Letter to the paper then?
Perfect. Get Larry Duff to write it, heās good at this stuff.
Joe Duffy will sort this out on his show today.
Iād be against myself but there should be the choice available here in this country.
If it was a case that a girl got caught and it was convenient for her to get rid of the child well thatās just not good enough really, be safer! But if it was a case of rape then you should be allowed get rid of the child. If it is going to endanger the mother in anyway then you should be able to terminate the pregnancy. If the mother has to potential to self harm because of what having a child would do to her and is certified to be in this condition then this would give grounds for abortion.
If a couple got a scan and saw a major abnormality in the child then the option should be there but is it always the right choice. In the case of Ben & Jerry, Jerry wasnāt given much hope of surviving but when there is hope you cling onto it. Iām glad to say that he is very healthy now, perfectly normal young fella but I wonder how many couples saw their unborn child in the same situation as Jerry was in and decided to abort the pregnancy. I suppose we had another healthy twin to think about also but hand on heart it was never an option: he was always going to be delivered and you deal with the aftermath then, whatever it turns out to be.
As for not being able to have an abortion in Ireland, I did drive my then girlfriend and her friend who was pregnant to the airport about 15 years ago for them to head over to Liverpool to get an abortion. Not a pleasant experience and it would have been easier on her to stay here in Ireland and get the procedure done.
I think itās time to legalise abortion too but, as has been said, Iād be anxious to avoid abortion being utilised on an ad hoc basis by people (mainly women) who werenāt disciplined about their use of contraception. A possible way to regulate this would be if every female citizen is presented with an abortion raffle book when they turn 18. The book would have a defined number of individual abortion tickets (say 3, or maybe 5) and each individual women would have to hand in a single ticket every time she was getting an abortion. These would be standard/uniform tickets and acceptable at all approved abortion clinics. Use your 3/5 tickets and you canāt get any more abortions in Ireland. Simple. Itād also bring a bit more strategy into the situation. Have this kid now to save up my abortion ticket for a potential unwanted pregnancy in the future? Or get the abortion now and risk getting up the duff when youāre older, donāt want kids but have used up all your tickets? And so on.
I donāt know if I should applaud that post or nominate you for Idiot of the Month.
Iāll mull over it but itās looking like itās going to be the latter.
If an unborn child is equal to the the mother under the Irish Constitution, surely the notion that an abortion can be carried out where there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother is unconstitutional?
How does this work?
no that was your hero charlie haughey and his stance towards the sale of condoms in Ireland
why is everything always the governmentās fault? Irish society has ignored the issue for years. successive referendums on the issue have been particularly vicious. It takes someone to die for a debate to be had. The facts in the case are only being established but if initial reports are correct the clinicians at that hospital and the state could have a monster law suit against them. motherās life was in danger and they seemingly failed to act.
A good read here. Iād generally be anti-protest but Iād nearly get involved here. Itās beyond shameful. Heads should roll.
[font=āCalibriā][size=ā3ā][color="#000000"]The full facts are not known yet and people are jumping to conclusions too much. [/size][/font]
[font=āCalibriā][size=ā3ā][color="#000000"]What is a fact is that Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world for a woman to give birth - 6th in 2010 and Iāve heard 3rd quoted today on the radio. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals[/size][/font]
[font=āCalibriā][size=ā3ā][color="#000000"]I think some of the international media reaction has been well over the top to be honest. Itās understandable on such an emotive issue and an emotive case but people are jumping in all over the place on social media without knowing the full facts of what happened and very often to score political points against the Catholic Church (and I have fuck all time for the Catholic Church). Nobody knows the context in which that comment was made. [/size][/font]
[font=āCalibriā][size=ā3ā][color="#000000"]Sepitcaemia may only occur once every two years in large maternity hospitals, according to this article. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/we-wont-let-women-die-says-professor-3294626.html It may also be occurring without showing visible symptoms before taking a sudden and visible turn for the worse, according to a doctor on the Vincent Browne show last night. [/size][/font]
[font=āCalibriā][size=ā3ā][color="#000000"]As to what constitutes a substantial risk to lifeā¦ ultimately a judgement call is needed. Doctors differā¦ When the former master of the largest maternity hospital in the country calls for more clarity over the guidelines on the circumstances in which an abortion can take place, something needs to be done.[/size][/font]
[font=āCalibriā][size=ā3ā][color="#000000"] I thought Emer OāToole of the Guardian made a good point on the radio earlier, focussing on the impossibility of an abortion of an unviable foetus if there was a threat to the health rather than the life of a mother. It does seem very misogynistic when framed like that. A risk to health can develop into a risk to life. [/size][/font]
[font=āCalibriā][size=ā3ā][color="#000000"]If Gilmore has any guts at all he should really press Kenny on the legislation issue. Heās got nothing to lose on it and everything to gain.[/size][/font]
Good point on Gilmore at the end.
