The Woman Who Died

WindSock · 15-12-2012 2:45pm #1

Does anyone else think it's a bit crass to continue to use Savita's name and image by some pro-choice groups? We all know who she is and the country mourned for her when the news broke last month, but I think it's time to let her rest in peace. It is possible to campaign for abortion rights without bandying about this poor womans name and face at any opportunity.

biko · 15-12-2012 2:48pm

I don't think so. She is recent in memory and a very good example of what can happen when things go wrong.

Czarcasm · 15-12-2012 3:03pm

I agree in essence with where the OP is coming from, I don't like to see see an individual case being used by any particular lobby group, but the Savita case is still fairly raw in people's memory, and pro-abortion groups have used the X case for the last 20 years, so I cannot see them letting go of the Savita case any time soon unfortunately.

WindSock · 15-12-2012 3:05pm

Yeah I think at the time it was fine to highlight what is wrong, but to continually use her as a poster girl to further a cause doesn't sit well with me.

Neyite · 15-12-2012 3:29pm

I think while her husband is still trying to fight for the inquiry, and get answers, its good to keep her name on everyone's lips, whichever side its on.

What happened to her was as a result of the legal grey area that our politicians were too busy dodging legislating for. They are too afraid that they will lose votes in elections and are protecting their careers instead of doing the job they were elected to do.

I gave birth in that hospital during the summer. If I have more children, its the only hospital that is near me to go to. Do you not think that I will wonder if the room I'm in was hers? or if the same doctors/nurses attending to me, attended to her?

I would very much like this legislation passed. I was 17 when the X-case kicked it all off, and to think that it probably wont be sorted during my reproductive years is nothing short of a disgrace.

Morag · 15-12-2012 3:33pm

WindSock wrote: »

Yeah I think at the time it was fine to highlight what is wrong, but to continually use her as a poster girl to further a cause doesn't sit well with me.

Even with it being her husbands wishes?

MagicMarker · 15-12-2012 3:47pm

Not in the slightest, if she died because of our draconian abortion laws then I'd rather we throw that in our politician's faces every single day until a change is made, however long it takes.

WindSock · 15-12-2012 3:53pm

Morag wrote: »

Even with it being her husbands wishes?

I suppose if it is his wish to use his late wife's name in every campaign then so be it, however I think it is an unnecessary appeal to emotion at this stage. Will we easily forget the consequeces of our laws if we need to keep using her name and image at every opportunity?

daenerysstormborn3 · 15-12-2012 3:55pm

I think if her husband and her family have no problem with her image and name being used to highlight these issues then it's really nobody else's business.

I'd much rather see Savita's face than the images on posters that were put up recently in Alan Shatter's constituency, including one outside a creche.

WindSock · 15-12-2012 4:04pm

pixiebean22 wrote: »

I'd much rather see Savita's face than the images on posters that were put up recently in Alan Shatter's constituency, including one outside a creche.

Which is why I am disappointed pro-choice groups use that same sort of tact. It is still propaganda. Of course not to the same disgusting extent as the anti-choice brigade.

Faith · 15-12-2012 4:19pm

I actually agree a bit. A lot of pro-choice groups on Facebook have joined together on the website "http://www.savitaslaws.com/". While I commend them for banding together and working so hard to force much-needed change, the title of the website does not sit well with me at all. It's ignoring everyone else who has been hurt by our laws, and I think it weakens the pro-choice argument because it really looks like they're using her death for propaganda. I am FIERCELY pro-choice, just to clarify, but I think holding one person up as some kind of martyr is not going about things the right way.

seenitall · 15-12-2012 8:15pm

Faith wrote: »

I actually agree a bit. A lot of pro-choice groups on Facebook have joined together on the website "http://www.savitaslaws.com/". While I commend them for banding together and working so hard to force much-needed change, the title of the website does not sit well with me at all. It's ignoring everyone else who has been hurt by our laws, and I think it weakens the pro-choice argument because it really looks like they're using her death for propaganda. I am FIERCELY pro-choice, just to clarify, but I think holding one person up as some kind of martyr is not going about things the right way.

