Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (25) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 196940  
Subject: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 9:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' at Galway hospital

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741#

More here:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/11/13/we-are-all-...

Last month, a woman was admitted to a hospital in Galway, Ireland. She was 17 weeks pregnant with a wanted child. She was experiencing severe back pain. She was found to be miscarrying the pregnancy.

Within days, she was dead.

Why? Because she ended up in a Catholic hospital, governed by an ethic that even a non-viable fetus doomed to die is more important than a living, breathing 31-year-old woman.

It really is that simple.


...

Someone's daughter, wife, friend, perhaps sister is now dead. Why? Because a non-viable fetus was more important than her life. Because she was left to suffer for days on end in service of an ideological stance and religion she did not share. Because a wanted pregnancy went horribly wrong, and, you know, there are people who either don't care about the lives of women. And there are others so invested in their uninformed misogynistic ideology that they claim there are no situations in which a woman's live might be endangered by pregnancy.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184161 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 9:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
The people responsible for this decision should be in prison.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184164 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 10:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
However noble their cause may (or may not) be (I'm not going there!), this reveals at least some of them for the hypocrites they are.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184177 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 12:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
However noble their cause may (or may not) be (I'm not going there!), this reveals at least some of them for the hypocrites they are.


Devil's Advocate (no pun intended) and said with absolutely zero snark:

They believe that God is in control and He would save the woman's life if He wanted it to be saved. That isn't actually hypocrisy. It's consistency.


Frydaze1

P.S. Consistently awful and frightening, but consistent. Sincere belief doesn't absolve them, imo. I'm friggin' pissed about this. I'm just trying to be objective about their motives.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184188 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 1:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I'm just trying to be objective about their motives.

I think their motives were to toe the "no abortions" line. To my knowledge the Irish Catholic Church is NOT one of those that advocates prayer over medicine. Evidently, they even run actual hospitals. It appears they take the view that God gave us our intellects, and with that came the ability to heal ourselves. If God wanted her dead, nothing the docs could have done would have mattered.

But we'll never know because they didn't even try, preferring instead to follow some twisted decree (from either the bishops, or maybe even the Pope...or all of the above).

1poorguy (also pissed about it, and hoping that the husband can sue them into bankruptcy)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184189 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 1:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
"They believe that God is in control and He would save the woman's life if He wanted it to be saved. That isn't actually hypocrisy. It's consistency."

No. It is still inconsistent. If there was consistency then there would be no Catholic hospitals. If God wanted people healed then he would heal them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184191 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 1:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If God wanted people healed then he would heal them.

I think you're on to something. Why do we need farmers? If God wanted us to eat, he'd rain food down on us. And who needs jobs? If God wanted you to have money, he'd just give it to you.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184195 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 2:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
1pg: I think their motives were to toe the "no abortions" line. To my knowledge the Irish Catholic Church is NOT one of those that advocates prayer over medicine.


Well of course. I'm not saying it isn't about abortion. I'm saying I don't think it's hypocritical of them to refuse abortion under all circumstances, instead of under most circumstances.

Hear me out here, please. I'm as pro-choice as they come. I've had two abortions myself, and in the week prior to my wedding last month, with my period a week late, it occurred to me that I might be scheduling another. And no, I'm not at all interested in debating with anyone here about my reasons for not considering other options. It's nobody's business but mine.

So now that I've made it *really* clear which side of the issue I'm on...

If you believe that life starts at the moment of conception, and that the embryo or fetus has precisely the same right to life as any human walking around, then it's consistent that they wouldn't do an abortion while there was still a heartbeat. They would be unwilling to choose between two lives they felt were equally valuable.

That, to me, is actually the more consistent stance than the one saying a woman who was raped should be able to have an abortion but a woman whose birth control failed should not because the emotions of the mother impact the instrinsic value of the life of the embryo.


Frydaze1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184196 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 2:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you believe that life starts at the moment of conception, and that the embryo or fetus has precisely the same right to life as any human walking around, then it's consistent that they wouldn't do an abortion while there was still a heartbeat. They would be unwilling to choose between two lives they felt were equally valuable.

That, to me, is actually the more consistent stance than the one saying a woman who was raped should be able to have an abortion but a woman whose birth control failed should not because the emotions of the mother impact the instrinsic value of the life of the embryo.


Beautifully said.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184198 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 3:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Frydaze1:

<<<However noble their cause may (or may not) be (I'm not going there!), this reveals at least some of them for the hypocrites they are.>>>


"Devil's Advocate (no pun intended) and said with absolutely zero snark:

They believe that God is in control and He would save the woman's life if He wanted it to be saved. That isn't actually hypocrisy. It's consistency."


