Abortion debate thread

ehcocmeo

Just wanted to share this story with you all.

The other Thread I started seems to have gotten off the rails.

This thread is to share our Pro-life experiences and to stand up for Ireland being rail roaded into legislation we don't need.

Then there are the other, even sadder confessions, from those like Sharon Osbourne:

The former “Osbournes” star said she suffered three miscarriages after having an abortion at the age of 17 due to damage sustained by her cervix. The 59-year-old mother of three said, “Everybody has something in the closet, and I reckon the best policy is always to be honest, then it can’t come back to haunt you.” Calling her abortion “the worst thing I ever did,” she states that should would “never recommend” the procedure to anyone.

Sharon’s story gets worse:

I was two months gone when I realised. I went to my mum and she said, without pausing for breath: ‘You have to get rid of it.’

She told me where the clinic was, then virtually pushed me off. She was so angry. She said I’d got myself in this mess, now she had to get me out.

But she didn’t come. I went alone. I was terrified. It was full of other young girls, and we were all terrified and looking at each other and nobody was saying a bloody word. I howled my way through it, and it was horrible.


"I would never recommend it to anyone because it comes back to haunt you. When I tried to have children, I lost three - I think it was because something had happened to my cervix during the abortion. After three miscarriages, they had to put a stitch in it.

"In life, whatever it is, you pay somewhere down the line. You have to be accountable."

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/05/sharon-osbourne-and-penny-marshalls-abortions-regret-vs-indifference/

newmug

I was at the Prolife seminar in Dublin a few weeks ago. It was the first one I was ever at. There was a few hundred people at it. Most were talking about how "big" the crowd was.

I was appaled.

In all of Ireland, were there really only a handful of a few hundred, enough to fill a small function room, who actually cared enough about pro-life isues to bother their barneys to go to a meeting? Was that really it?

itell_you

newmug wrote: »

I was at the Prolife seminar in Dublin a few weeks ago. It was the first one I was ever at. There was a few hundred people at it. Most were talking about how "big" the crowd was.

I was appaled.

In all of Ireland, were there really only a handful of a few hundred, enough to fill a small function room, who actually cared enough about pro-life isues to bother their barneys to go to a meeting? Was that really it?

if they packed out a hotel conference centre thats hardly small

ehcocmeo

newmug wrote: »

I was at the Prolife seminar in Dublin a few weeks ago. It was the first one I was ever at. There was a few hundred people at it. Most were talking about how "big" the crowd was.

I was appaled.

In all of Ireland, were there really only a handful of a few hundred, enough to fill a small function room, who actually cared enough about pro-life isues to bother their barneys to go to a meeting? Was that really it?

I personally don't go to any pro-life events. Neither do many of my family. But if it came to changing Irish laws on Abortion you will find that Majority of Irish Society would not abortion or would not allow the laws to be Changed.

Abortion is simply not a option you put on the table.

itell_you

ehcocmeo wrote: »

I personally don't go to any pro-life events. Neither do many of my family. But if it came to changing Irish laws on Abortion you will find that Majority of Irish Society would not abortion or would not allow the laws to be Changed.

Abortion is simply not a option you put on the table.

im quite worried its the other way and hope wont come to any sort of referendum before people have been presented the facts on what abortion does.

28064212

ehcocmeo wrote: »

But if it came to changing Irish laws on Abortion you will find that Majority of Irish Society would not abortion or would not allow the laws to be Changed.

Since the introduction of the constitutional ban on abortion, there have been 4 referendums on the subject in Ireland. The pro-life side has lost all of them.

Blinkus

In a study from the book "Rachel weeping: The case against abortion" 75% of women who had an abortion 15 years ago or more, regretted it. This was in America.

The problem with judging moral decisions by feelings is these feelings cannot be recreated at a later date. Sure, it felt right for people at the time, but after a while it peals away and their left with a decision they'll regret for the rest of their life. They need our prayers.

28064212

Blinkus wrote: »

In a study from the book "Rachel weeping: The case against abortion" 75% of women who had an abortion 15 years ago or more, regretted it. This was in America.

