Savita dies due to refusal to terminate an unviable foetus.*Mod warning Post #1*

rainbow kirby

Ellsbells wrote: »

I am not trying to be argumentative here and the Mods can take down the post if they think it is but if you choose to have an abortion or want the option to have an abortion in the future, what is so wrong with calling it pro abortion?

The bolded words there are the reason why "pro choice" is a more accurate term. "Pro abortion" implies being in favour of abortion as the best choice in all circumstances.

eviltwin

Ellsbells wrote: »

I am not trying to be argumentative here and the Mods can take down the post if they think it is but if you choose to have an abortion or want the option to have an abortion in the future, what is so wrong with calling it pro abortion?

Because I don't think there is anyone out there who is pro abortion. I'm pro choice. I don't want to see women having to have abortions though, its not an easy thing to go through and I wish it never had to happen. I feel sad when I hear about it, I've been there and its not a place I would want anyone to find themselves. I hate that phrase "pro abortion", I feel it undermines the difficulty of the decision and the fear, the worry, the sadness of it all, the lonliness.

I know the point you are trying to make and its all very minor really in the greater scheme of things but its more accurate to say some people are pro choice.

Pawwed Rig

I also hate the phrase pro life. I would assume everybody is pro life as opposed to pro death. In this case anti abortion would seem to be more appropriate.

username123

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I also hate the phrase pro life. I would assume everybody is pro life as opposed to pro death. In this case anti abortion would seem to be more appropriate.

I agree that pro-life is a bit of a misnomer. To my mind a pro-life stance actually causes more deaths in countries where abortion is illegal because not only do the abortions still continue, but womens lives are also lost due to back street abortions and home abortions. It is purely because we export our abortion problem that we dont have the deaths of women to deal with also - I strongly suspect many people with a pro-life stance would rethink it if the news was blasting them with stories of women dead daily from trying to self abort.

Ellsbells

username123 wrote: »

I strongly suspect many people with a pro-life stance would rethink it if the news was blasting them with stories of women dead daily from trying to self abort.

I dont understand what you mean here?

Ellsbells

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

. In this case anti abortion would seem to be more appropriate.

Dont want to be off topic but I dont see how if you choose to abort that you are pro life? I agree anti abortion would be more accurate as well

jelly&icecream

It seems there have been other cases where the ambiguity has caused unnecessary suffering and shortened life.

A woman dying of cancer had to go to the UK to get an abortion
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1122/1224326952282.html

Mr Boylan said her obstetrician was willing to perform a termination but was “hamstrung” by legal issues. The issue was referred to the hospital’s “ad hoc” ethics committee.

He said there was an absence of clear guidelines about what to do and an “appalling delay” ensued. After the committee refused the termination, there were further delays because Ms Harte did not have a passport.

“I couldn’t believe the decision [to refuse an abortion in Ireland] when it came,” Ms Harte, who was then 39, told The Irish Times in December 2010. “Apparently my life wasn’t at immediate risk. It just seemed absolutely ridiculous.”

Her condition worsened significantly during this time and she was not able to receive cancer treatment because she was pregnant. She eventually travelled to Britain for an abortion; she had to be helped on to the aircraft due to a deterioration in her condition.

username123

Ellsbells wrote: »

I dont understand what you mean here?

We do not have to face the reality of a true pro life stance in this country because although abortion is illegal, women can travel to the UK for safe abortions.

Worldwide, thousands of women die each year due to unsafe abortions (somewhere in the region of 70,000) and between 2 and 5 million are left permanently damaged in some way or other.

We dont have to face any of that in Irish society because Irish women travel to the UK. If, however, the UK option was not available to Irish women, we would see death and maiming from back street abortionists, home abortions, women sticking knitting needles into themselves etc...

All the studies show that regardless of being illegal, abortions still happen. The retired UK doctor on Primetime on Tuesday night said that prior to 1967 when abortion was made legal in the UK he frequently saw women dying or with massive infection from unsafe abortions, but since it had been legalised it was unheard of for a woman to try to self abort or go to a criminal abortionist.

Many Irish people who claim to be pro life have not investigated or are not aware of the consequences of that stance on women worldwide, ie, death and maiming. In many ways, illegal abortions actually increase the number of deaths because many mothers die also.

I think if for whatever reason, the UK option was not available to Irish women, and we actually saw the results of that, that many pro life people would feel the price was too high, and that it was a bigger wrong that both the unborn and the mothers were dying due to unsafe abortion.

Ellsbells

Yeah but pro life is pro life no matter how the abortion is performed.... I assume pro life is against all deaths by abortion.

It seems people want Ireland to 'grow up' and offer abortion services the same as the rest of the world. Thats all fine but if we are to grow up and stop hiding behind England then we also need to start calling a spade a spade - to me using phrases like pro choice is just waffle tbh but each to their own and I dont want to get off topic.

eviltwin

Ellsbells wrote: »

Yeah but pro life is pro life no matter how the abortion is performed.... I assume pro life is against all deaths by abortion.

Anyway this is going round in circles. We can agree to disagree as i am worried its getting off topic.

It would take a really sick and disturbed person to feel the deaths of women is a price worth paying if it keeps Ireland abortion free.

username123

Ellsbells wrote: »

Yeah but pro life is pro life no matter how the abortion is performed.... I assume pro life is against all deaths by abortion.

Anyway this is going round in circles. We can agree to disagree as i am worried its getting off topic.

I was just explaining what I meant. People can claim to be pro life in Ireland, but they never actually see the true outcome of that. If they really saw it I dont know how pro life they would really be.

Im not clear what you think we were disagreeing on - I was simply clarifying something I said earlier that you said you didnt understand.

goodie2shoes

eviltwin wrote: »

It would take a really sick and disturbed person to feel the deaths of women is a price worth paying if it keeps Ireland abortion free.

i agree, but would it take a equally sick person to use this woman's death to advance their own agenda?

username123

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i agree, but would it take a equally sick person to use this woman's death to advance their own agenda?

Can you explain this to me. I thought we were just having a discussion? What do you mean by 'agenda'? A few posters have used the word so far and Im not clear on what they mean by it?

On top of that. Do you think it is somehow amoral for a flashpoint incident to trigger discussion on a subject that has long needed discussion? And if so, why? Would you prefer if an individual died this way and no one spoke of it? What good would that do? Where is the wrong in discussing it, particularly if good social change comes as a result?

Or is it just that saying that kind of muddys the water and tries to silence discussion in case its insensitive?

eviltwin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i agree, but would it take a equally sick person to use this woman's death to advance their own agenda?

Hardly comparible is it?

goodie2shoes

eviltwin wrote: »

Hardly comparible is it?

why not?

username123

goodie2shoes wrote: »

why not?

Because you are implying that discussion is a morally wrong thing to do. It doesnt make sense.

eviltwin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

why not?

You really need me to tell you the answer to that one :eek:

Its unfortunate but sometimes it takes an incident like this for things to change. Thats not a new phenomenon.

As far as I can see the family of this woman are calling for the laws to be changed, they seem to want to keep the story in the public eye and possibly are glad of groups taking up the cause.

If her husband was asking people not to use her name and image and they still persisted that would be pretty low and I would have no time for a group or individual who did that but its still not as bad as being able to square the deaths of women via home abortions so long as some babies were saved.

goodie2shoes

username123 wrote: »

Can you explain this to me. I thought we were just having a discussion? What do you mean by 'agenda'? A few posters have used the word so far and Im not clear on what they mean by it?

On top of that. Do you think it is somehow amoral for a flashpoint incident to trigger discussion on a subject that has long needed discussion? And if so, why? Would you prefer if an individual died this way and no one spoke of it? What good would that do? Where is the wrong in discussing it, particularly if good social change comes as a result?

