Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/2469614/

Topic: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2012-11-14 05:33:00 and read 1420 times.

Seems pro life sometimes doesn't do as it says on the tin.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/articl...l-in-ireland-denies-woman-life-s-0
There was no choice for this lady to do what she wanted/needed to do with her body, her freedom was taken away by others. Do you want government taking awy freedoms?

Seems very sad thet in these modern times people and societies can still be so backward.

Fred

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-11-14 10:47:31 and read 1421 times.

Quoting flipdewaf (Thread starter):
There was no choice for this lady to do what she wanted/needed to do with her body, her freedom was taken away by others.

Her life as well. Absolutely sickening.

How this can happen in the civilized world is beyond me. Even if you're anti-abortion, even if the case of rape, you'd have to allow for exceptions to be made when the life of the mother is at (as it was here).

-Mir

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: iFlyLOTs
Posted 2012-11-14 11:02:35 and read 1421 times.

This kind of goes in the face of what Joe Walsh the candidate for house from Illinois said..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobile...-abortion-exception_n_1983701.html

I don't understand how people can just say things like that and why we don't realize that sometimes, you're either going to have one dead from an abortion or two dead from a lack of.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: francoflier
Posted 2012-11-14 11:39:31 and read 1422 times.

I would have thought that a civilized country, despite its religious driven laws, would still allow provisions in said laws to cater for cases such as this one.

Whether the husband's opinion that she died because of her pregnancy and that an abortion would have killed her is still to be proven, but this story really has a medieval whiff to it...

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2012-11-14 12:16:48 and read 1422 times.

 


The only halfway logical reason for letting that mother die is that humans should not interfere with their fate.

Accident victims should be left how you found them. Victims of crime should not call the police. It is fate. If you have appendicitis, we'll make an exception.


David

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2012-11-14 12:29:52 and read 1422 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 3):

I would have thought that a civilized country, despite its religious driven laws, would still allow provisions in said laws to cater for cases such as this one.

On paper, there is, supported by a court case, but it lacks specifics. Abortion is illegal unless it is necessary for the life of the mother, so it would appear to be acceptable only in life-or-death situations, but it isn't clearly explained.

To answer a quote from the BBC report, they're not Catholics, they're barbarians. I can't say I know much about Ireland's legal system, but I hope it is similar enough to the UK's for someone to launch a private prosecution for willful murder against the hospital and its staff.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2012-11-14 12:33:12 and read 1422 times.

Quoting flipdewaf (Thread starter):
Seems very sad thet in these modern times people and societies can still be so backward.

Religion almost always is.
When something is structured on not being able to question the teachings of a book (the bible) or a imperfect person things like this happen. To move forward we have to question the status quo which religion at the least frowns upon.

Had this happened at a regular hospital no issue would have occurred.

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 2):

This kind of goes in the face of what Joe Walsh the candidate for house from Illinois said..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobile...-abortion-exception_n_1983701.html

He along with Akin and Mourdock are all idiots.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 4):
The only halfway logical reason for letting that mother die is that humans should not interfere with their fate.

By that logic why do we have health care at all, or require people to wear seatbelts, helmets etc.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-11-14 12:59:20 and read 1422 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
Absolutely sickening.

Agreed! This hospital should be shut down completely. They dropped the ball here. The woman's ER doctor and the administrators of that hospital should be thrown in prison for manslaughter, not once but twice!

"This is a Catholic Country", my ass. It makes no difference, Catholic or not. All humans operate & function the same way. Religion should not trump health care. Health care always comes first, religion last.

Good god!

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-11-14 13:20:58 and read 1422 times.

Abortion is the topic I reconsider the most, wishing I could change the way I feel. Never seem to, but I at least have some compromises in mind. I don't base my decisions regarding others based off religion... that being said, my views on abortion are considered "extreme..."