Do you have a link (or even a title) to the original study?

totus tuus

The Unspoken Pain of Abortion, a book by Theresa Burke, a psychotherapist and founder of post-abortion training and healing ministry Rachel's Vineyard. Reading some of the comments on the page by women who have had abortions is saddening!

http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Grief-Unspoken-Pain-Abortion/dp/0964895781

ehcocmeo

totus tuus wrote: »

The Unspoken Pain of Abortion, a book by Theresa Burke, a psychotherapist and founder of post-abortion training and healing ministry Rachel's Vineyard. Reading some of the comments on the page by women who have had abortions is saddening!

http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Grief-Unspoken-Pain-Abortion/dp/0964895781

Thanks for sharing.

some of the review of women who bought the book,

I am a post-abortive woman, who after 36 years of silence and denial, is finally finding healing and peace from the nightmare of my 3 abortions. My journey started by seeing a small box ad for Rachel's Vineyard retreats and then investigating their web site - www.rachelsvineyard.org. It was there that I "met" Theresa Burke and ordered this wonderful book. It was this book's honesty and courage that gave me the courage to go to my retreat. Theresa Burke investigates and reveals the horrors that many post-abortion women suffer. She also offers hope for healing. This is a MUST read for anyone touched by abortion's nightmare. Thank you Theresa Burke.

Over ten years ago I had two abortions and this book was a real eye opener! I didn't understand, why I have felt such strong sadness and grief or had such overwhelming periods of anxiety and panic attacks at certain times or events throughout the year. This book was insightful and full of hope and healing. I see now that I wasn't "going mad" but just another victim of society's lie that abortions don't really affect you. I was touched and very moved by the stories of other women. It was very healing for me that I could really relate to their stories and that I did not feel alone in my pain.

I saw this book recommended on a website first where the author, who is a pschychiatrist was being interviewed. It has stories from many women who have had an abortion, how it has affected their lives and the necessary grieving process that may be years in happening. My 55 year old daughter was in tears recently when relating that the child she aborted would have been 25 years old now.

Read this book. It changed my life. Almost had an abortion with my daughter... the guilt and pain over only thinking about it caught me off guard. My heart goes out to all the women and men who are currently suffering in silence after their abortion experiences...

I am a post-abortive woman, who after 36 years of silence and denial, is finally finding healing and peace from the nightmare of my 3 abortions. My journey started by seeing a small box ad for Rachel's Vineyard retreats and then investigating their web site - www.rachelsvineyard.org. It was there that I "met" Theresa Burke and ordered this wonderful book. It was this book's honesty and courage that gave me the courage to go to my retreat. Theresa Burke investigates and reveals the horrors that many post-abortion women suffer. She also offers hope for healing. This is a MUST read for anyone touched by abortion's nightmare. Thank you Theresa Burke.

Blinkus

28064212 wrote: »

Do you have a link (or even a title) to the original study?

"A survey of women conducted 15 years after their abortions found that 75% regretted having the abortion and by their own testimony, said they made the wrong choice.(5)"

Research of psychologist David C. Reardon from his books "Rachel Weeping" and "Abortive Women: Silent No More".

From: http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Harm_to_Women

You'll have to do some digging yourself, as the actual study does not seem to be public so you can attempt to poke holes in it to justify your position. But get the books, and you'll see it's reliable. If you google "Aborted Women, Silent No More studies" you might find it there. But that depends on you wanting to find it.

itell_you

totus tuus wrote: »

The Unspoken Pain of Abortion, a book by Theresa Burke, a psychotherapist and founder of post-abortion training and healing ministry Rachel's Vineyard. Reading some of the comments on the page by women who have had abortions is saddening!

http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Grief-Unspoken-Pain-Abortion/dp/0964895781

Yes a Rachels Vineyard representative said some interesting things recentyl

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/1011/ireland/fury-as-woman-outlines-abortion-at-mass-210541.html

A priest has sparked controversy after he arranged for a woman to give a graphic account of her abortion at a children’s Mass and outline how she believed her special needs child was a punishment from God.

The woman, who lives in the Cork area, was a representative of the Rachel’s Vineyard organisation. Set up in the US by the pro-life Priests for Life organisation, Rachel’s Vineyard provides counselling and retreats to women who have had abortions.

