Is it still 1971 in Ireland? The contraceptive train still runs - Under another name.

Dravokivich

lazygal wrote: »

How can a father have a say in whether a woman continues a pregnancy? A woman either stays pregnant or has an abortion.

I was really anti choice until I grew up a bit and realised women will always need and want abortion services and making them continue pregnancies they don't want to continue is barbaric.

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

What permanent changes happen his body?

Just because the father doesn't go through any direct physical issues with the abortion, doesn't mean they can't or won't be invested in it emotionally/mentally and should be expected to stand aside unscathed in any manner at all. I thought the whole pro choice thing for abortion was in reference to supporting others who are in need of or go through it? You are discarding 50% of the people involved, round of applause there folks, round of a fúcking appluase.

lazygal

Dravokivich wrote: »

Just because the father doesn't go through any direct physical issues with the abortion, doesn't mean they can't or won't be invested in it emotionally/mentally and should be expected to stand aside unscathed in any manner at all. I thought the whole pro choice thing for abortion was in reference to supporting others who are in need of or go through it? You are discarding 50% of the people involved, round of applause there folks, round of a fúcking appluase.

So what should happen when a woman doesn't want to remain pregnant, against the wishes of the man involved?

Dravokivich

lazygal wrote: »

So what should happen when a woman doesn't want to remain pregnant, against the wishes of the man involved?

There is no one answer for that. It's too simple a question, loaded with bias. Anything I say in response to it or others have said here you've taken as being anti woman, as some other posters have pre-emptively anticipated as well. While none who've challenged that stance about the man actually having a stake in the pregnancy/abortion did so from an anti woman point of view.

mirrorwall14

At 28 weeks pregnant right now for the first time, I have to say that going through this has made me staunchly pro choice. While I am happy to be pregnant and looking forward to having a baby, this is not easy. As soon as one symptom calms down, another kicks in. Today I can't decide what's worst,; the itching, the heartburn, the pregnancy rhinitis, the nausea, the swollen feet/hands or the back pain... And I'm not actually having that bad a time of it! It's like your entire body just goes ****ing nuts for 9 months and that's a bloody long long time. I can't believe there is still 12 weeks of this to go, assuming I don't go over.

Forcing someone to go through this for any reason is just barbaric.

Earl Turner

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

At 28 weeks pregnant right now for the first time, I have to say that going through this has made me staunchly pro choice. While I am happy to be pregnant and looking forward to having a baby, this is not easy. As soon as one symptom calms down, another kicks in. Today I can't decide what's worst,; the itching, the heartburn, the pregnancy rhinitis, the nausea, the swollen feet/hands or the back pain... And I'm not actually having that bad a time of it! It's like your entire body just goes ****ing nuts for 9 months and that's a bloody long long time. I can't believe there is still 12 weeks of this to go, assuming I don't go over.

Forcing someone to go through this for any reason is just barbaric.

Will be well worth it in the end.

Little CuChulainn

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

At 28 weeks pregnant right now for the first time, I have to say that going through this has made me staunchly pro choice. While I am happy to be pregnant and looking forward to having a baby, this is not easy. As soon as one symptom calms down, another kicks in. Today I can't decide what's worst,; the itching, the heartburn, the pregnancy rhinitis, the nausea, the swollen feet/hands or the back pain... And I'm not actually having that bad a time of it! It's like your entire body just goes ****ing nuts for 9 months and that's a bloody long long time. I can't believe there is still 12 weeks of this to go, assuming I don't go over.

Forcing someone to go through this for any reason is just barbaric.

Quite possibly the worst pro-choice argument I have ever heard.

Wompa1

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well you go right ahead and make that spurious argument that doesn't have anything to do with whether a woman has a right to an abortion or not. It's a completely separate issue, and not one you'll gain much support for either - a father's right to be a deadbeat dad?

Yeah, good one, can see the father's rights groups getting behind that one alright...

I actually didn't raise the point. There was a back and forth and I replied. I also did say earlier in this thread that it is a different issue and us men need to fight for our own rights, like the ladies are.

It's not a fathers right to be a deadbeat dad...since he wouldn't be a deadbeat. He'd legally have no obligations. His sperm created this fetus which optionally will become a child. If both don't want it to be a child, then there's no point in forcing them, surely.

