Whats the Harm...

Originally posted by wolfgang59
While I agree with the sentiment behind your post this case is really
about poor practice or incompetence. Abortion is clearly allowed in
the Republic where the life of the mother is at risk.

edit: How are the British Press viewing this?

"....this case is really about poor practice or incompetence...."

???

No it isn't.

It's clearly about religious doctors imposing their bat-guano crazy beliefs on everyone else.

It's not that they didn't know (medically) what to do, or how to do it.

It's that they refused to give life saving treatment because of their crazy religious beliefs.

And actually abortion isn't clearly allowed in Ireland... that's kind of the point.

They have no clarifying law on this topic.



The British press are (thus far) treating it with the same mealy mouthed wishy-washyness and
treading on egg shells that they employ every time they talk about abortion/religious issues.

They aught to be raging at the inhuman treatment and murder of this women.

Instead there is this... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am of the opinion that persons have rights, the right of self determination, in this case
it appears to me to go beyond that, for it is well understood, that we believe that the
unborn child has also the right to life. Its a total mess, all of these things should have
been taken into consideration prior to labour and what forms of treatment were on
offer and acceptable discussed, months in advance.

You ignorant inhuman moron.

The latest victim in over a millennium of Catholic abuse is Savita Halappanavar, a young woman who was 17 weeks
pregnant when her condition began to deteriorate. She went to a Catholic hospital, a fatal mistake.

[quote] …she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

She was clearly miscarrying, she was fully dilated and leaking amniotic fluid, and it was obvious to all, including the doctors
at the hospital, that this pregnancy was doomed — there was no hope for the fetus at all. Yet they refused to do the one
simple, ethical procedure that would have saved Halappanavar’s life.[/quote]

She was having a miscarriage.

The foetus was already doomed.

And they allowed her to suffer for days while they waited for the foetus to die 'naturally' before removing it and then trying to
save her life.

They valued the Foetus, which had no functioning mind, no connected nervous system, no ability to feel pain, or care, no memories,
no thoughts, no emotions, over a full adult human being.

They valued a meat sack over a person.

A meat sack that was already doomed to die.

They Tortured and Murdered this women because of their stupid irrational religious beliefs that their own medical training had refuted
many times over.

That's unacceptable in a third world country, let alone in a first world nation.

A foetus is not a person, and a mother can do whatever the hell she likes with ANYTHING inside her body.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b
It's that they refused to give life saving treatment because of their crazy religious beliefs.

And actually abortion isn't clearly allowed in Ireland... that's kind of the point.

They have no clarifying law on this topic.



[/b]

The hospital in question s being investigated so until that investigation is
complete we are just guessing, and while Irish abortion laws are woefully out-
dated, it could be that this was a case of mal-practice by the doctors involved.

The fact that she asked for an abortion and was not given one is down to the
country's law. (Which I agree should be changed)

The fact that she was dying and not given an abortion s down to the doctors.

-------------

I guessed the British Press would be tepid over it, for a predominantly atheist
country the UK Press (actually media in general) has always pandered to
Christianity. (I could never understand various Archbishops getting so much air-
time.)

Can you imagine the spin on this if an Irish girl died in India due to a religious
law?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you agree with the hospital staff that the woman dies because they refuse to abort? You would have followed the same path even though it led to the woman's death? What about HER rights? She is a living thinking being, not a fetus with no mind. I guess that counts for nothing in your world.

Do you rail at the atrocities committed on living people? How ...[text shortened]... which might happen if we keep reproducing willy nilly like we have been in the last 100 years.

The population is not the issue at all. It's what the poulation is doing to the planet.

Originally posted by galveston75
The population is not the issue at all. It's what the poulation is doing to the planet.

No, it is what the humans HAVE to do to the planet to survive with multiple billions of people. We are already using up half the resources of the entire planet now. What do you do when the population triples? Can't happen. Civilization crashes long before we get there.

So the obvious solution is to make for less humans on the planet. Nice round number: 1 billion or less.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you agree with the hospital staff that the woman dies because they refuse to abort? You would have followed the same path even though it led to the woman's death? What about HER rights? She is a living thinking being, not a fetus with no mind. I guess that counts for nothing in your world.

Do you rail at the atrocities committed on living people? How ...[text shortened]... which might happen if we keep reproducing willy nilly like we have been in the last 100 years.

spew!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am of the opinion that persons have rights, the right of self determination, in this case
it appears to me to go beyond that, for it is well understood, that we believe that the
unborn child has also the right to life. Its a total mess, all of these things should have
been taken into consideration prior to labour and what forms of treatment were on
offer and acceptable discussed, months in advance.

I am of the opinion that persons have rights,...

Ok. explain how a foetus with no functioning brain is a person.

...for it is well understood, that we believe that the unborn child has also the right to life.

