Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because, Its the right of the voters to shoot it down if they dont like it.

No it isn't.

My Google-fu says otherwise. It is a Parliamentary Democracy.

What does being a parliamentary democracy have to do with anything?

 Peregrine wrote:


Direct vs. representative is irrelevant. Neither kind of democracy grants the right to vote that people should be left to die painfully and senselessly because your god demands it.

Well it can happen in a direct democracy if the common public vote for it or even in a representative democracy if the elected officials decide it's a good idea.

 Peregrine wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because, Its the right of the voters to shoot it down if they dont like it.

No it isn't.

My Google-fu says otherwise. It is a Parliamentary Democracy.

What does being a parliamentary democracy have to do with anything?

It means that, they have a similar system to ours, where representatives perform various votes FOR the people.... It has already been posted that various bills have been presented to their parliament, however it has either voted against it, or has pushed the issue off in favor of others.

According to the existing laws in Ireland, it is illegal to perform abortion, regardless of circumstances. The parliamentarians have decided to follow their religion and continue to allow this non-practice.

Do most all of us think it a horrible, "medieval" practice? Yeah. Can really any of us do much about it? Not really. The Irish people should be putting more and more pressure on their government, in light of instances like this, to change the law of the land. In this case, yeah, being a form of democracy isn't entirely relevant, but it is in the face of the fact that it has been brought forward and either denied, or pushed off.

 NELS1031 wrote:
Are we 100% sure that having the abortion would have saved her?

I don't think it would have made matters worse. The trauma of miscarriage on top of the bacteremia wasn't doing her any favors.

 NELS1031 wrote:

The UK is having a problem with ESBL e.coli, which is more drug resistant then MRSA (staph infection)

This is not entirely accurate.
The spoiler’ed is because it's not really relevant and it's a bit of a nerd dump


TL,DR = Resistant to the same stuff more or less.

 NELS1031 wrote:

...and causes blood poisoning. Both of which were listed in her autopsy. Would removing the fetus magically have cured the infection already present in the victim?

No it wouldn't have cured her, but it may have given her a better shot at surviving. The fetus was 17weeks old and the youngest ever premature baby to be born was 21 weeks old (so says the google, all hail the google!). She was already miscarrying so there was no real way to save the child. And a miscarriage is a hell of a thing, lots of bleeding and pain and trama involved.

To put it another, less pleasant way...

Is it better to remove a doomed and dying fetus from the mother potentially saving the mother’s life, or wait for the fetus to die and start to rot before you do anything?

As for the septicemia...

 NELS1031 wrote:

Or we can blame lunatic, regressive Catholics.

For tying the hands of their doctors and preventing them from treating a patient?

I suppose one could do so if he/she felt so inclined.


This reponse took awhile to write but I think it's better for it.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Direct vs. representative is irrelevant. Neither kind of democracy grants the right to vote that people should be left to die painfully and senselessly because your god demands it.

Well it can happen in a direct democracy if the common public vote for it or even in a representative democracy if the elected officials decide it's a good idea.

Except nobody is arguing that it's impossible for the situation to exist, I'm arguing that being a democracy or not has nothing to do with whether it is right.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Direct vs. representative is irrelevant. Neither kind of democracy grants the right to vote that people should be left to die painfully and senselessly because your god demands it.

Well it can happen in a direct democracy if the common public vote for it or even in a representative democracy if the elected officials decide it's a good idea.

Except nobody is arguing that it's impossible for the situation to exist, I'm arguing that being a democracy or not has nothing to do with whether it is right.

Oh sorry misread what you said, thought you meant right such as freedom of speech not right as in this is right or wrong.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Oh sorry misread what you said, thought you meant right such as freedom of speech not right as in this is right or wrong.

It's also a right in that sense. A legitimate democracy can't take away your right to receive proper emergency medical care, just like a legitimate democracy can't vote to kill Cheesecat just because 51% of the voters felt like it that day. There are limits to what a democracy is justified in doing.

That poor man. To spend that time watching your wife and child slowly fade away from you. Just sickening to think about it.



In other news, this is the kind of thing that happens when you try to legislate medical practice. I mean, sure, if you're opposed to abortion then you have to legislate... but just be aware that this is the kind of thing that happens. If you think that it's worth the price then fair enough, but don't pretend you won't see things like this happen.

Just so there's no confusion I do think this is appalling.

 sebster wrote:
That poor man. To spend that time watching your wife and child slowly fade away from you. Just sickening to think about it.



In other news, this is the kind of thing that happens when you try to legislate medical practice. I mean, sure, if you're opposed to abortion then you have to legislate... but just be aware that this is the kind of thing that happens. If you think that it's worth the price then fair enough, but don't pretend you won't see things like this happen.

I go to write a post then Sebs beats me to it and wraps it up better to boot. This. A thousand times this.

 Peregrine wrote:
Direct vs. representative is irrelevant. Neither kind of democracy grants the right to vote that people should be left to die painfully and senselessly because your god demands it.