PopePalpatine

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Quite possibly the worst pro-choice argument I have ever heard.

What's the matter? Did her post make you feel empathy?

mirrorwall14

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Quite possibly the worst pro-choice argument I have ever heard.

Why? This is the reality that you are forcing a woman to go through. And lets be honest, with 12 weeks to go-it ain't getting any easier!

Little CuChulainn

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What's the matter? Did her post make you feel empathy?

For who?

Earl Turner

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

For who?

As if pro-choice people are capable of empathy.

Earl Turner

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Why? This is the reality that you are forcing a woman to go through. And lets be honest, with 12 weeks to go-it ain't getting any easier!

Will surely be a very distant thought when you are holding your child for the first time.

One eyed Jack

Dravokivich wrote: »

Just because the father doesn't go through any direct physical issues with the abortion, doesn't mean they can't or won't be invested in it emotionally/mentally and should be expected to stand aside unscathed in any manner at all. I thought the whole pro choice thing for abortion was in reference to supporting others who are in need of or go through it? You are discarding 50% of the people involved, round of applause there folks, round of a fúcking appluase.

I don't think it's fair to say anyone is suggesting discarding 50% of the people involved, or even 33.3% of the people involved if you really wanted to accommodate all points of view!

It is of course the intention of most people to support everyone involved, but to place the importance of a man's emotional and mental health on hearing of an unexpected pregnancy, on a par with the emotional and mental health of a woman who finds herself dealing with an unexpected pregnancy and then having to make the determination for her own emotional and mental health as well as her physical health, to terminate her pregnancy...

You honestly think there's any comparison can really be drawn? Support both individuals, but jesus christ to even think the two individual scenarios are even comparable is to do an injustice to both individuals.

ezra_pound

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What a farce. Emergency contraception is readily available in Ireland. http://www.ifpa.ie/node/72 What is not readily available is abortion. That is the Law, as voted by several times by the people.

Exactly. The reason that these pills are not available here is the democratic will of the Irish people as expressed in several referenda.

Dravokivich

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to say anyone is suggesting discarding 50% of the people involved, or even 33.3% of the people involved if you really wanted to accommodate all points of view!

It is of course the intention of most people to support everyone involved, but to place the importance of a man's emotional and mental health on hearing of an unexpected pregnancy, on a par with the emotional and mental health of a woman who finds herself dealing with an unexpected pregnancy and then having to make the determination for her own emotional and mental health as well as her physical health, to terminate her pregnancy...

You honestly think there's any comparison can really be drawn? Support both individuals, but jesus christ to even think the two individual scenarios are even comparable is to do an injustice to both individuals.

I do not believe such comparisons can be drawn between 2 people and never stated that. I merely responded to other posters who've dismissed any sense of the father being impacted by a pregnancy/abortion on the basis that they themselves are not pregnant. Otherwise I'm of the opinion that they have just as much a stake in it. I never mentioned who'd be affected more than the other as something along the lines of that has no place in hypothetical and undefinable scenarios. You, like Lazygal and JuliusCaesar have just taken such responses as a Man V Woman response, where they were not presented as such. I myself am not looking to bring oneupmanship to this, as to do so is to diminish the position of both people involved in the pregnancy/abortion. And I believe others that challenged the same point of view did so to recognise that there is a man too.

One eyed Jack

Wompa1 wrote: »

I actually didn't raise the point. There was a back and forth and I replied. I also did say earlier in this thread that it is a different issue and us men need to fight for our own rights, like the ladies are.

I know you did, and I completely agree with you, but the issue of abortion is a woman's issue, it can never be a men's issue until men are able to bear children (I don't even want to imagine the physics of that one!).

It's not a fathers right to be a deadbeat dad...since he wouldn't be a deadbeat. He'd legally have no obligations. His sperm created this fetus which optionally will become a child. If both don't want it to be a child, then there's no point in forcing them, surely.

That's a different argument to the one that was being made though - the argument being made was that a man should be have the right to relinquish all responsibilities and rights towards his child should he choose to do so.

