robdonn wrote: » What word is misspelt?
looksee wrote: » Both are correct.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Over the course of 17 months, five women who were admitted to Mercy Health Partners Hospital in Muskegon, Michigan due to miscarriages, nearly died as doctors weren't allowed to induce a birth until either the foetal heartbeat stopped or the woman developed sepsis.
hinault wrote: » Once again for the cheap seats. Comprehension ain't your strong point.
robdonn wrote: » ... I don't want to be an ass and point out your error here.
galljga1 wrote: » Don't worry, I don't think anybody thinks your the ass.
cattolico wrote: » Cant say i am sorry to see LB gone. Glad electorate did not for a change in the constitution.
cattolico wrote: » Cant say i am sorry to see LB gone. Glad electorate did not vote for a change in the constitution.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Remind me, how are Renua, Paddy Manning, Kate Bopp etc. doing? :P
cattolico wrote: » How is Peadar Toibin doing? and Fianna Fail for that matter.
Delirium wrote: » Open to correction, but saw it mentioned today that their (Fianna Fail) result was the second worst result they've ever had. So I'm gonna go with bad to answer your question.
Role of religion Contrary to what might have been assumed, people’s religion does not significantly impact on their views on abortion. In fact, 82% of those who consider themselves religious agreed that their religious views should not be imposed on others. Only one in five people (20%) who consider themselves to be religious say that they have “very conflicted” views on abortion because of their religion. Strikingly, 13% of those opposed to abortion in all circumstances shared this view. 28% of those who favour some expansion to abortion access agreed that they hide it because of their perception of how people who share their religion would feel about them.
The horrific court case involving a young pregnant brain-dead woman might not be a one-off The last government legislated for an individual’s autonomy in medical cases – except if you’re a pregnant woman, writes barrister Kate Butler.
As former minister for health James O’Reilly noted, the AHD “has been recognised as an expression of an individual’s autonomy”.
That is, except if you’re a pregnant woman. A woman can create an AHD that states her wishes to refuse treatment in certain situations, for example, if declared brain dead. However, under s.85(6)(b) of the new law, where a woman makes an AHD specifically setting out that she wishes to refuse treatment, even if she is pregnant, medical professionals are required to ignore those wishes.
So, let’s say you are a woman of child bearing age, perhaps with a serious illness, and you read about that case over Christmas 2014 and thought, ‘I don’t want my family and children to go through that horror show, I’m going to draw up an advance healthcare directive’. And let’s say that in the AHD you specifically state that you wish to refuse treatment, even where you are pregnant and where the foetus is 20 weeks or less. If that scenario then arises, despite your clear instructions otherwise, life support will not be turned off: s.85(6)(b) kicks in and the medics must automatically refer the case to court.
Instead of providing that doctors may exercise their discretion in cases where the foetus has minimal chance of survival, the government – shackled by the Eighth Amendment – has required an automatic referral to court. Bizarrely, this is seen by policy makers as a vindication of the woman’s rights, because her will and preference will be taken into account by the court.
To give a foetus optimal chances of survival, it should be in utero for 32 weeks. In P.P. v HSE, this woman’s family were looking at a scenario of waiting potentially 17 weeks until they could lay their deceased loved one to rest.
Cabaal wrote: » Spotted this in it also Seems right, after all as a christian would you want Islamic or Jewish views imposed on your daily life?
Cabaal wrote: » So not only can we ignore women's wishes when they are living, we as a country can completely ignore them if the women is dead as well.
Arkady wrote: » I'm surprised (or maybe not) that some peoples hatred of others faith is so great, they endorse killing unborn kids just because they think they are spiting those with faith. There's a day of reckoning for it all.
Arkady wrote: » Being pro the human right life is not restricted to religion. Or is it ? Regardless if I was atheist or theist, I would be anti-abortion as there are two human live involved not one. I'm surprised (or maybe not) that some peoples hatred of others faith is so great, they endorse killing unborn kids just because they think they are spiting those with faith. There's a day of reckoning for it all. Seems some are happy to afford greater rights to a dead body, just as long as they get to kill the unborn child (who could also be female).
Delirium wrote: » I'm surprised that you actually seem to believe that there are pro-choice people who are pro-choice purely to spite religious people. That's pretty high up on the stupid characterisations scale.
Delirium wrote: » And denying the next of kin the ability to have a funeral for weeks or months because the foetus might develop enough to survive outside the womb seems pretty cruel. It also reduces women to incubators. Doesn't matter if they're alive or dead, they're carrying the foetus to term.
Arkady wrote: » What has religion got to do with any of it ?
robdonn wrote: » Agreed, now go tell all the religious groups and organisations to keep their nose out of it.
Arkady wrote: » Why, are they not citizens of this country as well with the same rights as non religious groups and organisations ? Does a persons faith/non belief preclude them from deciding on the equal right of human life ? Many honest atheists who can see the wood for the trees, and examine the subject on it own merits, without religion, are as anti abortion as any religious person. Tell us why to have respect for another's human life, you have to be religious and involve religion ?
Arkady wrote: » Given that many in the pro abortion side spend their time ranting so much about religion, when it has nothing to do with religion but instead is about the two human lives involved.
What has religion got to do with any of it ? Do you have to have religion now to respect a human life ?
So better to respect a dead body, as long as you get to kill the living unborn child, you wouldn't want them to live now would you ?
