Europe To Send Immigrants To Rwanda?
News9 mins ago
Tragic Examples Of Why Religion Should Be Kept Out Of Politics
17 Answers
This case has made the news recently. In 1998 El Salvador amended its law to make abortion illegal in all circumstances, under pressure from pro-life and christian evangelical groups.
http://
This poor woman is now faced with a term pregancy that very likely could result in her death from complications of the pregnancy and the other serious medical problems she has, giving birth to a baby that will almost certainly be brain dead, or dead within hours of birth.
Also in the news has been the inquest into the death of Savita Halappanavar from septic shock after admission to the University College Hospital, Galway where staff refused to proceed with an abortion that could very likely have saved her life.
http://
Goodlife and others have questioned why atheists contribute to this forum. This is one of the reasons why. These 2 cases are graphic and tragic or potentially tragic
http://
This poor woman is now faced with a term pregancy that very likely could result in her death from complications of the pregnancy and the other serious medical problems she has, giving birth to a baby that will almost certainly be brain dead, or dead within hours of birth.
Also in the news has been the inquest into the death of Savita Halappanavar from septic shock after admission to the University College Hospital, Galway where staff refused to proceed with an abortion that could very likely have saved her life.
http://
Goodlife and others have questioned why atheists contribute to this forum. This is one of the reasons why. These 2 cases are graphic and tragic or potentially tragic
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If this is an abortion question then; I am against abortion in principle and this it's a woman's own body does not apply when they are pregnant. In a health or rape case however, I support them.
I just feel that since/if it perfectly legal it seems to be used as a secondary birth control.
I am now ready to be lambasted, I'm used to it.
I just feel that since/if it perfectly legal it seems to be used as a secondary birth control.
I am now ready to be lambasted, I'm used to it.
@WIldwood I wouldn]t lambast you, but I would not agree, either.
Abortion should most definitely be available for medical reasons. Both of these cases highlight the issues when they are not, or where there is confusion.
I would agree with you that the decision to abort should not be a casual decision, but neither should religious groups lead the agenda.
Abortion should most definitely be available for medical reasons. Both of these cases highlight the issues when they are not, or where there is confusion.
I would agree with you that the decision to abort should not be a casual decision, but neither should religious groups lead the agenda.
I agree with Wildwood in so far that abortion should never be used as a form of retrospective contraception. However, where there is a genuine concern for the health and well-being of either the mother or baby or where the pregnancy is the result of a rape then I think that abortion should be an option.
It is strange that the rights of a collection of human cells with a poorly developed nervous system, no conciousness, knowledge or experience should be put above those of a fully developed person with friends, family, skills, aspirations, a useful place in society etc. Aside from health issues many young women have had their lives irrevocably changed for the worse because of the attitude of religion to this subject. How many potentially useful members of society have instead ended up as single mothers struggling against the odds to give their unwanted offspring a decent future.
I doubt that the catholic church puts it's money where it's mouth is, it never has
I doubt that the catholic church puts it's money where it's mouth is, it never has
This is indeed a harrowing case (Savita Halappanavar) and hard to read through the details, especially that she was in so much pain and distress in the days before she died.
Irish law on this subject has been a fudge for some time and successive governments have failed to grasp the nettle and add clarity to a grey area.
At the moment in Ireland terminations are allowed under certain circumstances, where "a pregnant woman's life is at risk because of pregnancy, including the risk of suicide".This was after a Supreme Court ruling, but has not yet been enshrined in law.
The reason instrumental delivery was not carried out earlier in Savita's case is that her medical advisors, wrongly as it happens, did not consider her life to be at risk.
An independent inquiry chaired by the Professor of Obstetrics at St Georges Hospital in London has taken place, and the Irish Minister of Health will likely press for changes to the law when it has been published.
There were two other reasons in addition to the delay in delivery, in my opinion, that were equally important factors in the cause of death.
Firstly - medical errors. A raised white cell count on admission was not noted, observations not carried out, hypotensive episodes ignored etc.
Secondly - the cause of death - ESBL E. Coli.
Only recently the Chief Medical Officer has warned of the "catastrophic threat" of drug resistant organisms, which could leave us in a few years time pre-antibiotic 19th C situation.
ESBL E. Coli is such an organism, and would have been resistant to all first and second line antibiotics. It is not usually hospital acquired.
So, as ever, the facts are more complicated than first appears.
Irish law on this subject has been a fudge for some time and successive governments have failed to grasp the nettle and add clarity to a grey area.