This sounds like a lot of the hardline pro-life arguments I've heard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm arguing that being a democracy or not has nothing to do with whether it is right.

Then you are arguing with ... nobody.

I agree that this is a very sad story. I wonder if this will sway lawmakers to revisit their abortion statutes. It's silly to essentially condemn two people to die to preserve the sanctity of life.

 Ouze wrote:
It's silly to essentially condemn two people to die to preserve the sanctity of life.

While the story is fathomlessly sad, is anecdote a good basis for law? Someone posted in this thread that the merest chance of an abortion saving the woman's life is enough to overturn the popular will expressed through the government. Again, this is the rhetoric of the hardline pro-life movement -- just twisted to a different goal. I have heard pro-lifers say that the next aborted fetus could become the doctor who cures cancer or otherwise solves major social problems. There's a chance of that, I suppose. But what it comes down to in our country is that most people simply don't think abortion is that bad or at least that making it illegal would not solve anything. The people of Ireland see things differently. The vitriol either way is entirely a matter of sheer disbelief that anyone could disagree with one's point of view. That's why it's so easy to go from lamenting the death of a woman to righteous yet rank prejudice.

If what the Irishman in the thread has told us is accurate, the people of Ireland actually see things much the same that we do (having voted four times in support of an exception to save the life of the mother); but their legislators have put off implementing the actual change in the laws.

 Manchu wrote:
. The vitriol either way is entirely a matter of sheer disbelief that anyone could disagree with one's point of view. That's why it's so easy to go from lamenting the death of a woman to righteous yet rank prejudice.

I feel like you're assigning vitriol and rank prejudice to me based upon; I'm not sure what exactly.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Direct vs. representative is irrelevant. Neither kind of democracy grants the right to vote that people should be left to die painfully and senselessly because your god demands it.

This sounds like a lot of the hardline pro-life arguments I've heard.

Well, maybe if my argument was based on delusion instead of fact it might...

Then you are arguing with ... nobody.

Well, you have only yourself to blame for that. You posted the first "it's a democracy" comment and refused to explain what you meant by that, and then some other people decided to act like "it's a democracy" means that this situation is acceptable and the country's choice.

 Manchu wrote:
While the story is fathomlessly sad, is anecdote a good basis for law?

In this case yes. The anecdote is a representative sample.

Someone posted in this thread that the merest chance of an abortion saving the woman's life is enough to overturn the popular will expressed through the government.

That would be me. And read again, I said that it's enough when the fetus is already doomed. If, short of divine intervention, there is no chance that the fetus will survive then ANY chance of saving the mother justifies abortion, even if you believe that life begins at conception. And I don't give a about the "popular will", just like I don't give a about the "popular will" if it decides (as it has many times before) that genocide sounds like a pretty good idea after all.

The people of Ireland see things differently. The vitriol either way is entirely a matter of sheer disbelief that anyone could disagree with one's point of view. That's why it's so easy to go from lamenting the death of a woman to righteous yet rank prejudice.

Except it's not just outrage over "seeing things differently", it's outrage over the fact that a woman suffered a horrible and senseless death because of religious stupidity. This goes way beyond the mainstream "pro life" position and into stubborn refusal to let practical concerns like saving lives get in the way of having the moral high ground.

Religion is such a wonderful thing.

 Ouze wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
. The vitriol either way is entirely a matter of sheer disbelief that anyone could disagree with one's point of view. That's why it's so easy to go from lamenting the death of a woman to righteous yet rank prejudice.

I feel like you're assigning vitriol and rank prejudice to me based upon; I'm not sure what exactly.

Not to you. And based on posts ITT, some redacted, some not.

 Mannahnin wrote:
If what the Irishman in the thread has told us is accurate

Read him more closely -- four failed referenda.

Err no.

The relevant ruling is the 1992 supreme court ruling

" Ireland's constitution officially bans abortion, but a 1992 Supreme Court ruling found the procedure should be legalized for situations when the woman's life is at risk from continuing the pregnancy. Five governments since have refused to pass a law resolving the confusion, leaving Irish hospitals reluctant to terminate pregnancies except in the most obviously life-threatening circumstances."

The 1983 ref. amended the constitution acknowledging the mother's right to life was equal to that of the child.

basically they've left in wide open in the stickourheadsinthesandandhopeitgoesawayandtheycanalwaysgoabraodotherwise category.

 Peregrine wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because, Its the right of the voters to shoot it down if they dont like it.

No it isn't.

My Google-fu says otherwise. It is a Parliamentary Democracy.

What does being a parliamentary democracy have to do with anything?

Not familiar with the concept of democratically run governments I take it? I bet you voted for Obama.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Direct vs. representative is irrelevant. Neither kind of democracy grants the right to vote that people should be left to die painfully and senselessly because your god demands it.

Well it can happen in a direct democracy if the common public vote for it or even in a representative democracy if the elected officials decide it's a good idea.

