Woman dies in Ireland for want of an abortion

[Rethan]

Things like what happened in the OP are why abortion should be safe, legal, and available - ALWAYS.

Indeed. Unfortunately Ireland became a virtual Roman-Catholic theocracy after gaining independence from the United Kingdom. Over the decades the Church lost some terrain, fortunately, but years of intense religious indoctrination have damaged quite a few generations.

This. It's changed a lot with the most recent generation, but there's still a lot of old school thought and religiousness which governs Irish society. It makes it difficult to live here at times.

[Oppressorion]

That would be SaintB moving the goal posts.

You have my apologies, although you should have taken the time to check that you were correct before posting.

[SaintB]

You appear to have moved the goalposts:



As you can see, the original statement accused of generalising does say 'pro-life', so you can't say that it's really only about 'people that are entirely against abortion'.

That would be SaintB moving the goal posts.

On my part, it's an issue of bodily sovereignty; you have a right you your body, and you may exercise that right as much as you wish. This means that I support legalization of all drugs, transgender surgery and abortion, so long as the person gives informed consent and no-one else is harmed. Until the fetus is a true baby, that is possessing a fully developed brain capable of conscious thought, it is not a person and thus cannot be harmed. This means that the mother will always be within her rights to terminate the pregnancy up until the point when the fetus becomes a baby, because she is exercising her most basic of rights, the right to bodily sovereignty. HOWEVER; the life of the mother always trumps the life of the baby, up until birth.

I was not moving goal posts so much as pointing out that there is an entire group of so called pro-lifers about which the statement is 100% true.

[Oppressorion]

That would be SaintB moving the goal posts.

I was not moving goal posts so much as pointing out that there is an entire group of so called pro-lifers about which the statement is 100% true.

But that isn't what you said. You said 'Pro-lifers'. Not 'a group of pro-lifers', 'a section of pro-lifers' ' or even 'a part of the pro-life group'. You were talking about all of them.

[The Darwinian People]

Way to politicise a poor woman's death. Everyone on this thread knows that Pro-Lifers, the majority of them, wouldn't be cool with this and yet...

Poor woman.
Another victim of the "Pro-Life" crusaders, which actually don't care for human life and rights, as shown above.

No, this within the Irish cultural context; American "Pro-Lifers" didn't all fly to Ireland suddenly change the Irish population's views.

Things like what happened in the OP are why abortion should be safe, legal, and available - ALWAYS.

No, they aren't; not at all. Things like what happened in the OP are why, when a mother's life is clearly in danger and especially when a foetus won't live anyway, abortion should be available; that's an argument you can make.

You know how outraged you'd be if a Pro-Lifer said "Gianna Jessen is the reason why abortion should be illegal and unavailable - ALWAYS!".

[Nua Corda]

That would be SaintB moving the goal posts.

On my part, it's an issue of bodily sovereignty; you have a right you your body, and you may exercise that right as much as you wish. This means that I support legalization of all drugs, transgender surgery and abortion, so long as the person gives informed consent and no-one else is harmed. Until the fetus is a true baby, that is possessing a fully developed brain capable of conscious thought, it is not a person and thus cannot be harmed. This means that the mother will always be within her rights to terminate the pregnancy up until the point when the fetus becomes a baby, because she is exercising her most basic of rights, the right to bodily sovereignty. HOWEVER; the life of the mother always trumps the life of the baby, up until birth.

I was not moving goal posts so much as pointing out that there is an entire group of so called pro-lifers about which the statement is 100% true.

That is, basically, what moving the goalposts is. You essentially erected a strawman of yourself to shift the argument from a fallacious statement to one you could better defend. If the initial statement had referred specifically to the Akinites, then you could follow that argument train. As it stands, the initial statement was a blanket fallacy covering ALL anti-choicers, and thus you'd either have to make a separate and unique statement criticizing Akinites alone, or defend the initial claim in order to avoid "moving the goalposts"

[SaintB]

I was not moving goal posts so much as pointing out that there is an entire group of so called pro-lifers about which the statement is 100% true.

But that isn't what you said. You said 'Pro-lifers'. Not 'a group of pro-lifers', 'a section of pro-lifers' ' or even 'a part of the pro-life group'. You were talking about all of them.

You may want to go back and check who made the original comment because I said nothing of that sort. I pointed out factually that there is an entire subset calling themselves pro life who certainly fit the description given by someone else.

[SaintB]

I was not moving goal posts so much as pointing out that there is an entire group of so called pro-lifers about which the statement is 100% true.

That is, basically, what moving the goalposts is. You essentially erected a strawman of yourself to shift the argument from a fallacious statement to one you could better defend. If the initial statement had referred specifically to the Akinites, then you could follow that argument train. As it stands, the initial statement was a blanket fallacy covering ALL anti-choicers, and thus you'd either have to make a separate and unique statement criticizing Akinites alone, or defend the initial claim in order to avoid "moving the goalposts"

I didn't erect any strawmen, I pointed out that there is a point to Agritum's statement.

