Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is it still 1971 in Ireland? The contraceptive train still runs - Under another name.

Options
1…5681011…15

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Grayson wrote: »
    have you read the HIQA report? there were over 20 points of failure in her treatment. Each one, if it had not of occurred, probably would have resulted in her survival.

    At the time she was admitted if she had received correct treatment there's a good chance that she might have survived.
    However that didn't happen and at the time she asked for a termination (or even beforehand), if she had of received one, she probably would have survived. You can say that's not the case and that the original reason was the lack of antibiotics etc but if that's the case and you want to regress, lets just say it's her own fault for getting pregnant in Ireland, a country that gives substandard care to women and has dark age reproductive laws.

    The treatment Savita received was horrendous. She was given substandard care and died because of it. It's not the the first time it's occurred. The HIQA report detailed other occasions and detailed the recommendations they'd made at the time of these previous incidents. Recommendations which had not then and still aren't implemented. Women have died and will continue to die because of this.

    And what's just as bad are all the pro life idiots who are able to revise history to suite their narrative. "An abortion wouldn't have saved her" Really, well both her and the foetus died so I guess we'll never know if that's the truth. Unless of course we loot at other situations in other countries where an abortion in similar occasions did save a womans live. And we could listen to the overwhelmingly vast majority of doctors who agree.

    In India where abortion is allowed, a pregnant woman dies on average every 12 minutes.


  • Options
    #213
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    RobertKK wrote: »
    In India where abortion is allowed, a pregnant woman dies on average every 12 minutes.

    I don't think the comparison is fair at all- very sensationilist


  • Options
    #214
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    RobertKK wrote: »
    In India where abortion is allowed, a pregnant woman dies on average every 12 minutes.

    can you provide any evidence what so ever to suggest that those two figures are negatively related?

    I'd imagine the reason for that figure is because of two things.

    1) a billion people live there
    2) half of them live in abject poverty with little to no healthcare available.

    There is one issue with abortion in India though and that's how many people terminate so they won't have female children. Although I'm pro choice I still think that's wrong. It shows a massive prejudice against women. That however is a separate issue.


  • Options
    #215
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    It's not quite that simple -






    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/adoption_and_fostering/adopting_a_child.html[/url]

    So, as I said, single women or those having a child who's father is not their husband, can legally sever the legal rights and responsibilities they have in relation to that child. Do you consider these women "deadbeat Mom's"? Do you reserve the same kind of ire for them you do for the people that have suggested that men should be able to essentially do the same thing?

    The reality is you were so quick to jump on the suggestion with your sexist hypersensitivity you didn't think things through and had to immediately begin back tracking and straw manning. I'll leave you to it. Effort...


  • Options
    #216
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    efb wrote: »
    I don't think the comparison is fair at all- very sensationilist

    It is the truth http://www.dw.de/india-still-grappling-with-maternal-deaths/a-17631850

    On average 45,000 Indian women die during or after child birth. The rate is about 200 women per 100,000.
    The Irish rate is in single figures and lower than most western countries that permit abortion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is the truth http://www.dw.de/india-still-grappling-with-maternal-deaths/a-17631850

    On average 45,000 Indian women die during or after child birth. The rate is about 200 women per 100,000.
    The Irish rate is in single figures and lower than most western countries that permit abortion.

    But higher that some western countries that permit abortions then


  • Options
    #218
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT

    There is the full data


  • Options
    #219
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is the truth http://www.dw.de/india-still-grappling-with-maternal-deaths/a-17631850

    On average 45,000 Indian women die during or after child birth. The rate is about 200 women per 100,000.
    The Irish rate is in single figures and lower than most western countries that permit abortion.

    What would happen if women in Ireland weren't allowed to travel elsewhere to access abortion services? Would the abortion rate drop to near zero?


  • Options
    #220
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is the truth http://www.dw.de/india-still-grappling-with-maternal-deaths/a-17631850

    On average 45,000 Indian women die during or after child birth. The rate is about 200 women per 100,000.
    The Irish rate is in single figures and lower than most western countries that permit abortion.

    India isn't the bastion of medical care I was made to believe? Next you'll be telling us their trains get a bit crowded.