The fact of the matter is that this is a false equivalence with abortion. If you wanted to argue like for like - a mother does not have a right to relinquish all responsibilities and rights towards her child either!

mirrorwall14

Earl Turner wrote: »

Will surely be a very distant thought when you are holding your child for the first time.

However I want the baby. I can't imagine having to go through this without that to cling to

The One Doctor

Celly Smunt wrote: »

And how about the permanent change to the fathers life who wanted the child,that doesn't count for anything no?

No, and it shouldn't. It's not the man's body. Besides, if the man insisted on preventing the abortion, I can guarantee the woman would abort the relationship instead.

LoganRice

It's 2014 but that was shocking to read

One eyed Jack

Dravokivich wrote: »

I do not believe such comparisons can be drawn between 2 people and never stated that. I merely responded to other posters who've dismissed any sense of the father being impacted by a pregnancy/abortion on the basis that they themselves are not pregnant. Otherwise I'm of the opinion that they have just as much a stake in it. I never mentioned who'd be affected more than the other as something along the lines of that has no place in hypothetical and undefinable scenarios. You, like Lazygal and JuliusCaesar have just taken such responses as a Man V Woman response, where they were not presented as such. I myself am not looking to bring oneupmanship to this, as to do so is to diminish the position of both people involved in the pregnancy/abortion. And I believe others that challenged the same point of view did so to recognise that there is a man too.

I'm certainly not being dismissive of the effects of the news of an unexpected pregnancy upon on a man, but to claim that a man has just as much a stake in a pregnancy as a woman is... well, it completely ignores the fact that a man will suffer no ill effects physically speaking should a woman be forced to continue, or indeed terminate her pregnancy.

I mean, I know you're not suggesting that the woman's mental and physical health be ignored were she to decide to have an abortion, but the effects for her having an abortion in the vast majority of cases are far more consequential than the mental, emotional and physical effects that her decision will have on a man.

That's not one-upmanship, that's just a fact.

The One Doctor

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

At 28 weeks pregnant right now for the first time, I have to say that going through this has made me staunchly pro choice. While I am happy to be pregnant and looking forward to having a baby, this is not easy. As soon as one symptom calms down, another kicks in. Today I can't decide what's worst,; the itching, the heartburn, the pregnancy rhinitis, the nausea, the swollen feet/hands or the back pain... And I'm not actually having that bad a time of it! It's like your entire body just goes ****ing nuts for 9 months and that's a bloody long long time. I can't believe there is still 12 weeks of this to go, assuming I don't go over.

Forcing someone to go through this for any reason is just barbaric.

You're saying that experiencing the symptoms of pregnancy make you favour abortions? I know pregnant women can be a bit emotional (my girlfriend is 32 weeks pregnant), but your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Women don't have abortions because pregnancy is unpleasant, they have abortions because they don't want the little fetus inside them to live.

strobe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that this is a false equivalence with abortion. If you wanted to argue like for like - a mother does not have a right to relinquish all responsibilities and rights towards her child either!

Yes she does, it's called adoption. A (single, or married if the child isn't her husband's) woman can place a child up for adoption if she so wishes, relinquishing all responsibilities and rights, this essentially is a 'paper abortion'. The father doesn't have that option either. Any suggestion that a father be allowed a right to a 'paper abortion' is fundamentally just a suggestion that men should have the same rights as women currently do in terms of giving a child up for adoption.

PopePalpatine

The One Doctor wrote: »

You're saying that experiencing the symptoms of pregnancy make you favour abortions? I know pregnant women can be a bit emotional (my girlfriend is 32 weeks pregnant), but your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Women don't have abortions because pregnancy is unpleasant, they have abortions because they don't want the little fetus inside them to live.

Yeah, totally no hatred and/or misogyny in this post. :rolleyes:

Colossal Phallus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yeah, totally no hatred and/or misogyny in this post. :rolleyes:

Can you clarify how that is misogynistic? Do you know what misogyny is?

Aborting a fetus at 28 weeks is pure scum.

volchitsa

The One Doctor wrote: »

You're saying that experiencing the symptoms of pregnancy make you favour abortions? I know pregnant women can be a bit emotional (my girlfriend is 32 weeks pregnant), but your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Women don't have abortions because pregnancy is unpleasant, they have abortions because they don't want the little fetus inside them to live.