One of the parishioners, a parent of a child with special needs, said he was "gutted" and "horrified" by the speech. He described the decision to allow the woman to speak as "crazy".

If Ireland is to remain pro-life you might want to tell this woman to keep her mouth shut.

Gumbi

Pretty horrible of that actually happened. If I still went to mass there's a chance I'd have gone up to the mic and invited anyone who vehemently opposed this kind of nonsense to leave.

How do Christians here feel about this incident?

Benny_Cake

It sounds like a standard pro-life argument until she went off the reservation talking about her disabled children.

It doesn't say a lot for the counselling services offered by Rachels Vineyard because this woman still seems genuinely disturbed. It was a serious error of judgement on the part of the priest and I'd be taking myself elsewhere of a Sunday.

Onesimus

In fairness to the priest though, he had no idea she was going to say that. I mean what kind of person would say something like that?

I suppose he should have asked her to outline in her talk what she was going to say and how she was going to put it across beforehand.

Gumbi

I always hated God's punishing me for x, you for x. Really grinds my gears.

Northclare

Gumbi wrote: »

Pretty horrible of that actually happened. If I still went to mass there's a chance I'd have gone up to the mic and invited anyone who vehemently opposed this kind of nonsense to leave.

How do Christians here feel about this incident?

Well ill give my opinion,I'm spiritual but what that priest did was uncalled for.
Kids don't need to hear that kinda thing.
And there should have been an over 18's cert outside the door...

Northclare

Gumbi wrote: »

I always hated God's punishing me for x, you for x. Really grinds my gears.

But if you don't believe in God, what the point in the hate

28064212

Blinkus wrote: »

"A survey of women conducted 15 years after their abortions found that 75% regretted having the abortion and by their own testimony, said they made the wrong choice.(5)"

Research of psychologist David C. Reardon from his books "Rachel Weeping" and "Abortive Women: Silent No More".

From: http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Harm_to_Women

You'll have to do some digging yourself, as the actual study does not seem to be public so you can attempt to poke holes in it to justify your position. But get the books, and you'll see it's reliable. If you google "Aborted Women, Silent No More studies" you might find it there. But that depends on you wanting to find it.

What do you know, I wanted to find it, and I did, on abortionfacts.com (a very misnamed site itself). There's a little gem of information that you failed to mention when you brought up the 75% figure: the survey was conducted solely on members of an anti-abortion group. I haven't done the reverse and asked a pro-choice group, but I'm pretty sure I could come up with a figure a lot closer to 0% that regretted it. It would be a totally meaningless figure, just like Reardon's.

Gumbi

Northclare wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

I always hated God's punishing me for x, you for x. Really grinds my gears.

But if you don't believe in God, what the point in the hate

I hate the idea of it.

MrTsSnickers

Surely that 75% regret rate is similar to asking people who attend religious services if they believe in god then publishing that 100% respondents believe in god? It's a bit skewed and you cannot generalise to the greater population.

ehcocmeo

Who was Marie Stopes? Marie Stopes was a radical feminist, an imperialist and a believer in racial purity.
A firm supporter of the Eugenics Society, she bequeathed her London birth control clinic to the Society and advised the National Birth Rate Commission in 1919 on mandatory sterilisation for parents exhibiting disease, drunkenness or bad character. If she were dictator of England, she told the Guernsey Star and Gazette in 1935, she would "link up the whole British Empire and urge people to: breed for fitness, beauty and a joyous existence."
A supporter of Hitler's breeding programme in Germany, she sent the Fuhrer a book of poetry in August 1939, a month before the outbreak of war, with this note:
"Dear Herr Hitler, Love is the greatest thing in the world: so you will accept from me these (poems) that you may allow the young people of your nation to have them?"
Anyone for a bet on what the response of our country's anti-fascists will be to the opening of a clinic bearing the name Marie Stopes? A tenner says they'll keep their heads down and ignore the elephant in the room.

ehcocmeo

No wonder she was friends with Margaret Sanger

JimiTime

In the words of the late Ronald Reagan, "I notice all the people who are pro-abortion are conveniently already born"

Gumbi

JimiTime wrote: »

In the words of the late Ronald Reagan, "I notice all the people who are pro-abortion are conveniently already born"

And a pretty dam meaningless statement it is.