  • Options
    #221
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    The UK has a lower mortality rate than us


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    efb wrote: »
    But higher that some western countries that permit abortions then

    We are among the lowest in the world.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html


  • Options
    #223
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is the truth http://www.dw.de/india-still-grappling-with-maternal-deaths/a-17631850

    On average 45,000 Indian women die during or after child birth. The rate is about 200 women per 100,000.
    The Irish rate is in single figures and lower than most western countries that permit abortion.

    Reading that link, the majority of deaths was suffering from a bloodstream infection, likely due to a bacterium acquired during the caesarian. Such infections, also known as sepsis, are more common in India than in the developed world and indicate poor quality of care.


  • Options
    #224
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is the truth http://www.dw.de/india-still-grappling-with-maternal-deaths/a-17631850

    On average 45,000 Indian women die during or after child birth. The rate is about 200 women per 100,000.
    The Irish rate is in single figures and lower than most western countries that permit abortion.

    just to add to that, the largest single killer of girls under the age of 21 is childbirth. That's globally, there may be a slight variation in certain countries. It's particularly bad in the third world.

    That's why the Bill and Melinda gates foundation is doing so much to increase the knowledge of and availability of contraception. Educating girls about sex and reproduction can provide them with the ability to control their own fertility. Giving them access to contraception will also help this. Prevention is the best cure and although I'm pro choice I do think that stopping a pregnancy before it starts, through effective contraception, is better than abortion.

    That's not to say that availability of abortion wouldn't help these women. Abortion is safer than childbirth for a teenage girl. Especially when it's drug induced at an early stage. Medical abortion is a bit of a moot point. If it's not possible to get condoms and other contraceptives to them it's probably not possible to get adequate facilities set up. that doesn't mean that hospitals shouldn't be set up with them.


  • Options
    #225
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    efb wrote: »
    The UK has a lower mortality rate than us

    UK is higher than our mortality rate.


  • Options
    #226
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    realies wrote: »
    Reading that link, the majority of deaths was suffering from a bloodstream infection, likely due to a bacterium acquired during the caesarian. Such infections, also known as sepsis, are more common in India than in the developed world and indicate poor quality of care.

    No its abortions. Higher death rate + abortions? Must be abortions. The statistics match up perfectly. We should ban internet explorer while we're at it

    http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--VMdaBkt---/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18calq4ybym0sjpg.jpg


  • Options
    #227
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    realies wrote: »
    Reading that link, the majority of deaths was suffering from a bloodstream infection, likely due to a bacterium acquired during the caesarian. Such infections, also known as sepsis, are more common in India than in the developed world and indicate poor quality of care.

    The strain of infection that Savita had is common in India and some countries have issued to be aware of pregnant women who traveled to India or from India, given ESBL can be a problem, it has a mortality rate somewehre around 30%.


  • Options
    #228
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    RobertKK wrote: »
    UK is higher than our mortality rate.

    In 2013 our Rate is 9 there's is 8


  • Options
    #229
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    RobertKK wrote: »
    UK is higher than our mortality rate.

    Your both right.

    the world bank says the UK is lower
    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT

    the CIA say Ireland is lower.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html


  • Options
    #230
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Grayson wrote: »
    Your both right.

    the world bank says the UK is lower
    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT

    the CIA say Ireland is lower.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html

    My data is more recent


  • Options
    #231
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Grayson wrote: »
    Your both right.

    the world bank says the UK is lower
    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT

    the CIA say Ireland is lower.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html
    efb wrote: »
    My data is more recent

    We can both be right, there is very little difference.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    efb wrote: »
    My data is more recent

    last year there were 10 cases of maternal mortality in the republic. If the number of cases dropped by a couple of a increased by a couple in an increase can drastically change the stats.

    That's not to say that every case is bad. each of those was a woman dying. And cases like Savita's where there was an almighty fcukup shouldn't happen. there's still a lot of room for improvement. I just mean that when it's that small statistics can be a bit weird.


  • Options
    #233
    topper75
    Registered Users Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    What's going on here in AH?

    Surely post #8 should have been #2 and then a mod should have just locked it in #3?


