Printable View
Apparently, although it has been argued that the shipping of our maternity problems abroad - that referring to the "safety net" provided by the close proximity of Britian, where abortion is, of course, legal - has resulted in unreliable statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
My bit about India was to do with the preceding paragraph where I'd given out about the self loathing Oirish.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
The paragraph it was a direct follow on from.
The paragraph you left out in a (massively successful) attempt to work yourself up into an indignant lather.
150th in infant mortality.Quote:
never mind your oversimplified impressions of India society?
Just ahead of Zimbabwe and Yemen, just behind Burma and Bangladesh.
129th in Maternal Mortality Rate.
Tucked between Namibia and Djibouti.
Spare me.
Again working yourself up into a lather.Quote:
So Mr. Halappanavar should shut up, remember where he came from and he should have no more expectation of a standard of medical treatment than some homeless kid in India gets?
Why not tell him outright 'to go back home'?
If a serious investigation into the circumstances is needed (and nowhere did I state an investigation into the circumstances wasn't needed) then surely it should be conducted in a manner which the elected government and their experts see fit and not at the whim of Mr. Halappanavar??
To me this seems like common sense. Yet again, you twist my comments to try and beat me with the racialist stick.
Read what is written.
There's no need to put an imaginary slant on it that suit you.
It is what it is.
Nowhere did I question whether or not there should be an investigation.Quote:
Where does one determine an acceptable standard of proof?
There is evidence and set of circumstances to investigate, an investigation into the medical practice used with this woman and one part is to find out the reasons for decisions taken.
The abortion laws exist and they are an issue
The main thrust of my post was against the "REFERDUM NOW" v "NO REFERENDUM" nonsense we've been subjected to by the two extremes on the issue.
They are of course talking nonsense precisely because there hasn't been an investigation yet.
Again, try just reading what's written.
In fairness I also threw the pro life wackjobs into a similar basket. (A throwing that you don't seem as put out by :p)Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
You, like me, despite having a different opinion, are with the vast majority of people in the fairly sensible middle ground.
The point I was making is that in these kind of debates you don't get sensible, middle ground debate.
You get two sets of equally dislikable, equally unpopular, extremists mooing at one another.
The HSE/Gov.ie handling of this has been a complete clusterfeck. I've seen their incompetence on several occasions but never such an amount of it compressed into one giant ball of snot.
Everyone knows abortion is a killer issue - pardon the pun - which is why none of them ever have the balls to actually do anything about it, but if they continue as they are it'll be suicide.
The worst thing is, if they do fall apart, we'll have FF back again!
Jaysus, I'd forgotten we'd got rid of FF. Funny how things slip your mind.
I did mention both of your pre-configured pigeonholes. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lim till i die
There is a lot of guff being spouted, to be honest, which, I admit, is unnerving considering nobody is, as of yet, certain of the facts. But when did the sensible middle-ground ever make the headlines?Quote:
The point I was making is that in these kind of debates you don't get sensible, middle ground debate.
You get two sets of equally dislikable, equally unpopular, extremists mooing at one another.
That's how they get ya. Ratings up too. People have very short memories. The Oirish as a people appear to have collective Attention Deficit Disorder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Perhaps it makes common sense to you,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lim till i die
Lets have a look at what you wrote, after you gave out about the "self loathing Oirish".
"And now Mr. Halappanavar isn't happy with the make up of the inquiry team?! He should be politely told that although we are obviously very sorry for his tragice loss he needs to take a step back now and if he has indeed been suddenly afflicted with a huge desire to ensure that the mothers and babies of the world are correctly cared for he could begin his mission at lot closer to home."
Personally I agreed with Halappanavar's reservations at the time, his solicitor also gave good reasons and as it turned out his reservations were accurate and supported by many people.
Imo, telling him nicely to shut up, stop interfering and worry about saving children back in his homeland, is patronizing and condescending drivel.
I'm not in the least interested to comment on those opinions of yours or use extreme descriptions like 'pro life wackjobs',Quote:
In fairness I also threw the pro life wackjobs into a similar basket. (A throwing that you don't seem as put out by :p)
You, like me, despite having a different opinion, are with the vast majority of people in the fairly sensible middle ground.