I call B.S. Your theory might make sense for for Jehovah Witnesses (who refuse bllod transfusions), but it holds no water for RCC theology.

JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184200 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 3:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yes, I knew you were pro-choice. And I do see your point.

However...

They knew the fetus was not viable. They knew it was dying. This really wasn't "elective". But instead of saving the woman (who might conceive again someday) they let them both die. Instead of one living person, they have none.

That doesn't seem very "pro-life" to me.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184204 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 3:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If you believe that life starts at the moment of conception, and that the embryo or fetus has precisely the same right to life as any human walking around, then it's consistent that they wouldn't do an abortion while there was still a heartbeat. They would be unwilling to choose between two lives they felt were equally valuable.

OR, we have ancient cultural biases that still hold sway, and women are second rate citizens. You can wrap them in god, you can wrap them up however you want, but it still comes down to the same thing.

Your opinion is cute. Now go make us something to eat.

-Nigel, test driving sexual discrimination

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184206 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 4:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yes, I knew you were pro-choice.

I know, but it needed to be clarified for anyone else reading.



They knew the fetus was not viable. They knew it was dying. This really wasn't "elective". But instead of saving the woman (who might conceive again someday) they let them both die. Instead of one living person, they have none.

That doesn't seem very "pro-life" to me.



If it were an adult, and you knew they were almost definitely going to die, would you kill them in order to save the adult behind them? I probably would though it's hard to say.

But God says not to take life, even one that is already ending (except in self defense, maybe). So they are being consistent by not killing the one to save the other. At that point they have to trust in God to save one if He wants to. Their hands are tied.

In other words, there IS a difference between actively killing someone and passively permitting them to die because you didn't interfere.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184208 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 4:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm going to totally ignore the bait. ;-)


OR, we have ancient cultural biases that still hold sway, and women are second rate citizens. You can wrap them in god, you can wrap them up however you want, but it still comes down to the same thing.

Actually, I think this is probably the root of it even if not always for the reason you named.

I believe that most women would also let their husbands die in order to save their child. Both parents become second class citizens when a baby is involved. The baby belongs to both of them, and is part of both of them, and is the future of both of them. Breeding partners can be replaced.

Note that I'm speaking of a post-birth baby. Those who don't distinguish just push it further than I do.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184209 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 5:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I believe that most women would also let their husbands die in order to save their child. Both parents become second class citizens when a baby is involved. The baby belongs to both of them, and is part of both of them, and is the future of both of them. Breeding partners can be replaced.

Interesting point, but I'm not so sure.

Looking at it with deeply historical goggles, men were the hunters, women the gatherers. From the time permanent settlements were around, women congregated around the the home, while men traveled for commerce, war, and food. Women gestate and are attached to a child for an extended period of time, men really just need to sow the field.

Going back so far our goggles give us only a glimpse, one of the theories as to why humans are bipedal is that you lovely females insisted we participate in child care, and bipedalism evolved so the males could carry food back to mom and junior from greater distances, giving the earliest hominids a competitive advantage. If it weren't for women, we men would not be erect.

And at the prehuman base is passing on the genes. It all tells me human males are least invested in their female partner, more invested in their progeny, and mostly invested in themselves, while females have a deep bond to the child via proximity during gestation and the early stages, and have found a higher success rate by keeping dad in the picture.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184210 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 6:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If it were an adult, and you knew they were almost definitely going to die, would you kill them in order to save the adult behind them?

Kinda hard to make an equivalent scenario, but let's try. Person A is dying, and we know it. He is hooked up to Person B who is not (yet), but who is in some manner sustaining Person A (maybe blood...whatever). If we know that Person A has a condition that can kill Person B if they remain connected (e.g. ebola...whatever...), yes I would break the connection to save Person B.

Not to do so strikes me as homicide of Person B.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184211 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 6:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If it weren't for women, we men would not be erect.
=================================
That's true on a number of levels.

Bill

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184212 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 6:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>>>I believe that most women would also let their husbands die in order to save their child. Both parents become second class citizens when a baby is involved. The baby belongs to both of them, and is part of both of them, and is the future of both of them. Breeding partners can be replaced.<<<

Interesting point, but I'm not so sure.
...
It all tells me human males are least invested in their female partner, more invested in their progeny, and mostly invested in themselves, while females have a deep bond to the child via proximity during gestation and the early stages, and have found a higher success rate by keeping dad in the picture.