Would you feel the same about "Sarah's Law", for example:

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

Personally, I can't see your POV at all. Why would you feel it is ignoring everyone else who's been hurt?? IMO, on the contrary, it is giving all of these silent cases a focus, one name, one face where a collective crisis of conscience (hopefully) finally occurs and pushes through some meaningful changes (-> btw, I'm not too sure of my own opinion of the content of the actual Sarah's Law, I'm merely talking about the principle of a name and a memory attached - and it's the case that first came to mind).

If I were personally affected or were the family of anyone personally affected, far from being offended that my name wasn't up there, I'd be nothing but happy about the focus given like that. People are for the most part very subjective and emotional creatures and need a focus and a story to galvanise them for change.

Madam_X · 15-12-2012 8:54pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Not in the slightest, if she died because of our draconian abortion laws then I'd rather we throw that in our politician's faces every single day until a change is made, however long it takes.

Yeh never really thought about it but it doesn't seem an issue IMO. If there was cynicism behind it, fair enough, but I don't think there is. At best, genuine; at worst: clumsy but well intentioned.

Yeh Seenitall I was thinking about Sarah's law too.

Czarcasm · 15-12-2012 9:59pm

seenitall wrote: »

Would you feel the same about "Sarah's Law", for example:

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

Personally, I can't see your POV at all. Why would you feel it is ignoring everyone else who's been hurt?? IMO, on the contrary, it is giving all of these silent cases a focus, one name, one face where a collective crisis of conscience (hopefully) finally occurs and pushes through some meaningful changes (-> btw, I'm not too sure of my own opinion of the content of the actual Sarah's Law, I'm merely talking about the principle of a name and a memory attached - and it's the case that first came to mind).

If I were personally affected or were the family of anyone personally affected, far from being offended that my name wasn't up there, I'd be nothing but happy about the focus given like that. People are for the most part very subjective and emotional creatures and need a focus and a story to galvanise them for change.

I did a quick google just now as I wanted to try and find the phrase "laws based on emotion are bad laws", I couldn't find exactly who said it but it's a phrase that has common use. The first link alone came up with this-

http://www.criminologysymposium.com/symposium/event-information/2012/archive/news/2012-10-05-laws-based-on-emotion.html

The general gist of it is that these laws are generally rushed into being without any proper consideration (my own thought on it is to appease public sentiment). Sarah's Law was introduced on the back of a clear cut case where a child was murdered. The campaign to have the law passed was backed by a huge campaign by the British media on top of public sentiment.

The case for Savita's law is not so clear cut unfortunately, notwithstanding the investigation into her death hasn't even been completed yet. In my opinion it is much more difficult to introduce abortion laws in this country because public sentiment, while we can empathise with Savita, is still very much divided over the issue of the introduction of abortion. This, in my opinion, is why, even since the X case, in the last 20 years, no Irish media is going to take a stance on either side, because they risk an enormous backlash from the opposing point of view. The government of the day are the same- they would rather treat the abortion debate as a political hot potato too rather than risk a backlash from the electorate.

With regard to naming laws after persons, in my opinion it diminishes the seriousness and impact of the subject matter, because as you've said- it puts an emotional and individualised context on the debate, when in my opinion- it shouldn't. Laws should be made in the interests of ALL citizens, not just focused on the anecdotal case or individual circumstances of one citizen.

With regard to the husband agreeing to Savita's name being used in campaigns and so forth and for the poster who said it should be nobody else's business- Savita's husband MAKES it our business and invites commentary when he chooses to allow her name to be used in public campaigns.

seenitall · 15-12-2012 10:11pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

With regard to naming laws after persons, in my opinion it diminishes the seriousness and impact of the subject matter, because as you've said- it puts an emotional and individualised context on the debate, when in my opinion- it shouldn't. Laws should be made in the interests of ALL citizens, not just focused on the anecdotal case or individual circumstances of one citizen.