The point I was making is that in these kind of debates you don't get sensible, middle ground debate.
You get two sets of equally dislikable, equally unpopular, extremists mooing at one another.
except to highlight the obvious contradiction in your self-congratulatory tone, alluding/implying that the manner of how you express yourself is a part of a "sensible, middle ground debate".
Indeed, what does the state of maternity care in India have to do with the death of Savita Halappanavar? :/Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Anyhow, it transpires that her repeated requests for a termination are now missing from her medical notes: http://www.independent.ie/national-n...g-3303063.html
Can we assume that requests were definitely made, or does the absence of notes now raise doubt over such a presumption made on good faith? Either there were no requests or there were requests and doctors either neglected their medical duty of care (or is the taking of notes/recording of patient requests a duty?) and failed to record them or they have been removed from the notes in a cover-up attempt. Nevertheless, if a probability could have been established that Mrs. Halappanavar's condition was posing a real and substantial risk to her life, whether she had requested a termination or not would surely be inconsequential and of no substantive difference.
They probably learned from all the builders to forget to take notes, plausible deniability an' all that. I just hope that if the requests are genuine, the father had the forethought to note dates and times himself. I think I would given that the denials, but who can say what mindset they'd be in in that situation.
I discussed this with the wife, who's currently pregnant. I told her that I'd have found a way to do it myself. She agreed. But again, I can only imagine what the father was going through.
I'll tell you this though: if someone told me I couldn't have the foetus terminated because Ireland is a catholic country, they'd be thanking their lucky stars they were in a hospital, because I'd break their face right there and then.
[QUOTE=dahamsta;1645648]clusterfeck[QUOTE]
Are even you, the owner of the site not allowed a "u" in this instance?
One of my all-time favourite words. God bless it's use.
Legislating for X doesn't go far enough. Ignoring the eventual outcome, and whether an earlier termination would've prevented the sepsis, it's completely barbaric that a woman would have to go through days of pain and anguish in circumstances where there is no hope of survival of the foetus. The Government should grasp the nettle now, and go for a constitutional referendum that recognises the health of the mother, as well as her life. That is the only real way to give proper clarity to the medical profession in my opinion.
Self-censorship. I like clusterfeck better now anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
I have have a number of "friends" who are of that crazy militant feminist type and have barracked me at every turn when I comment or make a statement on this.
So has a possessor of a penis and obviously the wrong chromosomes I faithfully withdraw all opinions on abortion, women's rights, childbirth, sex and anything else which may result in me getting a public and/or facebook dressing-down.
***bags!
Now, I will go stand in a corner and flagellate myself for being a white heterosexual male in a western democracy. How dare I.
How can you expect women to take a guy seriously on sensitive feminine issues when he shouts "funbags!" in the middle of a rant?Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
It wasn't fun...Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Gee, really?
Yes Stu. Yes.
eh...
The outrage at the votes result last night made me laugh.
Reminded me of this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgrc...e_gdata_player
'Government abortion legislation to include threat of suicide': http://www.newstalk.ie/Government-ab...eat-of-suicide
What's controversial about the legislation being in line with the Supreme Court's interpretation in the 'X' Case? Wasn't that the only line possible?Quote:
The government is to introduce legislation and regulation to allow for abortion in certain cases when a woman's life is at risk including the threat of suicide.
Legislation in line with the Supreme Court 'X Case' will be drafted over the coming months by Health Minister James Reilly.
After weeks of a heated debate the coalition in the end ignored nervous Fine Gael backbenchers and went with the advice of the Expert Group.
They will now legislate and regulate for the provision of terminations in certain cases when a woman's life is at risk.
But controversially the legislation will be in line with the Supreme Court interpretation in the 'X Case'
This means the threat of suicide will be legislated for as a risk to the life of a woman.
In a government Statement Minister Reilly says they will provide clarity for the medical profession about what is permissible - doctors will still have to take full account of the equal right to life of the unborn child.
Yeah - the fgers must be thick. The only way to legislate for the x case is to include the threat of suicide.
Newstalk would use the word contersial in practically anything. "RTE's evening news, which controversially starts at 9pm..."