HOWEVER, when it comes to life or death of the mother, I am all for abortion (using a humane way to put the baby down.) In my mind, both are lives, so either way a death is going to result... I leave that up to the parents. Also, the mother may need to help take care of existing children, so if I were in that case, I'd choose the abortion over the mother dying

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: thomil13FRA
Posted 2012-11-14 13:21:06 and read 1422 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 7):
Agreed! This hospital should be shut down completely.

Erm, University Hospital Galway, where the whole thing took place, is a vital part of the healthcare system in that part of Ireland. Shutting it down would do more harm than good.

The whole thing is still utterly horrible. The public reaction seems pretty strong here, at least from my limited perspective here in Cork. There was a Vigil held in front of the Opera house, right across the river from my apartment, and apparently there have been protests in Dublin as well, at least according to state broadcaster RTE

Apparently, there will be an official government investigation, but I wouldn't really put my money on that. Health Minister James Reilly seems to be in over his head in his job.


Note: For those out there wondering why I am commenting on an Irish issue while flying a German flag on my profile, I moved to Ireland in August to start my new job, and changing the flag is currently at the very bottom of my priority list.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-11-14 14:12:27 and read 1422 times.

Quoting thomil13FRA (Reply 9):
Erm, University Hospital Galway, where the whole thing took place, is a vital part of the healthcare system in that part of Ireland. Shutting it down would do more harm than good.

Ok then, how about this: Get rid of the doctors and the administrators involved and throw them in prison at the same time change hospital policy on this issue. This is something that could have been prevented and a life saved. But instead, two lives were lost which is unacceptable.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-11-14 14:25:49 and read 1422 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8):
HOWEVER, when it comes to life or death of the mother, I am all for abortion (using a humane way to put the baby down.) In my mind, both are lives, so either way a death is going to result... I leave that up to the parents. Also, the mother may need to help take care of existing children, so if I were in that case, I'd choose the abortion over the mother dying

Now define "coming to the life or death of the mother", legally. This woman clearly died because of complications related to her (failed) pregnancy. Were those complications foreseen at the time the doctors refused to do the abortion? And if not, wouldn't that just mean that the state was putting the life of the mother at risk by refusing her the ability to act on what she felt was going on with her body?

It can get very tricky when you try to legislate medical conditions.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 10):
Get rid of the doctors and the administrators involved and throw them in prison

Throw people in prison for following the law? It's the law that needs correcting, not the individuals.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-11-14 14:37:08 and read 1422 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
Throw people in prison for following the law?

Is it law? (Can some confirm that this is, in fact, law?) They said was that it was a "Catholic Country", but that does not mean it is "law".

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-11-14 14:38:34 and read 1424 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 12):
They said was that it was a "Catholic Country", but that does not mean it is "law".

Irish law does not allow abortion except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger (and as I pointed out in my previous post, that definition is not so easily arrived at).

-Mir

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: thomil13FRA
Posted 2012-11-14 14:40:35 and read 1424 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
Throw people in prison for following the law? It's the law that needs correcting, not the individuals.

That's the problem, there IS no law. There was a Supreme Court ruling in 1992 stating that women had a right to an abortion if there was a real and substantial threat to her life. However, the Irish government, according to the information that I could find, never acted on the supreme court ruling. Legislation regarding the regulation of abortion was never passed.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: lewis
Posted 2012-11-14 14:46:07 and read 1424 times.

Quoting thomil13FRA (Reply 14):

According to this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...nd-abortion-ban-history?intcmp=239

Quote:

An amendment to Ireland's constitution in 1983 states that the embryo, even at the point of conception, is an Irish citizen enjoying the full rights of every man, woman and child living in the republic.

So there is an abortion ban in Ireland because it would be considered murder, at any stage of the pregnancy, or this is at least how I understand it.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-11-14 14:47:45 and read 1426 times.

insane and infuriating

Chalk up two more kills for the Catholic Church.   

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-11-14 14:50:49 and read 1424 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
Irish law does not allow abortion except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger
Quoting thomil13FRA (Reply 14):
That's the problem, there IS no law. There was a Supreme Court ruling in 1992 stating that women had a right to an abortion if there was a real and substantial threat to her life.
Quoting lewis (Reply 15):
So there is an abortion ban in Ireland because it would be considered murder, at any stage of the pregnancy, or this is at least how I understand it.