[Greed and Death]

The article does not claim she died from lack of abortion, it says she died of Septicemia an infection in the blood stream.

The article does not claim the 2 1/2 day delay in the termination would have increased her survival odds.

As such I conclude the central premise of the OP "that Ireland's abortion laws caused this death" is unsupported.

[Oppressorion]

But that isn't what you said. You said 'Pro-lifers'. Not 'a group of pro-lifers', 'a section of pro-lifers' ' or even 'a part of the pro-life group'. You were talking about all of them.

You may want to go back and check who made the original comment because I said nothing of that sort. I pointed out factually that there is an entire subset calling themselves pro life who certainly fit the description given by someone else.

Okay, looking back that isn't what you said, and I apologise (been doing that a lot lately).
However...

This is your original quote:

Because generalisations are OK when it's liberals who are doing it.

But its not a generalization; people that are entirely against abortion are exactly as described above.

Now, Agritum said that all pro-life people are don't care about life, are the devil incarnate etc. Old Tyrannia than says that this is a generalisation, e.g. not all pro-lifers are like that. You then say that it isn't a generalisation and that the description only applies to a specific group of pro-lifers. So, not pro-lifers are like that, but it's not a generalisation to say they are?

[The Black Forrest]

The article does not claim she died from lack of abortion, it says she died of Septicemia an infection in the blood stream.

The article does not claim the 2 1/2 day delay in the termination would have increased her survival odds.

As such I conclude the central premise of the OP "that Ireland's abortion laws caused this death" is unsupported.

Look up septic miscarriage.

There are obvious signs and if she had them, heads should roll.....

[Nua Corda]

That is, basically, what moving the goalposts is. You essentially erected a strawman of yourself to shift the argument from a fallacious statement to one you could better defend. If the initial statement had referred specifically to the Akinites, then you could follow that argument train. As it stands, the initial statement was a blanket fallacy covering ALL anti-choicers, and thus you'd either have to make a separate and unique statement criticizing Akinites alone, or defend the initial claim in order to avoid "moving the goalposts"

I didn't erect any strawmen, I pointed out that there is a point to Agritum's statement.

If your intent was to defend PART of his statement, you should have refuted the fallacious part first, rather than provide the impression you were goalpost-shifting

[SaintB]

You may want to go back and check who made the original comment because I said nothing of that sort. I pointed out factually that there is an entire subset calling themselves pro life who certainly fit the description given by someone else.

Okay, looking back that isn't what you said, and I apologise (been doing that a lot lately).
However...

This is your original quote:

But its not a generalization; people that are entirely against abortion are exactly as described above.

Now, Agritum said that all pro-life people are don't care about life, are the devil incarnate etc. Old Tyrannia than says that this is a generalisation, e.g. not all pro-lifers are like that. You then say that it isn't a generalisation and that the description only applies to a specific group of pro-lifers. So, not pro-lifers are like that, but it's not a generalisation to say they are?

I forgot an operative word in there didn't I? I do THAT a lot when I'm using a lap top. I'll freely admit that I forgot to use the word ALWAYS. I'll go fix that now so it reads as:

But its not always a generalization; people that are entirely against abortion are exactly as described above.

Remember kids, proper English phrasing is always your best friend!

[Greed and Death]

The article does not claim she died from lack of abortion, it says she died of Septicemia an infection in the blood stream.

The article does not claim the 2 1/2 day delay in the termination would have increased her survival odds.

As such I conclude the central premise of the OP "that Ireland's abortion laws caused this death" is unsupported.

Look up septic miscarriage.

There are obvious signs and if she had them, heads should roll.....

Your no longer complaining about Ireland's law on abortion, your complaining about a misdiagnosis.

And the article does not say she was diagnosed with Septicemia that would require abortion while she was with child.
The earliest point you can infer an infection had be dianoised is when she collapsed and they started her on treatment. While we are looking up stuff, you know every case of Septicemia does not require an abortion, and further ESBL once looked up reveals it is an extreme antibiotic resistant strain of bacteria, so an abortion 2/12 days earlier may not have saved her life.

[SaintB]

I didn't erect any strawmen, I pointed out that there is a point to Agritum's statement.

If your intent was to defend PART of his statement, you should have refuted the fallacious part first, rather than provide the impression you were goalpost-shifting

My post right after that should have been perfectly clear on my intent; now may I have my pudding Mr. Neverwrong

[Free South Califas]

I have been watching the situation in Ireland and Mexico with great concern for some time now. It is sad and terribly distressing to hear that Irish politicians decided to murder this woman. If I had my way, there'd be some hearings with a rather unfriendly tone.

[Jekrehnot]

The picture creeps me.I will try not to see it again since every time I look more careful at it,it seems as if it looks back at me.