It might've taken 20 years and it seems as it FG are doing this against their will, but regardless, however they got there, its the right thing to do.
Does the earlier news still start at 6:01PM? Now, that's controversial...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Ensuring legislation is up-to-date with constitutional "developments" is certainly prudent, but is legislation rubber stamping the 'X' case actually required in a substantive sense? What exactly will it change with regard to when a termination is and isn't permissible in the state? The test will remain as, "if it [is] established as a matter of probability that there [is] a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother" or will that phrase be dissected by greater clarity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Well to be fair, the government have said legislation and regulations to be introduced. Until we see what that entails, its only going to be speculation
Two things that are perplexing me slightly - or irritating me, even - are the media headlines/announcements (both national and international) and the cries of moral outrage from the pro-life camp that Ireland is set to - shamefully, in the latter's case - sanction abortion all of a sudden. See this, for example, or the statement by the four archbishops:
Quote:
Such legislation would “introduce an abortion regime into this country in which the life of the baby could be directly and intentionally targeted for destruction,” she said.
Spokeswoman for the religious advocacy group the Iona Institute Maria Steen said it would be “wrong and unnecessary” to allow abortion in cases where there is deemed to be suicidal intent.
“Irish law already allows the ending of a pregnancy when there is no other choice and there is a clear threat to the life of the mother,” she said.
“A decision to include a threat of suicide as a ground for abortion would also be wrong in principle because it would authorise for the first time ever the deliberate and direct destruction of unborn human life in Ireland.”
Why the scaremongering and dishonesty? Abortion has been legally permissible since the 'X' Case given the fact that constitutional law takes precedence over every other body of law in the country. I don't understand the big hoo-ha over this, especially as the test is still narrow and restrictive in its prohibition of abortion on demand. The action of the government on this is simply standard legal practice, albeit long overdue.Quote:
If what is being proposed were to become law, the careful balance between the equal right to life of a mother and her unborn child in current law and medical practice in Ireland would be fundamentally changed. It would pave the way for the direct and intentional killing of unborn children. This can never be morally justified in any circumstances.
Also, the risk of the possibility of suicide (as adjudged by a competent medical practitioner and not based solely upon the petition or submission of the pregnant woman, importantly, so as to curb the threat of bad faith) satisfies the 'X' Case test, so it's not as if the legislation is set to go beyond the constraints of the Supreme Court's ruling. It simply won't because it can't.
Mind you, I did admire the audacity of this section of the archbishops' statement:
Quote:
Moreover, on a decision of such fundamental moral importance every public representative is entitled to complete respect for the freedom of conscience. No one has the right to force or coerce someone to act against their conscience. Respect for this right is the very foundation of a free, civilised and democratic society.
I presume thats rhetorical given the people we're talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
What's the vested interest, other than polarising and entrenching opinion? For there's no halting the inevitable; it's already been a reality for two decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
C'mon lads, peados and their supporters are people too.
Listening to Highland Radio this morning, heard an interesting point raised. One of the guests on the Sean Doherty show said he was completely against abortion, didn;t agree with it at all, but equally he feels it isn't his right to legislate for another individual, especially in such an instance of rape or similar. Kinda similar to my own views.
That said, I think a better sex education class taught in schools, especially with regard to contraception, and emphasis on responsibility for your actions, would be as equally as beneficial. Society doesn't have to go all puritanical and victorian, but a bit of a more adult approach would reduce, I feel, the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in abortion.
That reflects my views in many ways. I think it's a very difficult issue and people must make up their own minds. Hence I am pro-choice* because I would not dare to tell other people what to do. To some extent because I'm on unsure ground.
* Although probably only up to the point where the baby would survive without the mother. After that I guess I'm pro life. And I fully acknowledge there's a grey area in between. I don't know where exactly the line should be drawn but think there probably should be one. At what stage is it a person involved? I don't know. But I don't think a few cells is a person.
Like I said, it's an immensely difficult subject. I'd love to see an open and wide ranging debate on it. But I know the debate would be taken over by loonies- in a way, I don't blame the political class for not wanting to touch this. On the other hand, it's their job so they need to get their cards on the table- and saying they're unsure (if properly explained) to me at least, would be ok.