Ok, I'm confused here. Is there a law or not?

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: thomil13FRA
Posted 2012-11-14 14:59:46 and read 1422 times.

Quoting lewis (Reply 15):
So there is an abortion ban in Ireland because it would be considered murder, at any stage of the pregnancy, or this is at least how I understand it.

If you were to take the 1983 amendment on its own, you would be right. However, the supreme court ruling from 1992, referred to in Irish media as the X Case, established that women had a right to abortion if there was a substantial risk to her life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X#section_5

So, we basically have a Constitutional Amendment, and a Supreme Court ruling that is entirely contradictory. The only thing that could clear up that mess would be precise legislation, but that hasn't happened yet.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: tugger
Posted 2012-11-14 15:09:00 and read 1422 times.

Quoting lewis (Reply 15):
According to this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...nd-abortion-ban-history?intcmp=239

Quote:

An amendment to Ireland's constitution in 1983 states that the embryo, even at the point of conception, is an Irish citizen enjoying the full rights of every man, woman and child living in the republic.

And there are people within the USA that want this same language in our own laws?

Tugg

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: AM744
Posted 2012-11-14 15:27:49 and read 1422 times.

Quoting lewis (Reply 15):
According to this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...nd-abortion-ban-history?intcmp=239

Quote:

An amendment to Ireland's constitution in 1983 states that the embryo, even at the point of conception, is an Irish citizen enjoying the full rights of every man, woman and child living in the republic.

So there is an abortion ban in Ireland because it would be considered murder, at any stage of the pregnancy, or this is at least how I understand it.
Quoting thomil13FRA (Reply 18):
So, we basically have a Constitutional Amendment, and a Supreme Court ruling that is entirely contradictory. The only thing that could clear up that mess would be precise legislation, but that hasn't happened yet.

Wow. Sounds complicated. How would they deal with that from a legal standpoint? Would they have Certificates of Conception? Would the Date of Conception be used in their documents?

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: blrsea
Posted 2012-11-14 16:07:52 and read 1422 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
Now define "coming to the life or death of the mother", legally. This woman clearly died because of complications related to her (failed) pregnancy. Were those complications foreseen at the time the doctors refused to do the abortion? And if not, wouldn't that just mean that the state was putting the life of the mother at risk by refusing her the ability to act on what she felt was going on with her body?

Please see this link. Clearly, the doctors knew that the foetus was unsurvivable, but still refused to abort it. It would have probably relieved her pain at the very least. Poor woman, she died in agony due to perverted beliefs of the doctors at that hospital. I hope those doctors experience something similar closer to home, so that they can feel the pain of others!

Quote:
...


“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

“Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said, ‘As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything’.

“Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do.

“That evening she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting. She went to use the toilet and she collapsed. There were big alarms and a doctor took bloods and started her on antibiotics.

“The next morning I said she was so sick and asked again that they just end it, but they said they couldn’t.”
...

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: bjorn14
Posted 2012-11-14 16:16:03 and read 1422 times.

Quoting lewis (Reply 15):
So there is an abortion ban in Ireland because it would be considered murder, at any stage of the pregnancy, or this is at least how I understand it.

There is a fine line between the health of the mother and the life of the mother. The doctor did not see that the life of the mother was in danger. They told her the pain would go away in a couple of hours. Also if the heart is still beating in the baby they cannot perform the abortion.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-11-14 16:34:47 and read 1422 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 17):
Ok, I'm confused here. Is there a law or not?

My understanding is that abortion is illegal except where the life of the mother is in danger, but I could be wrong about that.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 21):
Clearly, the doctors knew that the foetus was unsurvivable, but still refused to abort it.

But that's not the same as the mother's life being in danger.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 22):
There is a fine line between the health of the mother and the life of the mother. The doctor did not see that the life of the mother was in danger. They told her the pain would go away in a couple of hours.