Yup, this is where we disagree; and in fact how you can claim that A WORD, someone's name, diminishes the seriousness of the subject matter, I have no clue. Savita's name, her face and her death were actually the catalyst for the seriousness of the situation on the Irish maternity wards (for all the citizens who could face the same situation as she did, tomorrow, in 2 months or in 20 years) to become a very public matter.

daenerysstormborn3 · 15-12-2012 10:23pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

I did a quick google just now as I wanted to try and find the phrase "laws based on emotion are bad laws", I couldn't find exactly who said it but it's a phrase that has common use. The first link alone came up with this-

http://www.criminologysymposium.com/symposium/event-information/2012/archive/news/2012-10-05-laws-based-on-emotion.html

The general gist of it is that these laws are generally rushed into being without any proper consideration (my own thought on it is to appease public sentiment). Sarah's Law was introduced on the back of a clear cut case where a child was murdered. The campaign to have the law passed was backed by a huge campaign by the British media on top of public sentiment.

The case for Savita's law is not so clear cut unfortunately, notwithstanding the investigation into her death hasn't even been completed yet. In my opinion it is much more difficult to introduce abortion laws in this country because public sentiment, while we can empathise with Savita, is still very much divided over the issue of the introduction of abortion. This, in my opinion, is why, even since the X case, in the last 20 years, no Irish media is going to take a stance on either side, because they risk an enormous backlash from the opposing point of view. The government of the day are the same- they would rather treat the abortion debate as a political hot potato too rather than risk a backlash from the electorate.

With regard to naming laws after persons, in my opinion it diminishes the seriousness and impact of the subject matter, because as you've said- it puts an emotional and individualised context on the debate, when in my opinion- it shouldn't. Laws should be made in the interests of ALL citizens, not just focused on the anecdotal case or individual circumstances of one citizen.

With regard to the husband agreeing to Savita's name being used in campaigns and so forth and for the poster who said it should be nobody else's business- Savita's husband MAKES it our business and invites commentary when he chooses to allow her name to be used in public campaigns.

Yes, he invites commentary on the topic (the desired result I'm sure), not on whether her name or face should be used, that is nobody's business because it's his choice, no-one else's.

Czarcasm · 15-12-2012 10:34pm

seenitall wrote: »

Yup, this is where we disagree; and in fact how you can claim that A WORD, someone's name, diminishes the seriousness of the subject matter, I have no clue. Her name, her face and her death were actually the catalyst for the seriousness of the situation in the Irish maternity wards to become a very public matter.

What I meant by saying that personalising the matter takes away from it's seriousness is that emotions distract from logical and clear thought and can cloud our judgement. Calling the website "support_abortion_legislation.com" wouldn't have had quite the same emotional stirring as "savitaslaw.com".

It shouldn't have taken one anecdotal and unfortunate case to bring the debate into the public eye again. I say that because I remember the public outcry there was over the X case. The legislation that was introduced afterwards was, and still is, only a half àrsed effort to appease both sides of the debate, and never went near far enough to clear up any confusion over the issues regarding abortion in this country.

I am saying the X case should have been the catalyst; it should never have come to this 20 years later when in that time many women have had to travel abroad for abortions and information available to them here is sketchy at best, dismally lacking at worst, not to mention the lack of support services.

Individualising the debate distracts from the many actual issues that need to be brought into the public forum to be discussed. Putting an emotional spin on the debate does neither side any favors, as in my eyes it is analogous to applying euphemisms to the facts.

Czarcasm · 15-12-2012 10:40pm

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Yes, he invites commentary on the topic (the desired result I'm sure), not on whether her name or face should be used, that is nobody's business because it's his choice, no-one else's.

The unintended consequences though pixiebean, and the fact is, that people WILL comment on his decision to allow her name to be used; it may not be "right", but it's human nature- you open yourself up for commentary and criticism when you go public, and this again, in my opinion, distracts from the actual issues and the broader issues that need to be discussed in the public forum.

seenitall · 15-12-2012 11:06pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

What I meant by saying that personalising the matter takes away from it's seriousness is that emotions distract from logical and clear thought and can cloud our judgement. Calling the website "support_abortion_legislation.com" wouldn't have had quite the same emotional stirring as "savitaslaw.com".