At the moment in Ireland terminations are allowed under certain circumstances, where "a pregnant woman's life is at risk because of pregnancy, including the risk of suicide".This was after a Supreme Court ruling, but has not yet been enshrined in law.
The reason instrumental delivery was not carried out earlier in Savita's case is that her medical advisors, wrongly as it happens, did not consider her life to be at risk.
An independent inquiry chaired by the Professor of Obstetrics at St Georges Hospital in London has taken place, and the Irish Minister of Health will likely press for changes to the law when it has been published.
There were two other reasons in addition to the delay in delivery, in my opinion, that were equally important factors in the cause of death.
Firstly - medical errors. A raised white cell count on admission was not noted, observations not carried out, hypotensive episodes ignored etc.
Secondly - the cause of death - ESBL E. Coli.
Only recently the Chief Medical Officer has warned of the "catastrophic threat" of drug resistant organisms, which could leave us in a few years time pre-antibiotic 19th C situation.
ESBL E. Coli is such an organism, and would have been resistant to all first and second line antibiotics. It is not usually hospital acquired.
So, as ever, the facts are more complicated than first appears.
I totally agree with the point that religion should be kept out of politics. Religion should have nothing at all to do with politics. In fact, that is one of the reasons why God will eventually remove religion. He views the church as having "committed adultery" with political elements. REvelation Chapter 17 v 1 & 2 says
"Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came to me and said, "Come and I will show you how the famous prostitute is to be punished, that great city that is built near many rivers. The Kings of the earth practised sexual immorality with her and the people of the world became drunk from drinking the wine of her immorality.
However, I do not agree with abortion. After all, from the moment of conception that one cell is the beginning of a new person.
It has often been said on this site that you consider God to be cruel because he has (supposedly) authorised sacrifice of children - yet what is abortion?
Every year untold millions of unborn babies are killed deliberately by abortion. Why? Because their conception was the result of casual sex, or that the parents did not want to change their life style. What is that if not sacrificing the unborn child for sexual freedom and materialistic lifestyles.
With regard to rape victims. Yes, it was a criminal act against the mother. But is the baby to blame? So why commit violence against the unborn by killing it?
If at the time of childbirth a choice must be made between the life of the mother and that of the child, it is up to the individuals directly involved to make that choice. However, advances in medical procedures in many lands have made this situation very rare.
"Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came to me and said, "Come and I will show you how the famous prostitute is to be punished, that great city that is built near many rivers. The Kings of the earth practised sexual immorality with her and the people of the world became drunk from drinking the wine of her immorality.
However, I do not agree with abortion. After all, from the moment of conception that one cell is the beginning of a new person.
It has often been said on this site that you consider God to be cruel because he has (supposedly) authorised sacrifice of children - yet what is abortion?
Every year untold millions of unborn babies are killed deliberately by abortion. Why? Because their conception was the result of casual sex, or that the parents did not want to change their life style. What is that if not sacrificing the unborn child for sexual freedom and materialistic lifestyles.
With regard to rape victims. Yes, it was a criminal act against the mother. But is the baby to blame? So why commit violence against the unborn by killing it?
If at the time of childbirth a choice must be made between the life of the mother and that of the child, it is up to the individuals directly involved to make that choice. However, advances in medical procedures in many lands have made this situation very rare.
Good to see even the religious can recognise that religion has no place in politics, although any rational observer can see that religion has tainted politics as much as politics has tainted religion. You focus so much on the stuff after death you forget about living in the here and now.
Oh, and i do not say god is cruel. There is no evidence at all that there is any such thing as a god - such an idea is an invention of man, and remains just that - a construct of the mind - but people have pointed out that, were a god to exist, that god of the OT, he would be a jealous, wrathful ,mysogynistic and thoroughly unpleasant individual.
For the rest of your post - pretty standard pro-life stuff. Your beliefs would have done nothing to help either of the 2 women i linked to.In the case of Savita, Slaney probably has the right of it - that the cause of her death was multifactorial, but for some of the expert witnesses there, they are in no doubt that had her pregnancy been terminated earlier, she might very well have survived - but they were prevented from performing the termination because of Irelands rules on abortion - Her life had to be in danger. Of course, by then, it was too late....
In the case of the other woman i linked to - the foetus she is carrying will almost certainly be stillborn. If it is born alive it will have no brain function, and will live a few hours at best. Why put the woman through all that pain and risk?
Your beliefe and your position on abortion offer these 2 women nothing.