Which just goes to show how flawed an abortion ban with exceptions can be.

Here's a way to make it simpler and prevent innocent people from getting caught up in (or killed by) bureaucracy and legalese: just make abortions legal. Problem solved.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2012-11-14 18:59:57 and read 1422 times.

How sad for the family of Savita. They have been made the unfortunate victims of other people's perverted sense of priorities. To refuse an abortion that could have saved her life when the foetus was unsurvivable is the height of misogyny. To place a "moral" view higher than the life of an actual person shoes how little the person is valued. Where was the Christian charity of which we hear so much?

These cruel people will no doubt persuade themselves that they are right and the outcome is "unfortunate".

The sad irony is that just two months ago, at a symposium held in Dublin, 140 medical professionals issued a Declaration in which they stated, "As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman."

Unfortunate, indeed.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-11-14 20:40:21 and read 1462 times.

You know what? I want DocLightning's take on this. What would he have done if he was placed in that situation???

Doc?

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2012-11-14 23:11:24 and read 1473 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 6):
By that logic why do we have health care at all, or require people to wear seatbelts, helmets etc.

Beside that we have obvious double standards, wearing helmets is not playing with fate IMHO. In the same way you can get up and leave home earlier, and thus avoid a meteorite impact you could not foresee.

But treating the injuries is a different animal than taking safety precautions.



David

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: Pyrex
Posted 2012-11-15 05:59:41 and read 1474 times.

Quoting flipdewaf (Thread starter):
Pro Life?

Yep. You pro-death?

Quoting flipdewaf (Thread starter):
Seems very sad thet in these modern times people and societies can still be so backward.

Seems very sad that in these modern times some people still believe the definition of progress is being able to kill babies left and right when they don't like the outcome of their own decisions. Me, when I think of progress, I think about flying cars and hover-boards. Your definition is a world free of any consequences.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 22):
The doctor did not see that the life of the mother was in danger.

Yep - in that case an abortion would have been acceptable. But don't let facts get in the way of a good liberal rant...

RIP to Mrs. Halappanavar - she clearly deserves better than to be used as a liberal pawn after her unfortunate death.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: blrsea
Posted 2012-11-15 06:38:50 and read 1467 times.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 27):
Yep - in that case an abortion would have been acceptable. But don't let facts get in the way of a good liberal rant...

RIP to Mrs. Halappanavar - she clearly deserves better than to be used as a liberal pawn after her unfortunate death.

When the foetus was clearly unsurvivable, they could have terminated it to alleviate the suffering of the mother and probably increase her chances of surviving. But of course, given their religious affliation, they failed to ensure that.

All these people, like the hospital etc who are saying the doctors did the right thing and then in the same breath saying they condole her death are hypocrites, knowing fully well that they valued a dying foetus over the health of the mother.

I guess people won't realize the loss until it hits closer to home.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2012-11-15 06:52:19 and read 1471 times.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 27):
You pro-death?

no, pro choice. You ever eaten meat?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 27):
able to kill babies left and right

I thought we were discussing foetuses, why are you bringing babies into this?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 27):
when I think of progress, I think about flying cars and hover-boards

You are stuck in the 1950's then, good to make sure.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 27):
they don't like the outcome of their own decisions

Or sometimes people need a second chance if things don't go according to plan or accidents happen. I do not believe that abortion should be used as a premeditated use of birth control but accidents do happen, I'd rather have one baby with a good life than 3 with poor lives.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 27):
RIP to Mrs. Halappanavar

Absolutely.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 27):
she clearly deserves better than to be used as a liberal pawn after her unfortunate death.

Agreed, she also deserves better than to be subject to laws based on a work of fiction.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 27):
Yep - in that case an abortion would have been acceptable.

I wonder if it will be found that the law was followed or not, I think they will find that the law was actually broken here and the danger the mother was in was too great.