JimiTime

Gumbi wrote: »

And a pretty dam meaningless statement it is.

Let me explain it to you so, seeing how you don't know what it means.

Abortion is the killing of a human life before it is born.

Someone who is for abortion, has already been born, so there is no risk to their life by allowing unborn humans to be killed.

So, the statement by RR brings to attention, the fact that it is convenient to be all about the right to choose to kill ones unborn child, while the person has already passed through the birth canal of their mother.
Does that clear it up for you?

lukesmom

I actually can't believe we are still debating this years later. Of course abortion should be legalised for those who don't wish to carry on with their pregnancies. I don't see that terminating an UNBORN fetus is murder. You can't kill something that isn't alive in my opinion. I have 3 children, one of which is 10 weeks old. I love my kids but when I got pregnant at 21 I could have easily gone down the route of a termination but decided against. Not for moral or religious reasons, but because I actually wanted to keep my baby and felt I could look after him to the best of my being. I'm quite aware however that some feel they cannot carry on and have no other option but to terminate.

Who am I or you to judge these women????? Nobody should judge them, it is their own business and yes I'm a Christian. Being a Christian to me means not judging others and accepting people as much as I can. Not making them feel like sh*t for their choices. To me that is the most unchristian act of all.

philologos

lukesmom wrote: »

I actually can't believe we are still debating this years later. Of course abortion should be legalised for those who don't wish to carry on with their pregnancies. I don't see that terminating an UNBORN fetus is murder. You can't kill something that isn't alive in my opinion. I have 3 children, one of which is 10 weeks old. I love my kids but when I got pregnant at 21 I could have easily gone down the route of a termination but decided against. Not for moral or religious reasons, but because I actually wanted to keep my baby and felt I could look after him to the best of my being. I'm quite aware however that some feel they cannot carry on and have no other option but to terminate.

Who am I or you to judge these women????? Nobody should judge them, it is their own business and yes I'm a Christian. Being a Christian to me means not judging others and accepting people as much as I can. Not making them feel like sh*t for their choices. To me that is the most unchristian act of all.

I'm not judging anyone for the record. I believe that there are Biblical standards as a Christian that I need to believe and trust in. The Bible, which most Christians believe to be the inspired word of God holds life in a high regard in plenty of passages, and I could cite many to you. As a Christian, as a result of being forgiven by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I am called into a new relationship with God, and I'm called to grow more and more in pursuit of holiness until the day when Jesus returns. I am to love what God loves, and to hate what God hates.

I'm going to be blunt with you. I hate abortion-by-choice. There's no better word for it. The idea that people should be able to kill a child for any reason sickens me. Abortion by medical necessity to saves the mothers life is different. But to claim that a mother can kill a child for any reason whatsoever sickens me. Honestly.

Now, what does this mean in respect to the person who has already aborted. I still as a Christian am called to love and respect her irrespective of what she has done. We are to proclaim the love and mercy of Jesus Christ on Calvary so that people can know Him, and be forgiven by His name. For the record, all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). Therefore I am as much a sinner as she, irrespective of what she has done. So, in short, Christianity teaches very clearly love the sinner, hate the sin. Sin causes brokenness, destruction, hatred, lies, disunity, hostility, and all other kinds of disorder in our world. I must oppose it as a Bible believing Christian. However, the Bible reveals to us that there will be a point where all things will be united under Jesus Christ. I need to pursue that unity in this universe. Unity under Jesus Christ means I stand by His standards, not under my own.

It is by rebelling against Jesus, that we find disorder and disunity, all kinds of hatred, all kinds of hostility, all kinds of brokenness. We need to believe and trust in Him, and repent and believe in the Gospel.

The objective of the Christian position isn't to make people feel like "****" has you've put it. The objective of the Christian position is to love God and to seek for Him with zeal, and to stand by His standards because they are the very best thing for this world. This world, by and large hates Jesus, and by and large wants nothing to do with Him. We are called to bring people to Him, and to encourage people to live and speak for Him. As a result there's going to be division between Christians and non-Christians on many issues, but it is important that you understand why Christians live the way they do. It is because of a love of God and neighbour, that was so profoundly demonstrated by Christ Jesus our King on Calvary.