Didn't you just end by confirming that both parents are more invested in the child than in each other?


Frydaze1 <--- enjoying the discussion, not invested in being "right"

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184213 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 6:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Kinda hard to make an equivalent scenario, but let's try. Person A is dying, and we know it. He is hooked up to Person B who is not (yet), but who is in some manner sustaining Person A (maybe blood...whatever). If we know that Person A has a condition that can kill Person B if they remain connected (e.g. ebola...whatever...), yes I would break the connection to save Person B.

Not to do so strikes me as homicide of Person B.



Different scenario:

There's an earthquake and a bulding collapses. There are two people trapped in the building and heavy stuff is distributed in such a way that they can only be reached through one opening. Person A is trapped in that opening, and is so severely injured that they almost certainly can't be saved. They are also unconscious and can't express their desires or wishes. However, they aren't dead nor are they likely to die today or tomorrow from their injuries. Person B is behind Person A and is bleeding to death. They are dying faster than Person A. Person A will need to be chopped into pieces and removed before you can get to Person B to treat them.

I would still do it. And find it easier since Person A is unconscious. But then, I can be terribly practical sometimes.



We can go back to the classic of the train switch, and a subject's ability to pull the switch and cause the death of one person in order to save another - or several others. Versus the same situation with the potential victim on a bridge, and the subject's ability to push them into the path of the train. What has been repeatedly learned from those tests is that we are more likely to consign a stranger to death from a distance than to physically touch them in order to kill them. Even if we agree that it needs to be done in order to save the other life or more lives. And when that test is done using a child as the victim to be saved, the subject is more likely to consign the stranger to death.

Then consider the test of authority, where the subject is ordered to cause pain to a stranger in the name of research. There is no incentive to do so, and no punishment for not doing so, but the subjects almost invariably follow the order given by authority even while crying, shaking, etc. even though they can hear the stranger screaming and pleading.

Combine those two tests and what do we get? We are uncomfortable killing children or allowing them to die through inaction. We are less uncomfortable killing adult strangers or allowing them to die through inaction. And we are nearly incapable of rejecting an order given by someone we recognize as an authority figure.

What do we have in this OP story? The authority of God, a pregnant stranger who will die only through inaction rather than direct physical contact, and an embryo who the subject views as a child. The result is predictable.


Frydaze1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184214 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 8:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"Why do we need farmers? If God wanted us to eat, he'd rain food down on us. And who needs jobs? If God wanted you to have money, he'd just give it to you."

Good. I am glad you agree that "It is God's will" type of argument is silly and inconsistent.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184215 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 8:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"If you believe that life starts at the moment of conception, and that the embryo or fetus has precisely the same right to life as any human walking around, then it's consistent that they wouldn't do an abortion while there was still a heartbeat. They would be unwilling to choose between two lives they felt were equally valuable.

That, to me, is actually the more consistent stance than the one saying a woman who was raped should be able to have an abortion but a woman whose birth control failed should not because the emotions of the mother impact the instrinsic value of the life of the embryo."


I agree with you that what you said here is much more consistent thinking. What you said here though is different than your "God's plan" argument in your first post.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184216 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/14/2012 10:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Didn't you just end by confirming that both parents are more invested in the child than in each other?

In different ways. A male can conceivably pass his genes many fold more times than a female. Couple that with a higher success rate for bonded pairs, and I think human males are more susceptible to evolutionary conflict than human females. You gals took an existing pattern to a higher order, and involved the males. We're still sorting it out. From a gender perspective, it gave your children a higher success rate, it only included me because it was easier to get laid if I played along.

Frydaze1 <--- enjoying the discussion, not invested in being "right"

Me neither. I dunno what drives the whole thing, but as more and more comes to light, I think less and less of us as some higher order species that operates on a cognitive level, and more and more of us as just another animal, hardwired to function in particular ways that our higher cognitive functions give greater meaning to.

We are what we are now because of what we have been for so very, very long.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184231 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/15/2012 7:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Why do we need farmers? If God wanted us to eat, he'd rain food down on us. And who needs jobs? If God wanted you to have money, he'd just give it to you.



All we need is a 100% accurate guide to know when we should act on our own in every conceivable situation.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184232 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/15/2012 7:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you believe that life starts at the moment of conception, and that the embryo or fetus has precisely the same right to life as any human walking around



At the moment of conception, it is neither an embryo nor a fetus.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 184233 of 196940
Subject: Re: Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' Date: 11/15/2012 7:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
At the moment of conception, it is neither an embryo nor a fetus.

Blastocyst? I never remember all the terms.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (25) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement