Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

kunst nugget · 16-11-2012 06:06PM

isisgodess wrote: »

There is too much of this kind of thinking on this thread. It is the MASCULINE MINDSET.

Why must you let the psychological HATRED of women dictate that a woman cannot choose what to do with her body. If I have cancer can I remove a tumor? Oh thank you.

A woman feels she is in pain, she listens to HER BODY because she knows how to be close to her body, because she has intuition.

But because of this HATRED she cannot remove the tumour.

I weep for the women of Ireland who can be destroyed like this.

Ah, ffs…

mac.in · 16-11-2012 06:08PM

Noreen1 wrote: »

You're missing the point I made.

I got your point. And, I didn't deny them but I supplemented with some more information

Noreen1 wrote: »

In Savitas case, she developed septicaemia.
We don't know whether she was on antibiotics.

Yourself stated that your niece was on antibiotics when she was awaited for spontaneous abortion. In Savita's case if she was not given antibiotics b4 septicemia set in, it could be ? medical negligence.

Noreen1 wrote: »

We don't know how soon a diagnosis of septicaemia was made. If septicaemia had already set in before she requested a termination, (which appears to be the case, given her symptoms) the termination would not have altered the fact that she already had septicaemia - and, therefore, would have had no bearing on whether she lived, or died.

Definitely the termination by itself wouldn't have cured the septicemia (considering, as per your statement too, septicemia set in b4 her symptoms and request. Symptoms and requests had been there at least 16 hours before she was aborted - Is 16 hours wait, after the symptoms surfaced, justified?). But termination (16 hours before) would have surely reduced the intensity of septicemia thereby resulting in her condition being a little better. Eventually she could have been successfully treated (alive).

Noreen1 wrote: »

What we need right now are facts - and what we seem to be getting is people pushing an agenda.

Even I second this thought of yours. We need an impartial inquiry and a pro-life legislation.

LeeHoffmann · 16-11-2012 06:18PM

The question I struggle with is when exactly does a bundle of cells become a conscious mind.

I think that´s the main point for most of us. The brain apparently begins to form around week 4/5. This obviously doesn´t mean that there is a conscious mind at this time, but it means that up until at least week 4 there is no conscious mind to destroy. At week 7, the brain is apparently "rapidly developing". By week 9, the nervous system is apparently well developed and properly functioning - this would mean the fetus could feel pain. Sources 1 and 2

K-9 · 16-11-2012 06:30PM

stevenmu wrote: »

Just out of idle curiosity, does anybody on this thread have

A) All of the facts of this case

and

The medical knowledge and experience required to assess them correctly

Anybody?

I doubt anybody has, might as well lock up half the threads on AH if that's the citeria.

powerful princess · 16-11-2012 06:36PM

MagicSean wrote: »

It is based on my own belief that life begins within the womb. I believe it is our duty to protect that life when it is threatened with extinction.

But it is not life no more than the hair on my head is life. It is not a life in the same way that it can love and care and make decisions as a woman can and it is not your womb.

You say you don't hate women but still you want to control our bodies how is that not hatred?

Isisgodess re-reg banned

MagicSean · 16-11-2012 06:42PM

powerful princess wrote: »

But it is not life no more than the hair on my head is life. It is not a life in the same way that it can love and care and make decisions as a woman can and it is not your womb.

You say you don't hate women but still you want to control our bodies how is that not hatred?

I presume you are isisgodess reregistered.

I no more want to control anyone than you do. I only wish to protect a life that cannot protect itself.

So when do you believe life begins? Another poster has already shown that it can indeed be more a life than the hair on your head at an early stage.

ASVM · 16-11-2012 06:53PM

Very strong words being exchanged here and some people seem to have their own little agendas. Being a woman I agree that it is a woman who should get to decide ultimately. A woman would not lightly make a decision to terminate a pregnancy and for men to come on here and start telling us what our bodies feel and how we should react is inexcusable. I have suffered two miscarriages and I know that at any point had my life been in danger my husband would have been fully supportive of my having a termination.

In the case of this woman she wanted a termination because I am certain that she was in severe pain and she was listening to her own body.No woman would take this option lightly and while I regard human life as sacred the health of the mother has to come first.

I really hope this case brings clarity to the situation because no more women in this country should have to suffer like this. Shame on the men who think they know what is best for a womans body.

suicide_circus · 16-11-2012 07:03PM

isisgodess wrote: »

There is too much of this kind of thinking on this thread. It is the MASCULINE MINDSET.

Why must you let the psychological HATRED of women dictate that a woman cannot choose what to do with her body. If I have cancer can I remove a tumor? Oh thank you.

A woman feels she is in pain, she listens to HER BODY because she knows how to be close to her body, because she has intuition.

But because of this HATRED she cannot remove the tumour.

I weep for the women of Ireland who can be destroyed like this.

2/10
Must try harder

My name is URL · 16-11-2012 07:22PM

jill_valentine wrote: »

We have the following facts.

a) A woman spent three days painfully miscarrying a foetus that would not have survived anyway.

b) She had previously requested an abortion which would have spared her a great measure of that ordeal and likely increased her chances of survival substantially.

c) She was denied it, for no sound medical reason.

We don't know the colour of the hospital room or the expression on the doctor's face, but the scenario painted by those three basic elements in themselves is unacceptable. Trying to vague up the conversation by demanding fairly immaterial details lends nothing.

All he did was ask whether or not anyone knows all of the facts, he wasn't demanding anything. And since when are pertinent facts regarded as 'immaterial details'?

If people are going to claim medical negligence or state-supported murder; they'd want to make sure that they do have all the facts.

Flier · 16-11-2012 07:48PM

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I think that´s the main point for most of us. The brain apparently begins to form around week 4/5. This obviously doesn´t mean that there is a conscious mind at this time, but it means that up until at least week 4 there is no conscious mind to destroy. At week 7, the brain is apparently "rapidly developing". By week 9, the nervous system is apparently well developed and properly functioning - this would mean the fetus could feel pain. Sources 1 and 2

Really in this case, that is irrelevant.

later12 · 16-11-2012 08:03PM

ASVM wrote: »

Being a woman I agree that it is a woman who should get to decide ultimately.

What does being a woman have to do with that conclusion?
That seems to me like a conclusion based on gender self-interest as opposed to anything rational.

If there was a gun against my head, I'd probably reluctantly concur that the choice ultimately ought to be the woman's; however I think it's the greyest area of debate when it comes to discussing abortion, and I don't think it ought to be so summarily decided based on whatever gender one happens to have acquired.

Not least because if everyone were to think along those lines, 50% of the population would be in conflict with you.

charlemont · 16-11-2012 08:32PM

Opus Dei..

LeeHoffmann · 16-11-2012 09:03PM

Really in this case, that is irrelevant.

:rolleyes: I was answering a question made by a previous poster. I didn´t say it was relevant to this particular case. It is relevant to the question of abortion in general, which was a side point that came up in discussion. :mad:

nicki116 · 16-11-2012 09:19PM

Not all Catholics/religious people disprove of gays, I for instance have tonnes of gay friends and love gay people their fun and its certainly interesting having a guy to turn to for boyfriend advice .

To lump us all in together is to generalize just like people tend to generalize why all abortions are wrong and to assume that those who disprove of it are religious or don't understand how the woman feels, I had an unplanned pregnancy when I was 18 and miscarried it was the wrong time for me but I didn't blame the child I was shocked and scared but if I killed my baby it would have been a thousand times worse for me because then it would have been my fault. I would have made that decision and it would have been wrong to do so just because I was scared because the fear passed and I started to figure it out what I would do what I would tell people etc.

I believe that we should have better prepared services in the case of an emergency but abortion on demand is to objective children to whether they have enough value to be allowed to live because we don't want one now or because its not convenient for us to have one is selfish and an abuse of our rights.

Why is this the only women's right I hear of us having or being abused, what about equal pay or treatment? Or men's rights, if your married or in a long term relationship, shouldn't your partner have the right to an opinion? We are not uterus's with legs but our decision effects other people not just ourselves so its wrong to discard that.

Lastly why are pro-life sites the only ones with facts supporting them and how has no one else noticed this. Three abortions is considered the limit because your body can't take it. Your more susceptible to cancer, miscarriages, infertility and decreased sexual pleasure if there's cervical/vaginal scarring and that's from one abortion, each one just increases the risks for future pregnancies. Abortion is not a form of contraception, its meant to be a last resort, contraceptives if properly used are 96-99% effective and some aren't 100% simply because of human error in using them or factory defects. If you have no intention of ever having kids get sterilized some can be reversed not all so whatever your decision its your decision to have sex be aware of the risks and if you don't wanna take the risks don't have it, use protection or get sterilized its your decision don't make an innocent child pay for it.

I am a woman, pro-choice and a Catholic, I don't hate myself or anyone else you may have your own issues with males or the church but what they did doesn't change my essential beliefs or just define me I decide what defines me and I don't define myself by belittling the views of men because I have a uterus and they don't or some stuffy old guys turned out to be monsters and stuff that happened to women in the past. If old grievances mean so much to you then fair enough but don't shove it down my throat or anyone elses and I don't know one man who hates women, people tend to hate the individual who harmed them and blaming a group is just wrong. Sorry for thinking we had evolved to blame the people who deserve it not just the masses who may have a few things in common with them (gender).

Ghost Buster · 16-11-2012 09:21PM

nicki116 wrote: »

Not all Catholics disprove of gays,).

Then you need to rethink your claim of being catholic.

seb65 · 16-11-2012 09:26PM

nicki116 wrote: »

Not all Catholics/religious people disprove of gays, I for instance have tonnes of gay friends and love gay people their fun and its certainly interesting having a guy to turn to for boyfriend advice .

To lump us all in together is to generalize just like people tend to generalize why all abortions are wrong and to assume that those who disprove of it are religious or don't understand how the woman feels, I had an unplanned pregnancy when I was 18 and miscarried it was the wrong time for me but I didn't blame the child I was shocked and scared but if I killed my baby it would have been a thousand times worse for me because then it would have been my fault. I would have made that decision and it would have been wrong to do so just because I was scared because the fear passed and I started to figure it out what I would do what I would tell people etc.

I believe that we should have better prepared services in the case of an emergency but abortion on demand is to objective children to whether they have enough value to be allowed to live because we don't want one now or because its not convenient for us to have one is selfish and an abuse of our rights.

Why is this the only women's right I hear of us having or being abused, what about equal pay or treatment? Or men's rights, if your married or in a long term relationship, shouldn't your partner have the right to an opinion? We are not uterus's with legs but our decision effects other people not just ourselves so its wrong to discard that.

Lastly why are pro-life sites the only ones with facts supporting them and how has no one else noticed this. Three abortions is considered the limit because your body can't take it. Your more susceptible to cancer, miscarriages, infertility and decreased sexual pleasure if there's cervical/vaginal scarring and that's from one abortion, each one just increases the risks for future pregnancies. Abortion is not a form of contraception, its meant to be a last resort, contraceptives if properly used are 96-99% effective and some aren't 100% simply because of human error in using them or factory defects. If you have no intention of ever having kids get sterilized some can be reversed not all so whatever your decision its your decision to have sex be aware of the risks and if you don't wanna take the risks don't have it, use protection or get sterilized its your decision don't make an innocent child pay for it.

I am a woman, pro-choice and a Catholic, I don't hate myself or anyone else you may have your own issues with males or the church but what they did doesn't change my essential beliefs or just define me I decide what defines me and I don't define myself by belittling the views of men because I have a uterus and they don't or some stuffy old guys turned out to be monsters and stuff that happened to women in the past. If old grievances mean so much to you then fair enough but don't shove it down my throat or anyone elses and I don't know one man who hates women, people tend to hate the individual who harmed them and blaming a group is just wrong. Sorry for thinking we had evolved to blame the people who deserve it not just the masses who may have a few things in common with them (gender).

You are not pro-choice. Pro-choice means the woman gets to choose to have a child. Even for those so-called selfish reasons of it's not convenient for us now. Of course, these reasons could include: poverty; being in an abusive relationship with the child's father; extreme judgment and bullying by others.

To say you like gay people because they are fun is extremely patronizing. People who identify as gay are more than your sounding board for boyfriend advice or your source of entertainment.

brummytom · 16-11-2012 09:57PM

I'll admit I haven't read all 44 pages of this, so I'm sure this will have been said a billion times... But the Catholic Church teaches the 'principle of double effect' - that is, if the mother's life is in danger, the church has no opposition to the baby being aborted, so long as the intention is to save the mother, and not merely to kill the child/foetus.

The doctor wasn't acting as a Christian. Perhaps the law's too vague or teaching not clear, I'm not sure. But to use this as an excuse to bash to church - this goes directly against their own teachings - ignores the fact that it was ultimately the doctor who made the decision. It's their job to save lives, however they see fit to do so.

franktheplank · 16-11-2012 10:02PM

Im glad to see some of the radical feminist brigade on this thread. Im sick of being labelled as extreme right wing or extreme catholic on abortion debates (im neither)

We often forget their is an extreme feminist brigade who have a whole set of crazy views all of their own. But to question feminism is like being racist or homophobic, right poeticseraphim?

"It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the mail has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." Valerie Jean Solanas

Ghost Buster · 16-11-2012 10:09PM

franktheplank wrote: »

Im glad to see some of the radical feminist brigade on this thread. Im sick of being labelled as extreme right wing or extreme catholic on abortion debates (im neither)

We often forget their is an extreme feminist brigade who have a whole set of crazy views all of their own. But to question feminism is like being racist or homophobic, right poeticseraphim?

"It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the mail has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." Valerie Jean Solanas

To be fair though isisgoddess/powerful princess is one and the same person and the only hyperfeminist on here.

franktheplank · 16-11-2012 10:16PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

To be fair though isisgoddess/powerful princess is one and the same person and the only hyperfeminist on here.

But it's an ideology that unsurprisingly we hear very little of, yet if you're pro-life there's an assumption (read the forum) that you're an extreme catholic or some right wing misogynist.

Here's some more of the extreme end of the pro-choice feminist spectrum. This lady, a college lecturer in women's studies, wanted forced abortion of boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly

seb65 · 16-11-2012 10:39PM

franktheplank wrote: »

Im glad to see some of the radical feminist brigade on this thread. Im sick of being labelled as extreme right wing or extreme catholic on abortion debates (im neither)

We often forget their is an extreme feminist brigade who have a whole set of crazy views all of their own. But to question feminism is like being racist or homophobic, right poeticseraphim?

"It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the mail has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." Valerie Jean Solanas

I agree that retaining the mail is not important, especially since it's mainly junk mail.

Ghost Buster · 16-11-2012 10:40PM

franktheplank wrote: »

But it's an ideology that unsurprisingly we hear very little of, yet if you're pro-life there's an assumption (read the forum) that you're an extreme catholic or some right wing misogynist.

Here's some more of the extreme end of the pro-choice feminist spectrum. This lady, a college lecturer in women's studies, wanted forced abortion of boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly

Well it is the more vocal catholic pro life type that gets the most coverage and indeed representation in The Dail. There are non religious pro life folk but they dont have a god given right and duty to force their opinions on everybody.
The megafeminist nutter minority get ignored for that very reason, they are a nutty minority:)

partyatmygaff · 16-11-2012 10:41PM

franktheplank wrote: »

But it's an ideology that unsurprisingly we hear very little of, yet if you're pro-life there's an assumption (read the forum) that you're an extreme catholic or some right wing misogynist.

Here's some more of the extreme end of the pro-choice feminist spectrum. This lady, a college lecturer in women's studies, wanted forced abortion of boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly

That'd almost be a comical display of madness if it wasn't so disgustingly hateful.

franktheplank · 16-11-2012 10:50PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Well it is the more vocal catholic pro life type that gets the most coverage and indeed representation in The Dail. There are non religious pro life folk but they dont have a god given right and duty to force their opinions on everybody.
The megafeminist nutter minority get ignored for that very reason, they are a nutty minority:)

Im sorry but there has been so many references to the extremist religious groups I think it's only fair we look at what the extremist feminist crowd are up to.

It's not fair that one side can be held up repeatedly as an example while the other is quietly brushed under the carpet.

Ghost Buster · 16-11-2012 10:51PM

franktheplank wrote: »

Im sorry but there has been so many references to the extremist religious groups I think it's only fair we look at what the extremist feminist crowd are up to.

It's not fair that one side can be held up repeatedly as an example while the other is quietly brushed under the carpet.

The other doesnt have a Taoiseach who claims to be one of them

franktheplank · 16-11-2012 10:57PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

The other doesnt have a Taoiseach who claims to be one of them

If you really think opus dei or whoever are somehow influencing government policy these days i really think that belongs in the conspiracy forum.

As crazy as the religious extremists might be there still repeatedly referred to here. I've been all but accused of being either a right wing or catholic extremist for putting forward views that would probably be defined as moderately pro-life.

It's no harm to see any viewpoint taken to it's ideological extreme in any debate if only to see what it might tell us about the original viewpoint.

Look at Mary Daly's hatred of men, it's not that much further from saying men should have no say on abortion. Why would they not have a say, because were not worthy in some way?

K-9 · 16-11-2012 10:57PM

franktheplank wrote: »

Im sorry but there has been so many references to the extremist religious groups I think it's only fair we look at what the extremist feminist crowd are up to.

It's not fair that one side can be held up repeatedly as an example while the other is quietly brushed under the carpet.

I'd prefer to ignore both extremes myself rather than give any importance to extremists.

franktheplank · 16-11-2012 11:02PM

Madam_X wrote: »

If I could ignore the likes of Youth Defence I would... but unfortunately they have too much power to ignore.

I don't think anyone really believes that these groups have much power. And still that doesn't in any way explain why non-religious pro-lifers keep getting compared to them.

franktheplank · 16-11-2012 11:06PM

Who knows how much of the hyper-feminism is thought on however many women's studies college courses up and down the country. Publicly funded i might add?

I'd be very surprised if they don't teach the radical stuff along with the rest of it (if only for completeness)

Lingua Franca · 16-11-2012 11:07PM

franktheplank wrote: »

Im sorry but there has been so many references to the extremist religious groups I think it's only fair we look at what the extremist feminist crowd are up to.

It's not fair that one side can be held up repeatedly as an example while the other is quietly brushed under the carpet.

What they're up to? Some American woman who has been dead for 2 years and irrelevant for at least 13? I don't think she's up to much.

Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Comments