Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Call me Al wrote: »

Well maybe have a look at pages 8,9 and 10. And I've only got as far as page 10, so you might like to take it from there.

Theyre not quite as extreme as our page 6 poster but very entrenched nonetheless. So while these fundamentalists may be the in the minority they are an extremely vocal minority and aren't as small in number so you might think.

And I believe they have a disproportionate influence on the status quo as it stands.

Unfortunately, yes you are correct, it is the loudest, most aggressive, most inflaming comments that we tend to remember.
However there have been some quite nasty comments from the pro choice posters directed at what I certainly consider respectful pro life posters , thankfully this seems to have been noted by the mods.

I do not entertain disrespectful, inflaming comments from either side of this debate.

blacklilly wrote: »

I believe the medical profession involved in this case required legal clarification on this matter and that was perhaps due to part to the 8th amendment. Legal clarification is required by the medical profession on many many medical situations and that is because it is impossible for our constitution or legislation to cover every possible medical situation.

I'm genuinely not here to argue with any poster on this matter. I respect that you are entitled to your opinion in respect of this issue but I would ask that you also respect the fact that others will have differing opinions to you.

I don't think I've been disrespectful to anyone, but I refuse to respect opinions I find unacceptable. Should I (pretend to) respect racists' opinions too?

This case was like a frankenstein movie. Horrible time for her family having to watch their loved one turn into something unrecognisible as their daughter. This country should hang it's head in shame for putting them through this ordeal.

lazygal wrote: »

Doctors don't face a 14 year sentence in most clinical cases and several obstetricians have said the law has an effect on what in other countries is normal clinical practice. When I'm pregnant I don't want doctors consulting the constitution, I want them to treat me in a manner that means I have the best possible outcome.

But you're just a woman.

Who cares what you want.

(The way some people actually feel about these issues but won't actually say it).

lazygal wrote: »

Well the high court found a 14 year old pregnant rape victim had to continue to gestate her rapist's foetus as her feelings didn't matter so nothing surprises me.

The issue exposes the attitudes some people have for women.

They couldn't give a toss about them.

(I actually think that some of them aren't aware of their own backward attitude).

blacklilly wrote: »

Sorry, I'm a bit tired and that last line wasn't directly towards you necessarily.

If you are trying to compare a racists to a person who is pro life, that in itself is disrespectful. None of my opinions are/views are criminal in nature.

I'm not asking you to respect my/others opinions, I'm asking that you respect the right for me/others to have differing opinions to you.

I'm not comparing them, I'm asking why I should have to respect someone's opinion when I find that opinion to be completely unacceptable.

And respecting someone's right to hold an opinion doesn't mean pretending to think the opinion is of equal value to other opinions, it only means not punishing people for their thoughts rather than their actions.

So I can respect your right to hold an opinion while telling you that I find that opinion disgusting and not worth respecting.

blacklilly wrote: »

Yes and likewise

So go ahead then, tell me why you think I was wrong and disgusting to say that we should probably listen to the bereaved family, and not presume to know better than they did?

And I'll tell you why I don't respect opinions like the poster who told me my views were twisted and that anyone thinking differently from him was a vulture :

conorhal wrote: »

That's just a twisted comment. How do you know the wishes of the woman in question, perhaps she desperately wanted this child?

This case will really show the proborts for what they are, murderous to meet their agenda.
This isn't about a woman's rights, she's brain dead. This is all about the proborts looking to kill a healthy baby to establish a principle that killing the unborn is permissable. Hopefully peoples eye's will be opened by such a horrible position and they will think a little more deeply about the 8th ammendment and the protection it offers from such vultures.

Oh, and he got several likes for that too.

Should I respect those views about me?

hotmail.com wrote: »

The issue exposes the attitudes some people have for women.

They couldn't give a toss about them.

(I actually think that some of them aren't aware of their own backward attitude).

It's not just women these people have a problem with though. They have a cast iron opinion on everything due to the fact that they can't keep their noses out of other people's business.

They actually feel they have a right to tell people how to live their lives and see nothing wrong with this.

The World to them is black and white. There can be no middle ground as their beliefs trump all others.

It's also quite ironic that bible bashers don't mind playing god in cases like this.

JRant wrote: »

It's not just women these people have a problem with though. They have a cast iron opinion on everything due to the fact that they can't keep their noses out of other people's business.