Or is it just that saying that kind of muddys the water and tries to silence discussion in case its insensitive?

I believe the word "AGENDA" is perfectly clear and self-explanatory.
We have been debating the abortion issue for 30 years now, and held a few referenda on the matter.
Regarding "social change", what one person considers good another may not.
What we need in relation to this case are the facts.

goodie2shoes

eviltwin wrote: »

You really need me to tell you the answer to that one :eek:

Its unfortunate but sometimes it takes an incident like this for things to change. Thats not a new phenomenon.

As far as I can see the family of this woman are calling for the laws to be changed, they seem to want to keep the story in the public eye and possibly are glad of groups taking up the cause.

If her husband was asking people not to use her name and image and they still persisted that would be pretty low and I would have no time for a group or individual who did that but its still not as bad as being able to square the deaths of women via home abortions so long as some babies were saved.

change may come of this tragic case, but only after we have the facts.
where did i say home abortions were ok?

ASVM

username123 wrote: »

Can you explain this to me. I thought we were just having a discussion? What do you mean by 'agenda'? A few posters have used the word so far and Im not clear on what they mean by it?

On top of that. Do you think it is somehow amoral for a flashpoint incident to trigger discussion on a subject that has long needed discussion? And if so, why? Would you prefer if an individual died this way and no one spoke of it? What good would that do? Where is the wrong in discussing it, particularly if good social change comes as a result?

Or is it just that saying that kind of muddys the water and tries to silence discussion in case its insensitive?

I agree. It is great for people to be discussing this. You know I actually think most people in Ireland would be in favour of this woman Savita having being granted an abortion( if it had saved her life) even people who are anti abortion on demand.And there are others who probably would like abortion to be available where the foetus will not survive and this was the case of this woman also.
I might be wrong but I think Irish people have come a long way in the last twenty years in terms of being more open and less under church influence.

eviltwin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

change may come of this tragic case, but only after we have the facts.
where did i say home abortions were ok?

I never said you did....

goodie2shoes

eviltwin wrote: »

I never said you did....

that's ok then.
thanks for clarifying that.

username123

goodie2shoes wrote: »

I believe the word "AGENDA" is perfectly clear and self-explanatory.
We have been debating the abortion issue for 30 years now, and held a few referenda on the matter.
Regarding "social change", what one person considers good another may not.
What we need in relation to this case are the facts.

I know what the word agenda means, but I do not understand its usage in relation to this thread where it is just private anonymous individuals discussing something.

The pro-life side have lost every referendum since the 1983 consitituional ban so perhaps its time to revisit the issue.

Just because some people do not like the idea of social change does not mean it does not merit discussion. Censorship is not progressive.

Regardless of this case, the law needs to be clarified in relation to abortion in this country. This case has highlighted that, but it has been needed for over 20 years and this case is irrelevant to that.

goodie2shoes

username123 wrote: »

I know what the word agenda means, but I do not understand its usage in relation to this thread where it is just private anonymous individuals discussing something.

The pro-life side have lost every referendum since the 1983 consitituional ban so perhaps its time to revisit the issue.

and you say there is no agenda?

username123 wrote: »

Just because some people do not like the idea of social change does not mean it does not merit discussion. Censorship is not progressive.

there is a fine line between discussion and jumping to conclusions.

username123 wrote: »

Regardless of this case, the law needs to be clarified in relation to abortion in this country. This case has highlighted that, but it has been needed for over 20 years and this case is irrelevant to that.

maybe it does, maybe it does not. we do not have the FACTS of this case to make such a judgement imo.

Berlin at night

Looks like the HSE are doing a cover up job. They are claiming that there is no record of her asking for a termination in the files. Utter BS IMO, and the world and her dog know that this is a major cover up, the exact reason her husband wants a public inquest.