It shouldn't have taken one anecdotal and unfortunate case to bring the debate into the public eye again. I say that because I remember the public outcry there was over the X case. The legislation that was introduced afterwards was, and still is, only a half àrsed effort to appease both sides of the debate, and never went near far enough to clear up any confusion over the issues regarding abortion in this country.

I am saying the X case should have been the catalyst; it should never have come to this 20 years later when in that time many women have had to travel abroad for abortions and information available to them here is sketchy at best, dismally lacking at worst, not to mention the lack of support services.

Individualising the debate distracts from the many actual issues that need to be brought into the public forum to be discussed. Putting an emotional spin on the debate does neither side any favors, as in my eyes it is analogous to applying euphemisms to the facts.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda - that is my point. It's not an ideal world. An average human mind works subjectively; and that is why calling the website "support_abortion_legislation.com" wouldn't have had quite the same emotional stirring (or impact, or hold in the memory as long) as "savitaslaw.com", and that is why I would be fully behind the latter name.

(But of course, I want the X-case legislated for, so I would welcome anything that keeps Savita's name, and, by extension, the issue connected with her name in the public consciousness as long as possible. I don't think it's crass or morbid or inappropriate; I think it's another way to honour her and her life, and as long as her family agree, I see no problem with it. None at all.)

Again, I disagree with your last paragraph in full. What distractions, what euphemisms? The many actual issues that need to be discussed will be discussed in due course; we are still very far away from the many actual issues that need discussing, actually being discussed where it matters (if you haven't noticed). Let us not put cart before the horse, let us keep Savita's name and face and memory alive, so that the results of the inquiries outstanding don't get lost in the other news of the day and so that this country sees some real change on its way some day soon.

seenitall · 15-12-2012 11:10pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

The unintended consequences though pixiebean, and the fact is, that people WILL comment on his decision to allow her name to be used; it may not be "right", but it's human nature- you open yourself up for commentary and criticism when you go public, and this again, in my opinion, distracts from the actual issues and the broader issues that need to be discussed in the public forum.

Again with the "distractions". Distractors will distract; they have nothing better to do, and if it weren't about a website's name (!), it would surely be about something else. Meanwhile, the people who care will discuss the real issues.

meeeeh · 15-12-2012 11:56pm

I agree with Czarcasm. Law shouldn't be dictated by emotions and hysteria after certain events. Using Savita's name is handy but it could backfire. Martyrs are popular in Catholic Church and totalitarian regimes. Neither is very attractive system.

It's still less annoying than YD posters though.

seenitall · 16-12-2012 12:01am

meeeeh wrote: »

I agree with Czarcasm. Law shouldn't be dictated by emotions and hysteria after certain events. Using Savita's name is handy but it could backfire. Martyrs are popular in Catholic Church and totalitarian regimes. Neither is very attractive system.

It's still less annoying than YD posters though.

Savita is not a martyr. And we are also very far away from hysteria here.

Czarcasm · 16-12-2012 12:01am

seenitall wrote: »

Shoulda, woulda, coulda - that is my point. It's not an ideal world. An average human mind works subjectively; and that is why calling the website "support_abortion_legislation.com" wouldn't have had quite the same emotional stirring (or impact, or hold in the memory as long) as "savitaslaw.com", and that is why I would be fully behind the latter name.

That's exactly my point- the average human mind, ie- joe or jane public (with no disrespect intended), generally let their heart rule their heads when it comes to individual cases like this. Legislators however cannot afford to think subjectively and MUST think objectively, or we end up in a situation like the referendum after the X case where all we were offered was the option to pass legislation that only allowed for abortion under specific circumstances, those clearly relating only to the X case where the life of the mother was at risk.

In that case the girl (she was 15 at the time), threatened to commit suicide unless she was given the right to travel to have an abortion. So the legislation that was brought in afterwards barely only covered those circumstances with the right to travel and the right to information.