Tell me you aren't really a doctor, please?

(I think not, tbh)

You've got that the wrong way around - women accept to get pregnant, and/or remain pregnant, despite the unpleasantness and sometimes danger involved because they want a baby.

If they don't want a baby, or can't look after one, why should they put themselves through all that? Particularly when society is quite ready to judge them negatively for "getting themselves pregnant" as well.

But nobody has an abortion so they can kill the fetus. They just don't want to be pregnant, that's all.

sheesh

lazygal wrote: »

The unborn right to life is not vindicated at all by our constitution. We allow the unborn to be taken elsewhere to be killed and we protect the right to information on how and where to go to kill the unborn in the constitution. Apparently the right to life only exists when a woman doesn't or can't go abroad.

Yes it is in as far as the law can protect it. you cannot stop people traveling we just don't have that kind of society where it is acceptable for the government to stop people from leaving to travel to other parts of the EU. you cannot prevent the transfer of information either.

sheesh

Celly Smunt wrote: »

I clearly forgot that women don't choose to have sex and it was only a mans choice to have a child.

Isn't a woman having the total entitlement of having an abortion forcing the father to have an abortion (obviously not physically)? How is that not inherently evil?

no, that is just the way things are the baby is in the woman's body you cannot force her to have an abortion you cannot force her not to have an abortion.

Colossal Phallus

volchitsa wrote: »

Tell me you aren't really a doctor, please?

(I think not, tbh)

You've got that the wrong way around - women accept to get pregnant, and/or remain pregnant, despite the unpleasantness and sometimes danger involved because they want a baby.

If they don't want a baby, or can't look after one, why should they put themselves through all that? Particularly when society is quite ready to judge them negatively for "getting themselves pregnant" as well.

But nobody has an abortion so they can kill the fetus. They just don't want to be pregnant, that's all.

Killing the fetus is immoral once it can feel pain and suffer. The life of the fetus is more important than the mother's convenience.

Hotblack Desiato

ezra_pound wrote: »

Exactly. The reason that these pills are not available here is the democratic will of the Irish people as expressed in several referenda.

Totally incorrect.

In 1983 the Irish people were not given an option to vote to allow abortion. The law dating from 1861 remained in effect afterwards (right up until the very limited legislation was brought in last year) and would have done, irrespective of the result in that referendum.

Almost nobody under 50 today could have had a vote in that referendum. So almost every woman of reproductive age in Ireland today never even had a vote on the 8th amendment yet they are affected by it.

There were two further referendums in 1992 and 2002. Both were intended to make abortion even less accessible in Ireland than the extremely limited circumstances in which the 8th amendment may permit it. Both were rejected. In other words, the Irish people twice refused to vote against abortion.

The Irish people have never been given a vote in a referendum where allowing abortion to be more available was even an option.

sheesh wrote: »

Yes it is in as far as the law can protect it. you cannot stop people traveling we just don't have that kind of society where it is acceptable for the government to stop people from leaving to travel to other parts of the EU. you cannot prevent the transfer of information either.

Really?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/pro-choice-group-shocked-as-irish-women-forced-to-cancel-assisted-suicide-trip-503792.html

The women, one of whom is in the final stage of multiple sclerosis, had booked flights to Switzerland and were due to attend the Dignitas clinic.

However, gardaí became aware of their plans and the women were forced to cancel their trip when they learned they could be prosecuted if they availed of the assisted-suicide services available at the clinic.

The One Doctor

volchitsa wrote: »

Tell me you aren't really a doctor, please?

(I think not, tbh)

You've got that the wrong way around - women accept to get pregnant, and/or remain pregnant, despite the unpleasantness and sometimes danger involved because they want a baby.

If they don't want a baby, or can't look after one, why should they put themselves through all that? Particularly when society is quite ready to judge them negatively for "getting themselves pregnant" as well.

But nobody has an abortion so they can kill the fetus. They just don't want to be pregnant, that's all.