Please feel free to respond to my post, I'd be delighted to tell you more about how this fits into believing and trusting in Jesus. If you're also interested in finding out more about what Biblical basis there is for my position, I'd be glad to walk it through with you.

JimiTime

lukesmom wrote: »

I actually can't believe we are still debating this years later. Of course abortion should be legalised for those who don't wish to carry on with their pregnancies. I don't see that terminating an UNBORN fetus is murder. You can't kill something that isn't alive in my opinion.

so if an unborn human is not alive, then what is it?

I'm quite aware however that some feel they cannot carry on and have no other option but to terminate.

And part of the abortion issue is identifying and tackling the reasons why a woman would feel this way. At the end of the day, I think there are a couple of things to consider.

1) Its a damning indictment on mankind, that we wish to kill our children, be they born or unborn.
2) Its also a damning indictment on society, if there are circumstances (Apart from selfishness or apathy) that lead to women feeling that this is the only option.

Who am I or you to judge these women????? Nobody should judge them

Its not about judging women. I certainly think we can judge women who are willy nilly about such things, but ultimately, its not about judging women, but rather saving children. There is probably a greater need for compassion and empathy towards women who have unwanted pregnancies, and I'm certainly not into hurling abuse at them, or shouting MURDER. I'm certainly not apathetic to people ending the lives of unborn children neither though.

, it is their own business.

But its not. Its also the business of the human life growing in her belly, which contrary to your initial assertion is very much alive.

So to deal with your fist line 'I actually can't believe we are still debating this years later.',
The reason there is still a debate, is that nothing has changed. Unborn children are still unborn children, and there still exist people who wish to make available a legal service which kills them.

Lingua Franca

Hey, since you're spamming this post:

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Who was Marie Stopes? Marie Stopes was a radical feminist, an imperialist and a believer in racial purity.
A firm supporter of the Eugenics Society, she bequeathed her London birth control clinic to the Society and advised the National Birth Rate Commission in 1919 on mandatory sterilisation for parents exhibiting disease, drunkenness or bad character. If she were dictator of England, she told the Guernsey Star and Gazette in 1935, she would "link up the whole British Empire and urge people to: breed for fitness, beauty and a joyous existence."
A supporter of Hitler's breeding programme in Germany, she sent the Fuhrer a book of poetry in August 1939, a month before the outbreak of war, with this note:
"Dear Herr Hitler, Love is the greatest thing in the world: so you will accept from me these (poems) that you may allow the young people of your nation to have them?"
Anyone for a bet on what the response of our country's anti-fascists will be to the opening of a clinic bearing the name Marie Stopes? A tenner says they'll keep their heads down and ignore the elephant in the room.

I'll spam my response.

Hi there! Nice post, and definitely worthy of Godwinning around. You're sure zinging those pro choicers with that rock solid connection to Hitler!

You missed a few wee facts, though.

1. Marie Stopes was anti abortion.

2. The pro life movement has current direct connections to fascists. (4 links there, enjoy)

3. If you think that the name "Marie Stopes International" is a connection to Hitler then I really hope you've never bought any clothes or products from Hugo Boss, insurance from Allianz, medication from Bayer, driven a Ford, used an IBM computer or a Seimens phone or drank a Fanta, because if you have then you are a Nazi.


If we are to follow your reasoning, there can be no doubt that pro life = fascism.

Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention.

ehcocmeo

JimiTime wrote: »

In the words of the late Ronald Reagan, "I notice all the people who are pro-abortion are conveniently already born"

I heard something the other day.. Why do you care what pro-choice does.. Sure one less child from "those" people just helps them self destruct. Obviously I don't agree. But I understand the logic.

Lingua Franca

ehcocmeo wrote: »

I heard something the other day.. Why do you care what pro-choice does.. Sure one less child from "those" people just helps them self destruct. Obviously I don't agree. But I understand the logic.

Oh, you couldn't fault that logic for sure. This pro choice person has 3 children and is considering another. How many have you got?

I'll take your silence on my previous post as embarrassment.