Apart from the fact that it is ridiculous to talk about giving 'rights' to a tiny unthinking bunch of cells...

Answer me this...

"If a child develops a life threatening illness that can only be cured by an organ donation from a parent.
Should the state force the parent to donate the organ?"

Barring in mind that this will risk the life of the parent and will cause the parent to endure a long and unpleasant
recovery, which may never be back to full health.

Please note I am not asking about moral obligations or what course of action is better. Simply whether the state
should FORCE the parent to undergo a life threatening operation to give part of their body to the child.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, it is what the humans HAVE to do to the planet to survive with multiple billions of people. We are already using up half the resources of the entire planet now. What do you do when the population triples? Can't happen. Civilization crashes long before we get there.

So the obvious solution is to make for less humans on the planet. Nice round number: 1 billion or less.

let me guess...

On your 30th birthday, you are required to report to a "disassociation chamber" to shuffle off this mortal coil to make room for those coming after you, is that it?

Originally posted by Suzianne
let me guess...

On your 30th birthday, you are required to report to a "disassociation chamber" to shuffle off this mortal coil to make room for those coming after you, is that it?

No, but trying to only have (on average) 2 kids might help stabilise the population at a
sustainable number till we can start seriously colonising space.

As opposed to many religions which promote having lots of kids, thus putting an ever increasing
strain on earth's resources.


EDIT: Plus out of everything in the thread THAT is what you pick up on??

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, it is what the humans HAVE to do to the planet to survive with multiple billions of people. We are already using up half the resources of the entire planet now. What do you do when the population triples? Can't happen. Civilization crashes long before we get there.

So the obvious solution is to make for less humans on the planet. Nice round number: 1 billion or less.

No it's still what the humans are doing to this planet is the problem. You mentioned using up the resources. Then we need to stop doing that now and maybe go back to a simpler life style so we don't need those resources.
I think if you did a little research on really what the earth could handle if done right, it would be just fine.
But it's because of the greed of man and the domination of man on others is the root of most of our problems.
If all the money that is spent on the military arms of all the countries was spent on the progress we really need to feed the earths population and the needed advancements in medicine and the making that actually available to all earthwide, things would be much better.

Originally posted by galveston75
No it's still what the humans are doing to this planet is the problem. You mentioned using up the resources. Then we need to stop doing that now and maybe go back to a simpler life style so we don't need those resources.
I think if you did a little research on really what the earth could handle if done right, it would be just fine.
But it's because ...[text shortened]... edicine and the making that actually available to all earthwide, things would be much better.

So you figure we can all live in a world with 220 billion people all living in 2 mile high towers complete with farms and make it illegal to actually walk on the Earth but can only live in the towers which have highways connecting them at the 2000 foot level.....Sure, that's a live style I would love to get into. NOT.

Don't worry, there will be an inevitable correction coming. Hey, it might even mean I die. If it happens that way, tough itshay for emay. If I live that long, probably not.
I expect the real hammer to fall somewhere around the year 2100, 2200 something like that, unless we get REAL serious about fixing the planet, something I have a suspicion won't happen because of like you said, world greed.

It may turn out we are not that intelligent after all.

Originally posted by Suzianne
let me guess...

On your 30th birthday, you are required to report to a "disassociation chamber" to shuffle off this mortal coil to make room for those coming after you, is that it?

No but my virus invention might do the trick, it makes all religious people infertile.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you figure we can all live in a world with 220 billion people all living in 2 mile high towers complete with farms and make it illegal to actually walk on the Earth but can only live in the towers which have highways connecting them at the 2000 foot level.....Sure, that's a live style I would love to get into. NOT.

Don't worry, there will be an inevit ...[text shortened]... use of like you said, world greed.

It may turn out we are not that intelligent after all.

No I wouldn't want a world like that either. It is true that left on the course we are on, it looks dismal. But that's where I have the hope of God coming back into the picture and helping us to live the life on earth he meant. Then things like population will be in his hands to direct.

Originally posted by galveston75
Then things like population will be in his hands to direct.

Everything: past, present and future is in His hands to direct.

Isn't it?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I have never understood fundamentalist nutjobs who won't even allow an abortion if the mother's life in danger. They are so intent on following rules that they forget the reason the rules were made in the first place (to protect life). It's a form of moral blindness.

Actually I have never understood people who argue that the foetus has the right to life, yet simultaneously accept the mothers right to 'self determination'.
If the child was one day old, you would not so readily propose killing the child if the mothers life was in danger. Lets suppose a 1 day old child acquires an infectious disease and quarantine is not an option (the mother must keep feeding the child and doesn't have access to alternatives). Would you support the mother killing the child in order to avoid risk to herself?

Either we grant a foetus no rights, or we grant it full rights, or we need some sort of sliding scale that measures its rights with respect to the mother risk.