Fred

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: blrsea
Posted 2012-11-15 06:56:47 and read 1470 times.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 29):
I wonder if it will be found that the law was followed or not, I think they will find that the law was actually broken here and the danger the mother was in was too great.

I seriously doubt that. I have no doubt that they will whitewash the whole issue saying that the doctors didn't think the woman's life was in danger even if she was in unbearable pain with the foetus already having no chance of survival. A bunch of Irish catholics investigating other catholics who are true to their faith will never go against their faith. Some here have already made such arguments.



It is ironical that they want to save unborn foetueses, but care two hoots before raping the children. Well, if you look at it that way, the church is just making sure that no foetuses are killed so that they have a steady stream of children to molest.

[Edited 2012-11-15 06:58:43]

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: mad99
Posted 2012-11-15 07:15:01 and read 1469 times.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 30):
A bunch of Irish catholics investigating other catholics who are true to their faith will never go against their faith

Stupid comment.

Obviously the doctors thought things were under control but something terrible happened.

My wife's first pregnancy involved bleeding, trips to hospital and several months of laying flat. Sometimes this things are not so simple.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: blrsea
Posted 2012-11-15 07:21:00 and read 1466 times.

Quoting mad99 (Reply 31):
Obviously the doctors thought things were under control but something terrible happened.

Exactly what did they have under control when according to them, the foetus was clearly not survivable, and the woman was in lot of pain? Control of their faith I guess

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2012-11-15 07:27:55 and read 1471 times.

Quoting flipdewaf (Thread starter):
Seems very sad thet in these modern times people and societies can still be so backward.

Pretty sad but the also she could have gone to England, it a short flight or ferry trip the problem could have been resolved, rather like the thousands of Irish women who do similar each year.



It would also appear to me that the Dr's and hospital admisinstrators were in a catch 22 situation, had they gone through with the abortion they would have been breaking the law and might have gone to gaol, the sensible thing to have done was her GP pointing to a map of the UK and said you can sort it out over there where it's not illegial.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: blrsea
Posted 2012-11-15 07:45:59 and read 1469 times.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 33):
Pretty sad but the also she could have gone to England, it a short flight or ferry trip the problem could have been resolved, rather like the thousands of Irish women who do similar each year.

She wanted the child, but then unfortunately, she suffered a miscarraige. She was admitted to the hospital with severe back pain, when the doctor said that the foetus had no chance of survival. Her cervix was open (leading to chances of infection). She was in severe pain and was probably in no condition to travel. She had requested the doctors to remove the foetus but they declined saying "they are a catholic country" and can't remove the foetus while its heart is beating even if it had no chance of survival. She suffered for three days till the foetus heartbeat stopped. By that time, she was severely infected and vomiting and fell down unconscious in the bathroom. She was shifted to ICU where she never recovered.

She was probably in no condition to travel to England. And when you are admitted to a hospital, one would assume that the doctors there would have your best interests at heart. Unfortunately, they didn't realize they were dealing with cold-hearted religious zealots who valued a dying foetus over the woman's life! the irony of "pro-lifers"!

[Edited 2012-11-15 07:47:05]

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: mad99
Posted 2012-11-15 08:05:43 and read 1468 times.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 33):
had they gone through with the abortion they would have been breaking the law and might have gone to gaol,

We'll see what the report says but I'm sure the doctors would have aborted to save her life, its legal.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 34):
they didn't realize they were dealing with cold-hearted religious zealots who valued a dying foetus over the woman's life! the irony of "pro-lifers"!

more stupid comments.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: braybuddy
Posted 2012-11-15 08:11:56 and read 1464 times.

A very sad situation indeed, and one that was bound to happen, given that successive governments in this country have failed to frame abortion legislation following on from the Supreme Court ruling back in 1992.

While it is a terrible tragedy for the woman and family involved, doctors in the hospital were in the unenviable position of being prosecuted for carrying out an illegal abortion, due to the failure on the part of our legislators to enact any sort of abortion legistation over the last twenty years.