More generally - that one cell might indeed be the start of a new life - but there is no actual guarantee that it will go to term. Secondly, whilst zygote or blastocyst may indeed be the start of a new life - they cannot be considered "new life" themselves.
I do not think anyone is arguing that abortion should be considered a normal form of birth control, as you appear to imply. Your comments that abortions are performed because of casual sex or because the parents did not want to change their lifestyle might contain a kernel of truth, in that there are some irresponsible people out there, but grows into a big old oak of a lie and tarnishes all abortion by association; Your comment demeans the mental anguish and emotional upset of women actually having to contemplate an abortion and further is just pro-life rhetoric.It's a discredited notion and can be rejected for all but a very small minority of abortions.
As for your comment about rape - again, lip service to the woman, but that is it. The baby is not yet here. It is a zygote, or a blastocyst, incapable of emotion or thought or life as we understand it.Why should the woman have to go through a pregnancy whilst acutely suffering the effects of rape? Why should she bear a child that will forever remind her of what happened to her?
Your posts demonstrate very little compassion - full of righteousness, but little else.Even where a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, you are full of weasel words - Even then you are reluctant to agree with the idea that the mother should be saved.
It actually makes me quite angry when i read the sanctimonious utterings of the truly faithful when it comes to abortion and womens rights.......
Oh, and i do not say god is cruel. There is no evidence at all that there is any such thing as a god - such an idea is an invention of man, and remains just that - a construct of the mind - but people have pointed out that, were a god to exist, that god of the OT, he would be a jealous, wrathful ,mysogynistic and thoroughly unpleasant individual.
For the rest of your post - pretty standard pro-life stuff. Your beliefs would have done nothing to help either of the 2 women i linked to.In the case of Savita, Slaney probably has the right of it - that the cause of her death was multifactorial, but for some of the expert witnesses there, they are in no doubt that had her pregnancy been terminated earlier, she might very well have survived - but they were prevented from performing the termination because of Irelands rules on abortion - Her life had to be in danger. Of course, by then, it was too late....
In the case of the other woman i linked to - the foetus she is carrying will almost certainly be stillborn. If it is born alive it will have no brain function, and will live a few hours at best. Why put the woman through all that pain and risk?
Your beliefe and your position on abortion offer these 2 women nothing.
More generally - that one cell might indeed be the start of a new life - but there is no actual guarantee that it will go to term. Secondly, whilst zygote or blastocyst may indeed be the start of a new life - they cannot be considered "new life" themselves.
I do not think anyone is arguing that abortion should be considered a normal form of birth control, as you appear to imply. Your comments that abortions are performed because of casual sex or because the parents did not want to change their lifestyle might contain a kernel of truth, in that there are some irresponsible people out there, but grows into a big old oak of a lie and tarnishes all abortion by association; Your comment demeans the mental anguish and emotional upset of women actually having to contemplate an abortion and further is just pro-life rhetoric.It's a discredited notion and can be rejected for all but a very small minority of abortions.
As for your comment about rape - again, lip service to the woman, but that is it. The baby is not yet here. It is a zygote, or a blastocyst, incapable of emotion or thought or life as we understand it.Why should the woman have to go through a pregnancy whilst acutely suffering the effects of rape? Why should she bear a child that will forever remind her of what happened to her?
Your posts demonstrate very little compassion - full of righteousness, but little else.Even where a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, you are full of weasel words - Even then you are reluctant to agree with the idea that the mother should be saved.
It actually makes me quite angry when i read the sanctimonious utterings of the truly faithful when it comes to abortion and womens rights.......
Lazygun@ I think you are the sanctimonious one. Unless you have personally experienced anything like how dare you say my words are uncompassionate and self righteous. I do not offer lip service. I have had friends who were in the very same positions eg raped, survival of both self &/or baby, also one who was put under pressure by her partner to have an abortion because it did not fit in with his plans. I sat and cried with these women and suffered along with them. The one who was raped had the baby and has never regretted her decision. The one who nearly died survived, as did the child, it is disabled but nonetheless it is loved. As for the one who was forced to abort, she has never got over it. Even though she has other children her thoughts are often for the one she "lost". So next time you want to stand on your box and shout your mouth off, Think twice!
Not all women can cope with the idea of keeping a baby that was forced on them via rape. In those cases I wouldn't blame the woman for wanting an abortion, or look down on her for doing so. I fear that abortion is too often a result of pressure applied to women, or an attempt to correct a mistaken decision -- but it should still be legal so that it can be performed safely.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Connections # 323- Mon 29 April
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Family & Relationships25 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.