and likelihood here)

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/savitas-death-may-have-been-due-to-resistant-bacteria-strain-214431.html


Advertisement