Now we're in danger of personalising the debate again and allowing the government to skirt and spin around the issue again and offer yet another effort at a referendum which might say "only in such a specific set of circumstances as was seen in the savita case".

It's too narrow a definition for me is what I'm saying, and what happens then the next time a case with slightly different circumstances comes up? I don't want to be facetious but you can see where this is going.

seenitall wrote: »

(But of course, I want the X-case legislated for, so I would welcome anything that keeps Savita's name, and, by extension, the issue connected with her name in the public consciousness as long as possible. I don't think it's crass or morbid or inappropriate; I think it's another way to honour her and her life, and as long as her family agree, I see no problem with it. None at all.)

THIS is exactly why I see a problem with it. What about the thousands of women who have had to suffer in the last 20 years before her? Savita (with all due respect, seriously!) has done nothing to warrant honoring her life and her memory from the point of view of the public. If she had not died and had a normal childbirth, would we even be having this debate now?

seenitall wrote: »

Again, I disagree with your last paragraph in full. What distractions, what euphemisms? The many actual issues that need to be discussed will be discussed in due course; we are still very far away from the many actual issues that need discussing, actually being discussed where it matters (if you haven't noticed). Let us not put horse before the cart, let us keep Savita's name and face and memory alive, so that the results of the inquiries outstanding don't get lost in the other news of the day and so that this country sees some real change on its way some day soon.

The distraction being that using Savita's name now, distracts the public consciousness from thinking that what is actually being campaigned for is abortion, or ending the life of the fetus. The word "abortion" for many people still conjures up images of dead babies, and so to distract from this, lets "fluffy it up and put a human face on the issue". To my mind that's just as bad as that crowd and their placards with fetuses on them.

In my opinion we are far BEHIND with the issues that need to be discussed because discussing the issue of abortion is distasteful for most people. Instead of humanising the debate, we should be normalising it. Abortion shouldn't be treated like a dirty word, and yet for many, it is! It is still swept under the carpet 20 years later and kept hush hush.

Keeping Savita's name and face alive, only focuses on Savita, and not on the many thousands of young girls that are still having to travel to England while the goverment plays "you first!" with the opposition with regard to who is actually going to call for a REAL and proper referendum to legislate for abortion in Ireland without all the special and circumstantial conditions attached.

This shouldn't just be Savita's Law, it should be everybody's law.

Faith · 16-12-2012 12:04am

seenitall wrote: »

Yup, this is where we disagree; and in fact how you can claim that A WORD, someone's name, diminishes the seriousness of the subject matter, I have no clue. Savita's name, her face and her death were actually the catalyst for the seriousness of the situation on the Irish maternity wards (for all the citizens who could face the same situation as she did, tomorrow, in 2 months or in 20 years) to become a very public matter.

But she was not the only person to die because of our laws. She was simply the only one who caught the attention of the media. If she was the first person that it happened to, I might understand it.

The catalyst was the X case. The main aim of the Savita's Laws group is:

Firstly, legislation to allow for abortions where a pregnant woman's life is at risk must be passed IMMEDIATELY, in line with the X Case Supreme Court ruling of 1992 and the subsequent X Case referendum of 1992. Delay on this simply cannot be tolerated and is utterly inexcusable.

Which I support 110%. But if this is the aim, why don't they call it X's laws? It's because, in my opinion, that won't attract as much attention. And that's what makes me dislike it.

Czarcasm · 16-12-2012 12:08am

seenitall wrote: »

Again with the "distractions". Distractors will distract; they have nothing better to do, and if it weren't about a website's name (!), it would surely be about something else. Meanwhile, the people who care will discuss the real issues.

Please tell me seenitall that wasn't a sideswipe to imply that I don't care about the issues involved. I actually do, very much so, which is why I didn't get involved in the ongoing thread in AH that seems to focus specifically on Salvita. I agree with where the OP is coming from here but I am trying to choose my words incredibly carefully here because it really is such a sensitive issue and I have to have due regard to the forum the thread is posted in.

meeeeh · 16-12-2012 12:10am

seenitall wrote: »

Savita is not a martyr. And we are also very far away from hysteria here.