They actually feel they have a right to tell people how to live their lives and see nothing wrong with this.

The World to them is black and white. There can be no middle ground as their beliefs trump all others.

The key point is that these cranks and fanatics would be dismissed out of hand in any other country. It has somehow come to pass that Irish society has actually been listening to them and treating their nutty opinions as being perfectly valid and rational (some form of hangover from our repressive Catholic past I presume).

Strazdas wrote: »

The key point is that these cranks and fanatics would be dismissed out of hand in any other country. It has somehow come to pass that Irish society has actually been listening to them and treating their nutty opinions as being perfectly valid and rational (some form of hangover from our repressive Catholic past I presume).

And they're still being listened too unfortunately. If we had a vote on repealing the 8th tomorrow it would more than likely be defeated IMO. The grey vote would be out in force.

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Yes, it is. Defeating an argument in a debate is how you reach conclusion. The pro-life brigade fúcked off or started back-peddling as soon as doctor described the brain as "liquifying" and the foetus would not stand a chance.

Yes, it is. It's worth less if it's the wrong opinion.

What if their views are racist or if a mother believes she should disown her son because he gay?

Until the next because of this bad law we have in our constitution. This law killed Savita Halappanavar and it will continue to kill in the future if it's not repealed.

That's the fault of the pro-life brigade, not us.

I don't agree with your opinions.
For example in your last comment it is like you haven't read this thread as prochoice have been using this case for their own means, repeal the 8th is what prochoice have been arguing in this thread, which seemed to be more important to prochoice more so than than the right to a dignified death.
This can be seen with how Savita has been brought into this when she had nothing to do with this case and then when it was it was done with most of the facts like basic health care not provided as in the HIQU report.
Why not just accuse both sides of the debate rather than choosing to see the people you disagree with.
Your post showed how you accused prolife but in the same post you used this and another case for prochoice purposes.
Just accuse both sides and I think people will see the honesty in the debate rather than half truths with the purpose of point scoring.

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't agree with your opinions.
For example in your last comment it is like you haven't read this thread as prochoice have been using this case for their own means, repeal the 8th is what prochoice have been arguing in this thread, which seemed to be more important to prochoice more so than than the right to a dignified death.
This can be seen with how Savita has been brought into this when she had nothing to do with this case and then when it was it was done with most of the facts like basic health care not provided as in the HIQU report.
Why not just accuse both sides of the debate rather than choosing to see the people you disagree with.
Your post showed how you accused prolife but in the same post you used this and another case for prochoice purposes.
Just accuse both sides and I think people will see the honesty in the debate rather than half truths with the purpose of point scoring.

That's an amazing post, truly a classic in its projection onto others of its own failings!

Pro-choice, as you call them, have been saying in this thread that the 8th was the cause of this issue because it was. The court judgment accepted that!

Some people also mentioned dignity in death - but that isn't written in law anywhere, and is to some extent a new precedent set by the court's ruling in order to get around the problem posed by the 8th when a pregnant woman is brain dead.

You've done the same with Savita - her death was also caused by the 8th, since the failures in care etc just follow on from the initial refusal to let her have a termination even though she was miscarrying anyway. It happens all the time in Irish hospitals you know, it's just that fortunately the woman usually doesn't die. Although we've seen how nearly the HSE managed to cover her death up, so there may well have been other deaths too.

Out of interest, exactly what action was needed to prevent her death? Following up on blood tests doesn't count, that never cured anyone if anything, it only tells the staff what needs to be done. So go on - what needed to be done?

Pointing all this out is just pointing out the facts - not using the thread for any dishonest purposes.

Whereas pretending that it has nothing to do with the 8th amendment - well, that would be dishonest. Very dishonest.

RobertKK wrote: »

It is very dishonest of people to blame prolife for using this woman when your post proves my point.
Just blame both sides as you have used this case and Savita as well for the prochoice argument.

Repeating yourself doesn't make you right. The court said that the doctors acted because of fears about the extent of the 8th amendment - were they trying to exploit this for "prochoice" reasons in your opinion?

The eighth amendment is a disaster for doctors. These decisions should be based on medical concerns, not on legal ones.

My thoughts are with that poor family. I would not want this for my wife, my sister or in the future for my daughter.

40.3.3 is the problem. A zygote or foetus should not have equal rights to a fully self sustaining woman. Viability has to be taken into account.

Too many weak politicians more concerned with seats than doing what is right.