No, I'm not a doctor. We're actually agreeing on this topic, I simply didn't express myself very well. I simply substituted the phrase 'the woman wants to kill the fetus' for the word 'abortion'. It's a more emotive phrase, I accept, but it is essentially true. The woman makes a decision that will end a the fetuses life.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm pro abortion if the abortion can be done medically (i.e, chemically by prostaglandin analogues etc) rather than surgically. Frankly, surgical abortion is utterly barbaric and hasn't changed in 3000 years. Well it has, but the only difference now is that the woman is virtually guaranteed to survive a surgical abortion.

One eyed Jack

strobe wrote: »

Yes she does, it's called adoption. A (single, or married if the child isn't her husband's) woman can place a child up for adoption if she so wishes, relinquishing all responsibilities and rights, this essentially is a 'paper abortion'. The father doesn't have that option either. Any suggestion that a father be allowed a right to a 'paper abortion' is fundamentally just a suggestion that men should have the same right as women currently do in terms of giving a child up for adoption.

That term 'paper abortion' is just silly, there's no two ways about it, as it diminishes the complexity and significance of an abortion. I shouldn't have to explain this but when a woman has an abortion, there is no longer any possibility of her giving birth to that unborn child.

My point in saying that a woman had no right to relinquish all rights and responsibilities to her child was to point out that only that would be the same as a father wanting to do the same. So now your argument isn't about preventing a woman from having an abortion, but rather preventing her from giving the child up for adoption, or is your argument that a father should have the right to put his child up for adoption regardless of the mother's wishes?

I can't see that flying among father's rights groups either tbh, it's just a spurious argument for gender equality in one area where because there are fundamental physiological and biological differences between the genders, there is no equality and therefore it will never be legislated for. It's right up there with the sort of thinking I'd expect from one of those academic ivory tower think tanks that have a very poor grasp on reality.

strobe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That term 'paper abortion' is just silly, there's no two ways about it, as it diminishes the complexity and significance of an abortion. I shouldn't have to explain this but when a woman has an abortion, there is no longer any possibility of her giving birth to that unborn child.

My point in saying that a woman had no right to relinquish all rights and responsibilities to her child was to point out that only that would be the same as a father wanting to do the same. So now your argument isn't about preventing a woman from having an abortion, but rather preventing her from giving the child up for adoption, or is your argument that a father should have the right to put his child up for adoption regardless of the mother's wishes?

I can't see that flying among father's rights groups either tbh, it's just a spurious argument for gender equality in one area where because there are fundamental physiological and biological differences between the genders, there is no equality and therefore it will never be legislated for. It's right up there with the sort of thinking I'd expect from one of those academic ivory tower think tanks that have a very poor grasp on reality.

My argument is that you were wrong in claiming a woman has no right to relinquish her rights and responsibilities to her child. Why not just admit you were mistaken? And that the suggestion that a man be permitted a 'paper abortion' is simply a suggestion that men should have the same legal rights as women when it comes to adoption.

Speaking as a pharmacist, Ruth Coppinger is an idiot. She took an "abortion pill". Was she pregnant? Has she no respect for prescription laws? What doctor wrote the script for her? I would be very interested in knowing as this contravenes the medicines act 1968. What was the abortion pill? I see no ingredients mentioned in the article.

volchitsa

The One Doctor wrote: »

No, I'm not a doctor. We're actually agreeing on this topic, I simply didn't express myself very well. I simply substituted the phrase 'the woman wants to kill the fetus' for the word 'abortion'. It's a more emotive phrase, I accept, but it is essentially true. The woman makes a decision that will end a the fetuses life.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm pro abortion if the abortion can be done medically (i.e, chemically by prostaglandin analogues etc) rather than surgically. Frankly, surgical abortion is utterly barbaric and hasn't changed in 3000 years. Well it has, but the only difference now is that the woman is virtually guaranteed to survive a surgical abortion.

I think you are confusing a surgical abortion with a late abortion. An early surgical abortion is no more barbaric than a miscarriage.

And no, what you are doing is replacing the usual term by a more emotive one for a reason - to make it sound worse.

In fact if a woman wanting an abortion had the option of instead getting the fetus transplanted into a woman who would then adopt it, do you think many would refuse because they actually wanted it dead? So they don't (usually) want the fetus dead, they want not to be pregnant.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

Speaking as a pharmacist, Ruth Coppinger is an idiot. She took an "abortion pill".

She more than likely took an aspirin, paracetamol or vitamin pill that she'd put into an abortion pill box.