Morbert

ehcocmeo wrote: »

This thread is to share our Pro-life experiences and to stand up for Ireland being rail roaded into legislation we don't need.

Just to stir the pot.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html#.UKL8MDEf720.facebook

VinLieger

Really looking forward to the youth defence cronies explaining the recent ad campiagn now and how there is "always a better answer" and how "abortion never saves the mothers life" ahem http://www.youthdefence.ie/am_cms_media/medical-treatments-for-pregnant-women.pdf

Pretty sure Savita Halappanavars husband might be able to argue a different view and i doubt anybody of a rational mind could disagree with it

PDN

The death of this woman, and the death of a baby she wanted to have, is a tragedy. It would appear from reports that this is a result of medical error.

No doubt unscrupulous and dishonest people will try to exploit her death to argue for abortion on demand.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

The death of this woman, and the death of a baby she wanted to have, is a tragedy. It would appear from reports that this is a result of medical error.

No doubt unscrupulous and dishonest people will try to exploit her death to argue for abortion on demand.

What was the medical error?

MrP

super_furry

She died because "this is a Catholic Country."

Not for much longer thankfully and the people should finally be able to force a government into providing legislation that's 20 years overdue.

Gumbi

super_furry wrote: »

She died because "this is a Catholic Country."

Not for much longer thankfully and the people should finally be able to force a government into providing legislation that's 20 years overdue.

I'm not 100% sure of that yet. Isn't there legislation already in place for mothers whose lives are in danger?

KazDub

MrPudding wrote: »

What was the medical error?

MrP

..that she wasn't given a life saving abortion when she should have had one! :rolleyes:

doctoremma

KazDub wrote: »

..that she wasn't given a life saving abortion when she should have had one! :rolleyes:

I agree with this (although it's opinion, not grounded in legal fact).

I would assume that when a woman begins to miscarry, things are allowed to progress naturally for a short time. At a point where it becomes dangerous for the woman (retention of dead or dying fetal material), there would be surgical intervention to remove any remaining fetal material.

This woman was forced to miscarry for three days, during which she became ill. After three days, she again requested surgical intervention but was denied, when it must have been perfectly clear to the medical team that the fetus was not viable and was presenting a serious risk to her life.

That's a grave medical error in my book.

Manach

Even if the abortion had been performed at that time, what is the clear medical evidence that the woman's life would have been saved. Ireland has a Catholic life affirming heritage and this shows by the world class nature of maternity care in this country, from WHO statistics.

Fanny Cradock

super_furry wrote: »

She died because "this is a Catholic Country."

Who are you quoting exactly? I notice that the Guardian ran the exact same quote. It too did not list any source.

doctoremma

Manach wrote: »

Even if the abortion had been performed at that time, what is the clear medical evidence that the woman's life would have been saved

Of course, we will never know.

If a fetal heartbeat had not been detectable, a D and C (or similar) would have been performed as standard. Removal of dead or dying tissue is recommended to prevent infections and so forth. With a fetal heartbeat, the doctor refused to treat the patient. This is even as it was perfectly clear to the medical team that she was miscarrying (her cervix was dilated, her amniotic sac was torn) and that waiting for the fetus to die "naturally" could only place her at increased risk of complications.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Who are you quoting exactly? I notice that the Guardian ran the exact same quote. It too did not list any source.

It's the husband's account:

"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 [who was Indian and a Hindu] said: 'I am neither Irish nor Catholic,' but they said there was nothing they could do."

KazDub

Manach wrote: »

Even if the abortion had been performed at that time, what is the clear medical evidence that the woman's life would have been saved. Ireland has a Catholic life affirming heritage and this shows by the world class nature of maternity care in this country, from WHO statistics.

Unfortunately miscarriage at 17 weeks isn't uncommon, a pregnancy can spontaneously end at any point, right up until birth. What's uncommon is that this foetus, though dying, still had a heartbeat. Had she gone in to the hospital with a foetus that had no heartbeat none of this would have happened.
Heartbeat or no heartbeat, this pregnancy was always going to end the same, sad way. The injustice and true tragedy lies in the fact that the doctors were unwilling or unable to act because there was still a heartbeat; albeit a feint and unavoidably decreasing one.
One miscarriage badly handled has now resulted in the unnecessary death of the mother too.