Considering investigation into her death is not even finished, that is exactly what is happening. Emotion is so often clouding the abortion debate. I suspect that is the reason the abortion is not legal in this country.

seenitall · 16-12-2012 12:42am

Czarcasm wrote: »

THIS is exactly why I see a problem with it. What about the thousands of women who have had to suffer in the last 20 years before her? Savita (with all due respect, seriously!) has done nothing to warrant honoring her life and her memory from the point of view of the public. If she had not died and had a normal childbirth, would we even be having this debate now?

Eh, no we wouldn't. Isn't that kind of... obvious? Which means that the Irish people have a death of a foreign national, and the voice of her husband to thank that the irresponsibility of the lack of this legislation is brought into focus yet again. I can see something to honour and remember there, even if you don't.

Yes, what about the thousands of women who had to suffer before her? Who are you talking about? Where are these women? What are their names? What do they look like? I don't know. I know about Savita, though, because her husband did speak up, so thank you, Praveen.

The average Joe is not nearly as interested in a plight of a faceless, voiceless woman as he is in one with a name and a face, and a husband's voice. I'm sorry but it's true. So take that interest and that outrage and channel it constructively, in the interest of Irish women.

Yes, legislators are a different matter to Joe Public. I trust that the legislators actually do know how to think objectively, and tbh am more concerned about the fact that they should be made to think about the X-legislation at all. For which Savita's name and the public outrage on her behalf should help, not hinder.

It's too narrow a definition for you, fair enough, but for many it isn't. The name Savita is now like an umbrella under which a lot of different opinions and views fit, all sharing the same disgust and outrage that this had to happen, and some of them even declare as pro-life. I think that is a good thing.

"Keeping Savita's name and face alive, only focuses on Savita, and not on the many thousands of young girls that are still having to travel to England while the goverment plays "you first!" with the opposition with regard to who is actually going to call for a REAL and proper referendum to legislate for abortion in Ireland without all the special and circumstantial conditions attached."

^^ The above won't happen anytime soon. Don't know what else to say about it. There is something to be said for realism and tempering expectations... Anyway, therefore I think your point is moot about "focus on Savita" in that regard.

seenitall · 16-12-2012 12:49am

Czarcasm wrote: »

Please tell me seenitall that wasn't a sideswipe to imply that I don't care about the issues involved. I actually do, very much so, which is why I didn't get involved in the ongoing thread in AH that seems to focus specifically on Salvita. I agree with where the OP is coming from here but I am trying to choose my words incredibly carefully here because it really is such a sensitive issue and I have to have due regard to the forum the thread is posted in.

No sideswiping, believe me.

I appreciate your points, and it's very obvious that you do care.

I somewhat disagree, is all.

seenitall · 16-12-2012 12:51am

meeeeh wrote: »

Considering investigation into her death is not even finished, that is exactly what is happening. Emotion is so often clouding the abortion debate. I suspect that is the reason the abortion is not legal in this country.

Oh, is that the reason the abortion is still illegal here?? Right.

seenitall · 16-12-2012 12:58am

Faith wrote: »

But she was not the only person to die because of our laws. She was simply the only one who caught the attention of the media. If she was the first person that it happened to, I might understand it.

The catalyst was the X case. The main aim of the Savita's Laws group is:

Which I support 110%. But if this is the aim, why don't they call it X's laws? It's because, in my opinion, that won't attract as much attention. And that's what makes me dislike it.

Why dislike something that will bring more attention where it's needed? I really don't get it. Have you given a thought to the fact that "X" doesn't quite sound as human as "Savita", a woman with a face and a very vocal husband? (In fact, "X" sounds positively robotic by comparison, it has to be said.)

meeeeh · 16-12-2012 1:14am

seenitall wrote: »

Oh, is that the reason the abortion is still illegal here?? Right.

Well I certainly hope it is not reason (as opposite of emotion).

The Woman Who Died

Comments