On the topic,yes,it was a tragedy.

[Skibereen]

clearly the life of the mother has greater value.

Erm...that's a bit of a harsh way to put it, but yes I do believe that the mother's life should be saved above all.

But if you've got a mother who's excited about having a baby then 8 months into her pregnancy she breaks up with her boyfriend and wants an abortion, I think that's just plain wrong.

Well I dont believe anyone is suggesting that third trimester abortions should be legal. The idea that Pro-Choice == Pro-Abortion is kind of silly.

I dont know of any rational Pro-Choice platforms that support third trimester abortions of viable babies(which is what they are at that point).

And honestly if you dont like abortions discuss it with your partner, agree on a plan, and do or dont have them as you see fit.
If the argument is religious, well if I force a sinner not to sin have I actually saved from anything? Not according to scripture I havnt, indeed I do them a greater by not over stepping my bounds and allowing them to make their own choice.

Choice, its whats for breakfast.

[Thama]

That's peculiar. My friend's friend got an abortion easily. Attitude on abortion seems to vary wildly in this country.

[The Darwinian People]

...well if I force a sinner not to sin have I actually saved from anything? Not according to scripture I havnt, indeed I do them a greater by not over stepping my bounds and allowing them to make their own choice...

The religious argument doesn't come from the position that it is sinful; it comes from the fact they (meaning; I, as well) believe a foetus is a human life deserving of respect.

Your argument only applies to victimless sins, those of indulgence; like adultery, gluttony and vanity. If you applied that logic to violent sins then we might as well say that we should legalise murder so as no to step over the bounds of a murderer and their choice to sin (kill people).

[Mavorpen]

...well if I force a sinner not to sin have I actually saved from anything? Not according to scripture I havnt, indeed I do them a greater by not over stepping my bounds and allowing them to make their own choice...

The religious argument doesn't come from the position that it is sinful; it comes from the fact they (meaning; I, as well) believe a foetus is a human life deserving of respect.

Your argument only applies to victimless sins, those of indulgence; like adultery, gluttony and vanity. If you applied that logic to violent sins then we might as well say that we should legalise murder so as no to step over the bounds of a murderer and their choice to sin (kill people).

Poor comparison. For one, legalizing murder would make it not murder, in which case the word murder wouldn't even exist. Second, abortion is in no way comparable to the murder of a born person.

A fetus doesn't deserve anything. It has no rights, nor does it deserve any that makes it equal to or more important than a mother.

[Gravlen]

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told 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”.

The state of abortion law in Ireland is roughly and briefly thus: abortion is prohibited by our constitution, except where the mother's life is at risk, including the risk of suicide.

With the greatest respect, this does not seem to be the law's fault, or the government's. If the doctors knew that the foetus would die regardless of the mother's life, then they are permitted by law to perform an abortion to save her life and did not. Therefore, her death is their fault.

Did they, at the time, know that there was a threat to her life? If there was merely a threat to her health, an abortion would not be performed.

I think it's best to wait until we've got the report on what went wrong before we pass judgement in this case - but on general terms, I think the law at least should allow for abortions if there's a threat to the health and well-being of the mother, and not only a threat to her life.

[The Darwinian People]

The religious argument doesn't come from the position that it is sinful; it comes from the fact they (meaning; I, as well) believe a foetus is a human life deserving of respect.

Your argument only applies to victimless sins, those of indulgence; like adultery, gluttony and vanity. If you applied that logic to violent sins then we might as well say that we should legalise murder so as no to step over the bounds of a murderer and their choice to sin (kill people).

Poor comparison. For one, legalizing murder would make it not murder, in which case the word murder wouldn't even exist. Second, abortion is in no way comparable to the murder of a born person.

A fetus doesn't deserve anything. It has no rights, nor does it deserve any that makes it equal to or more important than a mother.

Unless you believe that playing semantics is a decent way to win an argument (you obviously knew what I meant; the Bible (or any other Holy Book) doesn't define killing as being only sinful when it's defined by civil law as illegal) then I don't see your point.

Second, I've already said that I'm talking about the religious argument; since Pro-Lifers believe that an unborn child is "a human life deserving of respect" then it follows that the argument (that I was originally refuting) wouldn't hold unless you demanded that religious people take a similar stance on everything else they regard as sin (including murder and rape).

[Mavorpen]

Unless you believe that playing semantics is a decent way to win an argument (you obviously knew what I meant; the Bible (or any other Holy Book) doesn't define killing as being only sinful when it's defined by civil law as illegal) then I don't see your point.

You thought I was trying to win an argument...?

Second, I've already said that I'm talking about the religious argument; since Pro-Lifers believe that an unborn child is "a human life deserving of respect" then it follows that the argument (that I was originally refuting) wouldn't hold unless you demanded that religious people take a similar stance on everything else they regard as sin (including murder and rape).

What?

[Liriena]

I'm feeling increasingly pro-choice.