Except nobody is arguing that it's impossible for the situation to exist, I'm arguing that being a democracy or not has nothing to do with whether it is right.

RIght is a point of view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
That poor man. To spend that time watching your wife and child slowly fade away from you. Just sickening to think about it.



In other news, this is the kind of thing that happens when you try to legislate medical practice. I mean, sure, if you're opposed to abortion then you have to legislate... but just be aware that this is the kind of thing that happens. If you think that it's worth the price then fair enough, but don't pretend you won't see things like this happen.

Nonsense, medical practices are legislated all the time. We have a giant monster bureaucracy just for that here - The Food and Drug Administration. Knowing our government I am sure there are two thousand other regulatory entities that do the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
If what the Irishman in the thread has told us is accurate, the people of Ireland actually see things much the same that we do (having voted four times in support of an exception to save the life of the mother); but their legislators have put off implementing the actual change in the laws.

So their government is like ours too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrScience wrote:
Religion is such a wonderful thing.

Almost as much as the glory of a properly done tomato sauce.

What really saddens me is that a lot of people are going to see this article and think 'Aha! Ammunition for my argument for abortion / against Catholicism!' A lot of people treat the issues too much like an game to be won or lost.

 htj wrote:
What really saddens me is that a lot of people are going to see this article and think 'Aha! Ammunition for my argument for abortion / against Catholicism!' A lot of people treat the issues too much like an game to be won or lost.

True that.

 Peregrine wrote:

Hanith wrote:
The trouble with this is there is no plausible way to punish feth-tards like this without punishing innocent folk.

How is it impossible? Throw the doctors in prison for negligence, strip the church of any benefits it receives from the government. It's quite easy to punish the guilty without hurting the innocent, the only question is whether anyone has the spine to do it.

It could be that the doctors were simply avoiding having their Hospital shut down for malpractice as defined by the Govt. Anyways, as far as their Govt is concerned, the doctors were not negligent; they were following the law which allows people to die -_-'. Stripping a church of its benefits is something that will only be met with extreme distaste. Imagine all the angry folk who suddenly have to help pay for taxes on a single building they visit weekly. Hell, it would probably have to pass around a small plate asking for donations to cover the cost.

Wait . . .

Manchu: The people of Ireland are fine with terminating pregnancy to save the life of the mother. The governments of the last 20 years or so have just failed to put a legal framework for that to happen, leaving doctors, regardless of religion, with no clear option in these situations.

My mother told me a story about a cousin of hers who ended up carrying a dead child for a week because doctors wouldn't induce labour. When the decayed corpse of her daughter was expelled from her womb, they left her with the dead baby for a week to "come to terms" with it.

Someone defend this. I will fight you.

Wait, when she finally gave "Birth" to the dead baby, theey wouldn't take the corpse?

They apparently felt that she hadn't fully adjusted to the reality that her child was dead, as she was not quite right afterwards. So they left the corpse with her for a while.

Right, so this is an anecdote. And it sounds unbelievable.
But I'd like to think that in my time on Dakka I've usually been a fairly even minded sort of person and have been careful not to get too heated with people.

I am disgusted and furious over this. I should probably resist the urge to post too much.

Da Boss wrote:
They apparently felt that she hadn't fully adjusted to the reality that her child was dead, as she was not quite right afterwards. So they left the corpse with her for a while.

Um... that's actually standard practice. It's a mourning period.

Right, so this is an anecdote. And it sounds unbelievable.
But I'd like to think that in my time on Dakka I've usually been a fairly even minded sort of person and have been careful not to get too heated with people.

I am disgusted and furious over this. I should probably resist the urge to post too much.

It's a sad situation...

Yes.

I need to chill out. The last couple of days have been a bit stressful for other reasons and I've let this story get to me too much.

Da Boss wrote:
Manchu: The people of Ireland are fine with terminating pregnancy to save the life of the mother.

And yet the politicians they have elected, as you point out, have not ever created a loophole in the constitutional ban to allow for abortions to save the life of the mother. For nearly 20 years' worth of elections. So either the (1) Irish people are living in some kind of tyranny, (2) they are not clever enough to elect politicians that actually represent their positions even after decades of opportunities, or (3) there is no strong popular mandate for such a loophole. As I understand it, the language of the 1983 amendment was a ban on abortion and NOT a devaluation of the life of the mother. In declaring the right to life of the "unborn child" equal to the life of the mother, the attempt was to clarify that the child had a right not that the mother had none. The further proposed language that the amendment should never be construed as allowing for legalized abortions was specifically rejected at the time in view of future legislation regarding a "mother's life" loophole. All subsequent successful referendums (what became the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments to the constitution) did not further tighten the ban. The people rejected the proposed Twelfth Amendment of 1992 and Twenty-fifth Amendment of 2002, which would have done so (regarding preclusion of the suicidal threat justification). So what I see in Ireland is a people who don't want to see tragic situations like this but think larger tragedies are at stake. We have to get our emotions in check and not point here or there, growling "you killed her."