Oh, and why must our level of health care be dependent upon a religious ethos. Can't we just have a 'world class nature of maternity care in this country' that's unhindered by the religious beliefs of some?

Lingua Franca

Manach wrote: »

Even if the abortion had been performed at that time, what is the clear medical evidence that the woman's life would have been saved. Ireland has a Catholic life affirming heritage and this shows by the world class nature of maternity care in this country, from WHO statistics.

At least 3 mothers dead in a month, I think the WHO statistics are going to be pretty damning next time round, and then what will you cling to?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Who are you quoting exactly? I notice that the Guardian ran the exact same quote. It too did not list any source.

From Savita's husband interview in the Times.

“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.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

Benny_Cake

doctoremma wrote: »

Of course, we will never know.

If a fetal heartbeat had not been detectable, a D and C (or similar) would have been performed as standard. Removal of dead or dying tissue is needed to prevent infections and so forth. With a fetal heartbeat, the doctor refused to treat the patient. This is even as it was perfectly clear tot he medical team that she was miscarrying (her cervix was dilated, her amniotic sac was torn) and that waiting for the fetus to die "naturally" could only place her at increased risk of complications.

My understanding is that as a result of a fetal heartbeat being present, any intervention would be considered an abortion and as legislation has never been enacted to give effect to the Supreme Court decision in the X case the doctor would have been breaking the law (albeit a law that is now unconstitutional). I'm no expert though.

All said and done, it's a tragedy, one which might have been avoided (we'll never know if she would have died anyway), and it's past time for politicians to take responsibility and legislate for cases such as these.

doctoremma

Benny_Cake wrote: »

My understanding is that as a result of a fetal heartbeat being present, and intervention would be considered an abortion and as legislation has never been enacted to give effect to the Supreme Court decision in the X case the doctor would have been breaking the law (albeit a law that is now unconstitutional). I'm no expert though.

But it would (should?) have been apparent that this woman was becoming seriously ill as a result of her incomplete miscarriage. As I understand, abortion is legal if Mum is at risk? Surely this is practised, no? Apologies if I've made a massive (and incorrect) assumption about Irish abortion law.

PDN

Benny_Cake wrote: »

My understanding is that as a result of a fetal heartbeat being present, any intervention would be considered an abortion and as legislation has never been enacted to give effect to the Supreme Court decision in the X case the doctor would have been breaking the law (albeit a law that is now unconstitutional). I'm no expert though.

All said and done, it's a tragedy, one which might have been avoided (we'll never know if she would have died anyway), and it's past time for politicians to take responsibility and legislate for cases such as these.

No, I don't think that is correct. Both the Constitution and the medical guidelines allow for the removal of a foetus where there is a physical (ie not a mental risk of suicide) threat to the mother's life. The presence of a heartbeat does not change that.

According to one of the links on the Irish Times article in Morbert's pot stirring post, the heartbeat was relevant to this case because it affected the diagnosis.

Septicaemia was an unpredictable event which could happen acutely and prove devastating for the affected person, he said. The existence of a foetal heartbeat could lead to a situation where it might not be considered that septicaemia was a possible complication.

The X case was to do with the risk of suicide. Unless Mrs Halappanavar committed suicide or threatened suicide, then the X case is irrelevant to this case.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

But it would (should?) have been apparent that this woman was becoming seriously ill as a result of her incomplete miscarriage. As I understand, abortion is legal if Mum is at risk? Surely this is practised, no? Apologies if I've made a massive (and incorrect) assumption about Irish abortion law.

No, you are entirely correct.

28064212

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't think that is correct. Both the Constitution and the medical guidelines allow....

But the law does not. Abortion is illegal under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The law is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court ruling, but as it has never been challenged in court, it has never been struck down

PDN wrote: »

The X case was to do with the risk of suicide. Unless Mrs Halappanavar committed suicide or threatened suicide, then the X case is irrelevant to this case.

The X Case ruling stated it was permissible if there was a real and substantial risk to her life, including (but not exclusive to) the risk of suicide. It is very relevant