Mixed up post I know- I hope it makes some sense to people.
Out of interest, people who are strongly discomfited by abortion but wouldn't tell women what to do - do you feel you lack the courage of your convictions?
I don't think thats fair. Even the the most vehement pro-choice supporters acknowledge its never an easy choice to make. In fact I hate the line taken by anti-choice campaigners that some how this will lead to an 'easy way out' for some women. Abortion is never easy, and thats what some are discomfitted by itQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Personally, I'm strongly pro-choice. Choice in pretty much all social/family issues. The only people this effects are the individuals involved, and they're the only people who should have any say
As for the guy who swore children to keep quiet about being raped trying to tell families how to deal with pregnancy... that moral highground is long gone
Pretty much with MR A in this one. And I suppose I would term us as the middle ground. It's a debate and discussion I never like having simply because of the polarising views that it generates.
Both extremes of either lobbies are reprehensible.
I'm delighted though that FG and Labour are finally dealing with this.
And Charlie, as Dodge said that isn't a fair statement to make. It's really difficult to come down strongly on either side of this because the pros and cons are so profound on both sides that you could argue with yourself all day and never be happy with your decision.
Genuine question here (as I know you've felt I called you out on certain things before unfairly)Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
What do you find reprehensible about the pro choice lobby?
I'm talking about the extreme end of the pro-choice lobby, the middle ground reasoned people, ie you I have no issues with, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
You know that end of the lobby that feel that male input into this debate is moot. That putting any timeframe in place is an affront to their human rights, eg. I have had someone jump down my neck for merely suggesting that 24 weeks is a reasonable amount of time for a decision to be made.
I was told to "f*** off, what would I know and how dare I as a white, hetero man get involved in this debate as I have such a privileged position in society".
They wouldn't be happy with anything less than what happens in the USA!
Now, I accept that these people are few and far between but they do exist, and they are reprehensible. It is these that tend to lead debate on these issues (Just like Youth Defence on the other side).
I hope that makes sense.
It does. I haven't come accross many though
Which conviction though? I believe that the majority of abortion is wrong, for a variety of reasons. Like everything, there are exceptions. However, I believe as strongly (if not more so) that an individual is responsible for their own choices and actions, and whatever they decide, they have to stand over it; it's not my place to tell someone else what to do with their life, what choices to make and what path to follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I'm somewhat puzzled by this. How can you make such a definitive moral judgment when you will not only not be privy to the particular circumstances of those concerned but further admit that the personal affairs of other people are none of your business? What are those reasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by shantykelly
I'm being a bit mischievous but I also think it's a serious point - a lot of people say they feel strongly against abortion but then qualify it by saying they can't tell a woman what to do. That always jarred with me, despite the fact I sort of share that position. I wonder if some men have a fear of sounding paternalistic by being strongly anti-choice when that's how they actually feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Well if you think abortion is wrong that's a fairly strong opinion. If you think a person is responsible for their own actions, does that mean abortion is the responsible thing to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by shantykelly
Do or would you fear being perceived as paternalistic? Is the instance of an unconnected man (or even a related man, I suppose) moralising on the decision a woman wishes to take with regard to her own body not inherently paternalistic? I'll be honest; the termination of a pregnancy is unfortunate in terms of the loss of the unborn - I think most people would agree on that, which is why it's such a difficult decision for many to make - but I'd fear being perceived as paternalistic if I told a woman she was making the morally wrong decision, irrespective of her motivation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
This forum surprises me, by the way. I read through Politics.ie now and again and, amongst the sense, it's packed with all sorts of narrow-minded, crackpot opinions - naturally, the abortion debate is a big polariser - but the vast majority of posters here on this, a football forum, seem very open, enlightened and level-headed when it comes to discussing social and political issues. We're supposed to be boorish football fans, you absolute shower of fu-... :)
Or maybe they're against abortion but pro-choice. I mean they might never want to (for want of a better phrase) 'avail' of an abortion, but they understand that its up to parents to decide for themselves. I don't think many are pro-abortion, as in an ideal world they wouldn't be neccessaryQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
But I feel like most understand now that they are neccesary. Saying its 'not for me to decide' isn't a cop out at all. its just common decency IMO