Now, the whole world is up in arms over this case as it is; do they honestly think they are going to get away with this???????

The merde is going to hit the fan on this one. The problem is, its all this deceit and cowardice by the powers that be is really putting us in a bad light as a nation - now adding blatent lies into the mix. Man, this is a time bomb, it so reminds me of the Paul newman film 'THE VERDICT.'

We know in this country ministers, bankers, consultants etc are above the law and protected, and I'm sure they cover this sort of thing up everyday, but the worlds eyes are on them, and it just takes one person on the sidelines like a midwife to have an attack of guilt, being unable to look themselves in the mirror knowing they are complicit in this most heinous of fraud, and come forward. The HSE and the rats that protect them in the DAIL are total idiots (we know that anyway) to think they can get away with this disgusting lie.

Two words come to mind 'SCUM' and 'BAGS'.

username123

goodie2shoes wrote: »

and you say there is no agenda?

I really dont understand what you mean by this?

goodie2shoes wrote: »

there is a fine line between discussion and jumping to conclusions.

What conclusions? The law in this country needs to change in regard to abortion - end of. Its not clear.

goodie2shoes wrote: »

maybe it does, maybe it does not. we do not have the FACTS of this case to make such a judgement imo.

The case is irrelevant to the fact that the law is not clear.

sambuka41

Berlin at night wrote: »

Looks like the HSE are doing a cover up job. They are claiming that there is no record of her asking for a termination in the files. Utter BS IMO, and the world and her dog know that this is a major cover up, the exact reason her husband wants a public inquest.

What are they playing at; it doesn't make a difference if she asked of not. If termination was the appropriate treatment it should have been done. Shame on them for not caring, or documenting her requests.

(I would be inclined to believe the husband, I can't imagine anyone being in that situation without asking for the options to end the pain, so his story has more of a ring of truth to me)

username123

sambuka41 wrote: »

What are they playing at; it doesn't make a difference if she asked of not. If termination was the appropriate treatment it should have been done. Shame on them for not caring, or documenting her requests.

(I would be inclined to believe the husband, I can't imagine anyone being in that situation without asking for the options to end the pain, so his story has more of a ring of truth to me)

+1

Theyd never record the request for a termination in the notes in case it came back to bite them.

goodie2shoes

Berlin at night wrote: »

Looks like the HSE are doing a cover up job. They are claiming that there is no record of her asking for a termination in the files. Utter BS IMO, and the world and her dog know that this is a major cover up, the exact reason her husband wants a public inquest.

Now, the whole world is up in arms over this case as it is; do they honestly think they are going to get away with this???????

The merde is going to hit the fan on this one. The problem is, its all this deceit and cowardice by the powers that be is really putting us in a bad light as a nation - now adding blatent lies into the mix. Man, this is a time bomb, it so reminds me of the Paul newman film 'THE VERDICT.'

We know in this country ministers, bankers, consultants etc are above the law and protected, and I'm sure they cover this sort of thing up everyday, but the worlds eyes are on them, and it just takes one person on the sidelines like a midwife to have an attack of guilt, being unable to look themselves in the mirror knowing they are complicit in this most heinous of fraud, and come forward. The HSE and the rats that protect them in the DAIL are total idiots (we know that anyway) to think they can get away with this disgusting lie.

Two words come to mind 'SCUM' and 'BAGS'.

see this post demonstrates exactly why i've been saying since this story broke that we need to have an inquiry, and why we need to await the outcome of it before making wild accusations and jumping to all sorts of daft conclusions.
this is a time for cool heads imo.

username123

goodie2shoes wrote: »

see this post demonstrates exactly why i've been saying since this story broke that we need to have an inquiry, and why we need to await the outcome of it before making wild accusations and jumping to all sorts of daft conclusions.
this is a time for cool heads imo.

The outcome of any enquiry still doesnt alter the agreed upon fact that the legislation surrounding abortion in this country is unclear and needs to be clarified.