  • Options
    #234
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    realies wrote: »
    It is quite embarrassing in this day and age that women still have to hide and go in secret to a another country in regards to contraception, unbelievable really.

    I think you are confused as to the difference between contraception and abortion. Nobody in Ireland has to "go in secret" to another country to get contraceptives.


  • Options
    #235
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,087 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    RobertKK wrote: »
    We can both be right, there is very little difference.

    It's now accepted that the stats in Ireland on maternal mortality rates have been severely under reported, partly die to methodological flaws. More recent statistics should be better but are still not directly comparable to international statistics, because some cases that are reported as maternal deaths in the UK and elsewhere are not classified as such by Irish coroners.

    It seems probable that the "increase" recently is due to media attention preventing such deaths going unreported, not to a real increase.


  • Options
    #236
    Fuhrer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭Fuhrer


    Ive only been skim reading this thread, whats the general consensus of when its still ok to kill the baby?

    Inside the body, good?
    Outside the body, bad?


  • Options
    #237
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,785 ✭✭✭SeanW


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    It's why advocates of 'paper abortions for men' tie themselves up in knots trying to argue that a man should be allowed to abdicate his responsibility towards a child he doesn't want, while at the same time trying to maintain that this is a father's rights issue!

    It's a bit like saying "Well she wanted to have the child, I didn't, so now I have no responsibility for that child". Their attitude doesn't negate the fact that a child now exists, and they have a duty towards that child. They can hardly argue father's rights while ignoring father's responsibilities.
    ...
    The whole 'paper abortion for men' is nothing more than a poorly thought out specious strawman that always gets thrown in with abortion, that actually bears no similarity to abortion whatsoever, and is merely a poor attempt at so-called 'gender equality' for men.
    1) According to some people (whether because of religious influence or otherwise) an unborn child is still a human being.

    2) It is indeed an equal rights issue, because a no-abortion regime is equal - an unwanted pregnancy cannot be ended by either party, and everyone know where they stand before the fact. Where abortions are legalised, but there is no "paper abortion" procedure for the father, is when inequality arises.

    Because under this case, in a questionable pregnancy the father has no say in his own future - if he is not able/willing to accept the responsibility of fatherhood, but the mother decides to have/keep the child, tough, he's on the hook. Likewise if the father wants the child, even being willing to raise it on his own, but the mother wants to walk away from the pregnancy immediately, again, sux 2 B him.

    Under your "if the child happens to exist" standard, the only way to give the man to have any say in his own future in these cases were for him to be able to petition a court to force the mother to abort/carry the child in accordance with his plans for the future.

    Since no one would seriously like that, an alternative standard is proposed.


  • Options
    #238
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Fuhrer wrote: »
    Ive only been skim reading this thread, whats the general consensus of when its still ok to kill the baby?

    Inside the body, good?
    Outside the body, bad?
    Babies are outside the body.
    Foetuses are inside.
    Happy to clarify.

    That's why killing a foetus doesn't carry exactly the same penalty as killing a baby.


  • Options
    #239
    Fuhrer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭Fuhrer


    SeanW wrote: »
    1) According to some people (whether because of religious influence or otherwise) an unborn child is still a human being.

    I think everyone agrees that an unborn child is a human being, people just disagree at what stage it is considered as such.


  • Options
    #240
    Fuhrer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭Fuhrer


    lazygal wrote: »
    Babies are outside the body.
    Foetuses are inside.
    Happy to clarify.

    That's why killing a foetus doesn't carry exactly the same penalty as killing a baby.

    I dont know what the law is in Ireland but killing a Fetus does carry the exact same penalty as killing a baby in Northern Ireland, life imprisonment.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Fuhrer wrote: »
    I dont know what the law is in Ireland but killing a Fetus does carry the exact same penalty as killing a baby in Northern Ireland, life imprisonment.

    But you can kill a foetus here if your life is at risk. Or you can bring it elsewhere to kill it. You can't be charged with murder for doing so. In fact there is a constitutional right to travel if you want to kill the unborn elsewhere, as well as information on killing the unborn. The same does not apply where people wish to kill a born baby.


Advertisement