Politicians in this country have been terrified of upsetting the pro-life lobby over the years, but particularly so coming up to elections, when they are out in force, bullying politicians who are terrified of losing their seats. Back in the 1980s they were such an influential group that they forced cowed politicians into holding a referendum to enshrine a ban on abortion in our constitution. They succeeded, but it backfired on them subsequently when, after a couple of legal challenges, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion actually WAS legal in the country, whenever there was a real or substantial risk to the mother. That infuriated the pro-life lobby no end, of course, and only served to redouble their (by now dwindling) efforts to keep abortion on the political agenda.

The country, if not the politicians, have moved on from this sorry mess that the pro-lifers dragged us into all those years ago, and finally the government will HAVE to legislate on abortion, albeit unfortunately too late for Savita Halappanavar. After twenty years of kicking the can down the road this issue is suddenly firmly on the political agenda again. Most people in the country are angry and horrified that a beautiful young woman should have to lose her life in such circumstances, and if there is any good to come out of this awful tragedy, it is that there is no way that our political elite can doge the abortion issue any longer.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: blrsea
Posted 2012-11-15 09:37:20 and read 1462 times.

Quoting mad99 (Reply 35):
more stupid comments.

Typical response , resorting to name calling and trying to brush away issues when they can't be explained within the narrow religious prism. Didn't expect much anyway  

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: lewis
Posted 2012-11-15 09:51:58 and read 1458 times.

Quoting thomil13FRA (Reply 18):

Yeah it is still a bit fuzzy, I don't get why there is no clear law on this already.

Quoting AM744 (Reply 20):

By considering the fetus a citizen on conception, what happens if there is a miscarriage because the mother did something wrong, or had an accident and fell. Is she guilty of negligence, same as if the baby was born and then died while under her care? I don't get this concept.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: starbuk7
Posted 2012-11-15 11:41:18 and read 1458 times.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 32):
Exactly what did they have under control when according to them, the foetus was clearly not survivable, and the woman was in lot of pain?


So exactly where in the diagnosis did it say for certain that the fetus was causing that pain?? There seem to be some assumptions being made here.

It is sad that this woman had to die, but jumping to conclusions without all the facts seems ridiculous.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: shamrock350
Posted 2012-11-15 16:44:31 and read 1453 times.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 32):
Exactly what did they have under control when according to them, the foetus was clearly not survivable, and the woman was in lot of pain? Control of their faith I guess

You're making it sound like the doctors personal beliefs got in the way of their decision, this wasn't the case or at least is very unlikely to be the case. What the doctors faced was a decision to let the miscarriage continue naturally and treat Savita Halappanavar accordingly or perform a termination which is illegal in Ireland and would probably result in prosecution. You don't even know the doctors were Catholic. It was the law, the failure of governments to legislate something 20 years ago and the Catholic church that in my opinion, based on the current known facts, killed Savita Halappanavar and not the personal beliefs of a few individuals in that hospital.

Ireland let her down, a backwards law meant she was abandoned when she needed help the most. I think the majority of Irish people are ashamed and sorry this happened, I know I am and we want change.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: lewis
Posted 2012-11-15 17:10:06 and read 1448 times.

Quoting shamrock350 (Reply 40):

Then it is up to the doctors to prove that based on their medical experience they were sure that the woman's life was not threatened at any time because of her pregnancy. This would mean that there was not even one member of the staff considering the opposite. That is yet to be cleared up and hopefully the investigation and peer review will shed some light on the matter.
In addition to that, maybe next time they will choose their words more wisely. "This is a Catholic country" is not the same as "the procedure is illegal", they should have just stuck to the latter instead of the first, or both. It was them who brought in religion, while they should have just stuck to the law as an excuse.

[Edited 2012-11-15 17:10:56]

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-11-15 17:33:36 and read 1451 times.

Quoting shamrock350 (Reply 40):
What the doctors faced was a decision to let the miscarriage continue naturally and treat Savita Halappanavar accordingly or perform a termination which is illegal in Ireland and would probably result in prosecution.