According to (I think) Nell McCafferty, the chemists they went to in 1971 ran out of contraceptive pills, so most of the pill packets they were waving around in Connolly Station were aspirin.

Was she pregnant? Has she no respect for prescription laws?

Laws that deny treatment to patients on the basis of a dubious morality rather than clinical considerations don't deserve any respect.

One eyed Jack

strobe wrote: »

My argument is that you were wrong in claiming a woman has no right to relinquish her rights and responsibilities to her child. Why not just admit you were mistaken?

Because my point was more concerned with pointing out a like for like comparison rather than comparing abortion to a man's right to abdicate his responsibility towards his child. I think when read in context that much would have been obvious. If I were actually arguing the point in front of a panel of judicial experts, then yes, I would have been more careful in my wording, but this being the Internet and all, I hadn't taken account of the fact that "someone is wrong on the internet" was actually a thing.

And that the suggestion that a man be permitted a 'paper abortion' is simply a suggestion that men should have the same legal rights as women when it comes to adoption.

It's not a paper abortion though, and no amount of euphemisms and quote unquotes is going to disguise the reality of what is actually being suggested. The argument that men should have the same legal rights as women when it comes to adoption has nothing to do with a woman's right to an abortion. The 'equal rights wiith regard to adoption' argument is for another thread.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

She more than likely took an aspirin, paracetamol or vitamin pill that she'd put into an abortion pill box.

According to (I think) Nell McCafferty, the chemists they went to in 1971 ran out of contraceptive pills, so most of the pill packets they were waving around in Connolly Station were aspirin.




Laws that deny treatment to patients on the basis of a dubious morality rather than clinical considerations don't deserve any respect.

I would think so. Uterine contractions aren't particularly pleasant. The clinical consideration is why a non pregnant woman would take an abortion pill (or claim to)? Was is misoprostol or another abortifacient such as methotrexate (used off licence for treating ectopic pregnancy?

Hotblack Desiato

Assuming that she wasn't in fact pregnant, the reason she claimed to take an abortion pill is obvious, it is to publicise the issue and draw parallels with the contraceptive train of 1971.

Geuze

Lapin wrote: »

Today's protest on the 2nd anniversary of the death of Savita Halappanavar is a stark reminder of that.
.

tHIS woman's death was due to the medical mismanagement of sepsis, nothing directly to do with abortion.

Frito

strobe wrote: »

My argument is that you were wrong in claiming a woman has no right to relinquish her rights and responsibilities to her child. Why not just admit you were mistaken? And that the suggestion that a man be permitted a 'paper abortion' is simply a suggestion that men should have the same legal rights as women when it comes to adoption.

I'm a bit unsure as to the specific adoption rights. Can a mother offer her child for adoption where the father is known, objects and asserts responsibility for the child?

volchitsa

Geuze wrote: »

tHIS woman's death was due to the medical mismanagement of sepsis, nothing directly to do with abortion.

This is just not true. She needed an abortion, nothing else was going to cure her.

If she had had an abortion when she asked for one, Dr Boylan and Prof Arulkumaran both say that she would probably have lived.

The fact that Irish law made it illegal to carry out an abortion unless her life was at risk has a great deal to do with her death. GUH then went on to mess up the "care" they were meant to give her while waiting for her life to be identified as being at risk, but that is secondary to the original refusal to terminate.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Assuming that she wasn't in fact pregnant, the reason she claimed to take an abortion pill is obvious, it is to publicise the issue and draw parallels with the contraceptive train of 1971.

So essentially she lied. Isuppose par for the course for a td. love how she said it was safer than sildenafil. Like it is the complete ignorance of the woman that guiles me.

shruikan2553

So has anyone managed to come up with another method of ending the pregnancy when the woman doesn't want to be?

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

This is just not true. She needed an abortion, nothing else was going to cure her.

If she had had an abortion when she asked for one, Dr Boylan and Prof Arulkumaran both say that she would probably have lived.

The fact that Irish law made it illegal to carry out an abortion unless her life was at risk has a great deal to do with her death. GUH then went on to mess up the "care" they were meant to give her while waiting for her life to be identified as being at risk, but that is secondary to the original refusal to terminate.