On the risk of septicaemia, it may be very low, but this was woman was fully dilated for three days. As soon as the waters have broken there is a risk of infection to the mother and child. It seems clear this lady was at huge risk.
If we look at it the other way, if a termination had been performed, I think it would have been accepted it was within the law and there would boy have been prosecutions or anything like that. I donāt accept that the hospitals hands were ties here. I think the hospital and the consultant have a huge amount of blame to take.
Abortions for everyone! Thereās a few bastards on here that we could have been saved from if it was widely available.
[quote=āglasagusban, post: 724587ā]Good point on Gilmore at the end.
On the risk of septicaemia, it may be very low, but this was woman was fully dilated for three days. As soon as the waters have broken there is a risk of infection to the mother and child. It seems clear this lady was at huge risk.
If we look at it the other way, if a termination had been performed, I think it would have been accepted it was within the law and there would boy have been prosecutions or anything like that. I donāt accept that the hospitals hands were ties here. I think the hospital and the consultant have a huge amount of blame to take.[/quote]
There seems to be a medical argument that some doctors believe itās best practice to stabilise the patient before carrying out surgery. Itās not at all clear yet that there was an ethical or legal objection to terminating the pregnancy. Plenty of experts Iāve heard or read have been saying that despite issues with the law, that wasnāt necessarily the case here and it may have just been a medical decision not to carry out the termination immediately.
Also there are plenty of cases where the waters are broken early in a pregnancy and it continues anyway. That wasnāt the case in this instance but it doesnāt follow that waters breaking should immediately lead to a termination. That risk of infection is manageable and often managed. Though it seems clear that this was never likely to be the outcome in this case.
This has really opened the can of worms that the politicians have been sitting on for the last 20 years. I can just see the panic on the faces of the politicians now. 
Anyway for me I would be in favour of abortion where the womanās life is in danger by the pregnancy or they were made pregnant as part of sexual abuse or rape. I not very comfortable were women would use abortion because they didnāt use contraception.
But if clearing up this grey area mean legalising abortion in the this country then I would vote yes for that. I noticed that the church are being sensible about this at the moment and keeping their trap shut as it is should be.
Well, from the little information available, it seems there was a complete refusal to even consider the procedure and the āthis is a catholic countryā comment smacks of someone overstepping the mark and allowing their personal beliefs to affect their decision/judgement. Of course waters breaking early shouldnāt lead to a termination, but in this case the waters were broken and the lady was fully dilated for three days and from my extremely limited knowledge that put this woman at a very high risk of infection.
My main point really is that I do not accept that the law as it stands would have bound the hospital or doctor or prevented them from performing the procedure in this case.
Fuckin hell.
Anyone for the spare tickets there now?
Anyone buying or selling the abortion tickets?
India murders teenage girl:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/india-girl-dies-horrific-death-after-botched-abortion
Yay.
Two wrongs and all thatā¦ Doesnt detract from the larger issue here, but does highlight the dangers of any such practise that is not heavily regulated and monitored.
any hope of a serious rift and or fall in the govt over this?