Illegal or not. Not only one life was lost, but TWO were lost in this situation. That is not good. I bet that the doctors in Ireland is probably facing a malpractice lawsuit as well as the hospital in question. This woman's life could have been saved, period. Had the doctors did the abortion, this wouldn't have been an issue and the woman would be making her recovery right now.

Quoting shamrock350 (Reply 40):
It was the law, the failure of governments to legislate something 20 years ago and the Catholic church that in my opinion, based on the current known facts, killed Savita Halappanavar and not the personal beliefs of a few individuals in that hospital.

I agree with the first of your statement, but not the last part. The doctors did NOTHING to protect the woman. NOTHING! To me, that is malpractice and those doctors need their medical licenses revoked. Ireland really needs to get on the ball on this issue and make abortion legal. Otherwise, more cases (no matter how rare these happen, even if this was a first) will pop up.

I am pro-choice. Let the women decide what's best for them and leave religion at home.

Quoting lewis (Reply 41):
"This is a Catholic country" is not the same as "the procedure is illegal", they should have just stuck to the latter instead of the first, or both. It was them who brought in religion, while they should have just stuck to the law as an excuse.

  

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-11-15 18:02:16 and read 1452 times.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 27):
RIP to Mrs. Halappanavar - she clearly deserves better than to be used as a liberal pawn after her unfortunate death.

What she deserves better than is to be accused of wanting to kill her baby because she doesn't like the outcome of her own decisions.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: mad99
Posted 2012-11-15 23:06:20 and read 1442 times.

Quoting shamrock350 (Reply 40):
would probably result in prosecution

Not if it was done to save her life.

Quoting shamrock350 (Reply 40):
Ireland let her down, a backwards law meant she was abandoned when she needed help the most.

We shall see once the inquest is over.

Quoting shamrock350 (Reply 40):
majority of Irish people are ashamed and sorry this happened, I know I am and we want change.

agreed

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: AM744
Posted 2012-11-16 12:46:04 and read 1434 times.

Quoting mad99 (Reply 31):
Quoting lewis (Reply 38):
By considering the fetus a citizen on conception, what happens if there is a miscarriage because the mother did something wrong, or had an accident and fell. Is she guilty of negligence, same as if the baby was born and then died while under her care?

I wonder that myself. I don't agree with the Irish position.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-11-16 13:36:04 and read 1435 times.

Quoting mad99 (Reply 44):
We shall see once the inquest is over.

Oh, these doctors are guilty of murder not once but possibly twice!!! They abandoned her and the Hippocratic Oath!

Quoting AM744 (Reply 45):
I don't agree with the Irish position.

Same here. I hope they change the laws.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2012-11-16 19:59:35 and read 1431 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 46):
They abandoned her and the Hippocratic Oath!

They may have abandoned her but whether they had bound themselves by any oath is open to question.

The Hippocratic Oath was replaced in some places by the Geneva Declaration. But did not the Hippocratic Oath, in an earlier version include the words, "I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy," while a later version included, "I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." Another version, published on the Irish Catholic Doctors' website states, "I will maintain the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life."

As far as I am aware there is no legal requirement for doctors in Ireland to swear an oath. They are, however bound by the Medical Act and the Guide To Professional Conduct And Ethics For Registered Medical Practitioners. This outlines the legal restriction on abortion and provides that while a doctor may refuse to treat a patient on the grounds of conscience, he/she must offer the names of alternative doctors who may be willing to and it does not absolve them of their responsibility to the patient in the event of an emergency.

Topic: RE: Pro Life? Not Sure?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-11-16 20:58:24 and read 1431 times.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 47):
"I will maintain the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life."

The doctors clearly failed on that. They never respected anyone in this situation. How is a dead foetus in a mothers womb classified as "unique human life"?? Why is a dead foetus more important than the mother's who was still living at the time??

Seems to me like the doctors threw out the "Do No Harm" right out the window. To me, again, that's downright criminal and warrants murder charges. Not only one life was lost.....two lives were lost.

Disgusting.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/