Abortions cure septicaemia? Are you actually saying that? How does it do that?

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

Abortions cure septicaemia? Are you actually saying that? How does it do that?

Not if you're not pregnant. Obviously.

But if the source of the infection is inside the uterus, as it was for Savita Halappanavar, than ending the pregnancy without delay is the only sure way to treat septicaemia, yes. It's like having a splinter in your finger that gets infected, if you don't get rid of the splinter, you may end up with blood poisoning. First get rid of the splinter, then disinfect. It's basic science.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Not if you're not pregnant. Obviously.

But if the source of the infection is inside the uterus, as it was for Savita Halappanavar, than ending the pregnancy without delay is the only sure way to treat septicaemia, yes. It's like having a splinter in your finger that gets infected, if you don't get rid of the splinter, you may end up with blood poisoning. First get rid of the splinter, then disinfect. It's basic science.

The reason that she died is that she wasn't treated with antibiotic prophylactics when she was first diagnosed on admission. This was a failing of doctors and pharmacists in the hospital. Your analogy has a flaw(actually, a few). You seem to think that an abortion can cure a bacterial infection. An abortion isn't an antibiotic. You also wouldn't wait till the abortion is over to start antibiotics.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason that she died is that she wasn't treated with antibiotic prophylactics when she was first diagnosed on admission. This was a failing of doctors and pharmacists in the hospital. Your analogy has a flaw(actually, a few). You seem to think that an abortion can cure a bacterial infection. An abortion isn't an antibiotic. You also wouldn't wait till the abortion is over to start antibiotics.

Have you actually read the testimony by Boylan and the report by Arulkumaran?

Antibiotic treatment without an abortion would not have been enough.

She needed ultra wide spectrum antibiotics that are not given to pregnant women, for one thing, and anyway, as I said, without a D&E the source of the infection would remain.

And I do know the difference between an antibiotic and an abortion. :roll:
Nor did I say they had to wait until it was completed before starting stronger antibiotics than she got, just that waiting around for days repeatedly checking on the fetal heartbeat was not a treatment at all - and she needed urgent treatment.

This has all been discussed at the time, I suggest you read it up rather than ask me to go back over it correcting your mistakes.

What treatment exactly, do you think Savita Halapannavar needed that would have saved her?

obplayer

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason that she died is that she wasn't treated with antibiotic prophylactics when she was first diagnosed on admission. This was a failing of doctors and pharmacists in the hospital. Your analogy has a flaw(actually, a few). You seem to think that an abortion can cure a bacterial infection. An abortion isn't an antibiotic. You also wouldn't wait till the abortion is over to start antibiotics.

Dr Peter Boylan, former Master of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, disagrees.

A leading obstetrician claimed the inability to end Savita Halappanavar's pregnancy until there was a substantial and real risk of her death ultimately cost the 31-year-old her life. Peter Boylan revealed that by the time she was sick enough to justify an abortion on the morning of Wednesday October 24 last year, she was already suffering from sepsis blood infection.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-29201735.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22185690


Halapannavar’s husband maintains that her death could have been prevented if hospital officials had intervened earlier to terminate her non-viable fetus. Now, after a two-week review of the coroner’s report, that position has been confirmed by an Irish jury

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...abortion-care/

SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination within two days of her admission to Galway Hospital.

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/abo...-29205695.html

Perhaps you should contact him and tell him how your qualifications are superior to his.

One eyed Jack

Frito wrote: »

I'm a bit unsure as to the specific adoption rights. Can a mother offer her child for adoption where the father is known, objects and asserts responsibility for the child?

It's not quite that simple -

Consent

The consent of the parents/guardians of the child to the adoption is a legal requirement. If the child is born outside marriage and the father has no guardianship rights, only the mother's consent is needed, but the father is entitled to be consulted (if possible). However, the consent of the father is required if he marries the mother after the birth of the child or he is appointed guardian or is granted custody of the child by court order.

The mother, father (where he is guardian) or other legal guardian must give an initial consent or agreement to the placing of a child for adoption by the Child and Family Agency or an approved adoption service. They must then give their consent to the making of an adoption order. This consent may be withdrawn any time before the making of the adoption order.

If the mother either refuses consent or withdraws consent already given, the adopting parents may apply to the High Court for an order. If the court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the child, it will make an order giving custody of the child to the adopting parents for a specified period and authorising the Adoption Authority to dispense with the mother's consent to the making of the adoption order.

If a mother changes her mind about adoption before the making of the adoption order, but the adopting parents refuse to give up the child, she may then institute legal proceedings to have custody of her child returned to her.

Birth Father Register

A birth father, with no guardianship rights, is entitled to be consulted about the adoption of his child. If you are concerned that your partner or former partner intends placing your child for adoption without letting you know, you can ask the Adoption Authority to notify you by recording your details on the Birth Father Register. You can do this even before your child is born, if necessary. This register is checked against all applications for adoption.

Assessment

Applicants being considered for adoption will undergo a detailed assessment. The assessment is carried out by an adoption society or Child and Family Agency social worker. It includes a number of interviews and home visits. Where the application is in respect of a married couple, there will be both individual and joint interviews.

The social worker will discuss such areas as previous and/or current relationships, motives for adopting, expectations of the child and the ability to help a child to develop his/her knowledge and understanding of his/her natural background. All applicants are required to undergo a medical examination.

The social worker then prepares a report which goes before the local adoption committee and a recommendation is made.

Declaration of eligibility and suitability

Your application for assessment, the report and the local adoption committee’s recommendations are sent to the Adoption Authority. If all documents are in place and correct, and the recommendations are positive, the Adoption Authority will grant a declaration of eligibility and suitability.

The declaration is granted for a period of 2 years from the date it is issued. It may include in it a statement relating to the age or state of health of a child whom you are considered suited to parent – this is based on information provided in the assessment report..

Adoption order

The period of time between the granting of the declaration of eligibility and suitability to the making of an adoption order differs from one case to another depending on the type of adoption application being made and the particular circumstances of the applicants and the child.

In the case of a step-parent adoption where the child is in situ, it is expected that the application for the adoption order will progress during the lifespan of the declaration of eligibility and suitability. Where it is a domestic infant adoption, there is no guarantee that a couple will be matched with a child during the lifetime of the declaration. Before making an adoption order the Adoption Authority must be satisfied that the child is eligible to be adopted.

You can find information on the issues that may arise after the declaration is issued on the Authority’s website.

Adoption hearing

When the adoption order is finally being made, you will go before the Board of the Adoption Authority with the child and give sworn evidence as to your identity and eligibility. You will have previously completed a form indicating the name that you want on the adoption order for the child. This can be changed at the adoption hearing but it is preferable for this to have been agreed on before the date of the hearing.

Find out more about the adoption hearing here.

Adoption certificate

At the adoption hearing, you will be given information on how to go about getting a new birth certificate for the child. The new birth certificate (adoption certificate) will normally be available through the Registrar General's Office within 4 weeks. Although it is not an actual birth certificate, it has the status of one for legal purposes. It gives the date of the adoption order and the names and addresses of the adoptive parents and is similar in all aspects to a birth certificate.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/adoption_and_fostering/adopting_a_child.html

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Have you actually read the testimony by Boylan and the report by Arulkumaran?

Antibiotic treatment without an abortion would not have been enough.

She needed ultra wide spectrum antibiotics that are not given to pregnant women, for one thing, and anyway, as I said, without a D&E the source of the infection would remain.

And I do know the difference between an antibiotic and an abortion. :roll:
Nor did I say they had to wait until it was completed before starting stronger antibiotics than she got, just that waiting around for days repeatedly checking on the fetal heartbeat was not a treatment at all - and she needed urgent treatment.

This has all been discussed at the time, I suggest you read it up rather than ask me to go back over it correcting your mistakes.

What treatment exactly, do you think Savita Halapannavar needed that would have saved her?

Prophylactic antibiotic regime starting when she first fell ill. It's that simple. The sepsis wouldn't have taken hold then.

Also should have been treated iv rather than oral. I'm not aware what sensitivities the ladies bloods showed. Patient should have received antibiotics to treat the septicaemia immediately ultra wide spectrum or not.

The treatment she received was appalling to be honest. It wasn't an antiquated abortion law that killed this patient but inappropriate clinical decisions.