Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Woman dies in Galway after being denied termination

999 replies

AThingInYourLife · 14/11/2012 07:07

Holy evil pro-life bastards, batman

The wonder is it that there haven't been more Angry

RIP Savita Halappanavar :(

OP posts:
edam · 14/11/2012 22:35

Good grief, the carnage obstetricians have wrought on women in Ireland is horrific. After seeing rhetorician's link I looked up - a barbaric procedure carried out without consent, leaving women with life-long pain and disability. Carrying on until the 1980s and possibly beyond. And all because Irish obstetricians didn't want to do C-sections because women might start using contraception (if they had already had several sections).

verylittlecarrot · 14/11/2012 22:36

Pacific, Cailin has stated many times through the thread that a termination wouldn't have made a difference to Savita. And she was of course very wrong to state that. In one of her earliest posts she claimed "BUT not having an abortion did not contribute to her death. Medically it doesn't make sense to claim that it did"

She held doggedly to that false assertion that the termination was not medically helpful for most of the thread, which was infuriating and denied the truth of Savita's negligent medical care throughout most of the thread.

Her position seems to have changed somewhat, and now she concedes that the termination might have helped after all, but that we shouldn't discuss it because it detracts from the argument we should be having instead.

However, as I am capable of understanding two arguments concurrently, I still feel it is valid to address the issue of whether her doctors failed her in addition to the law failing her too.

edam · 14/11/2012 22:37

Holey, it's even worse than that, Ireland wouldn't allow women to travel for abortions until the X case - even when it was a death sentence. In the X case, the courts finally ruled that women could go abroad if their lives were at risk. That counts as progress, FGS!

squoosh · 14/11/2012 22:38

God edam I'd never heard of that procedure before. Medieval.

You'd swear Ireland was a country that really despised and feared its female citizens.

AThingInYourLife · 14/11/2012 22:42

"Yes the constitution says abortion can take place when the mother's life is in danger"

The constitution does not say that.

The Supreme Court judgement in the X Case says that.

The amendment to "protect" the right to life of the mother was rejected because it was so scarily pro-life that nobody other than the fundamentalists could support it.

OP posts:
HoleyGhost · 14/11/2012 22:42

To answer my own question It seems she would need to travel, or carry a dying foetus to term.

If women in these awful situations must travel abroad , how is their aftercare managed?

HoleyGhost · 14/11/2012 22:44

Slow typing lots of x posts

NomNomingiaDePlum · 14/11/2012 22:44

no aftercare, holey, just crossed fingers.

rhetorician · 14/11/2012 22:45

edam I think the appearance of the word 'saw' in the first line of the Wikipedia entry tells you what you need to know. My partner's mother had a version of this with her first child; she went on to have 5 more, and hasn't had significant issues subsequently thank god.

The veil of silence over the issue has at least been - temporarily - broken by this case. But when we thought we might have to terminate (we didn't, happily) I found it so hard that i felt I couldn't mention it to anyone except DP - those I did mention it to were quite shocked I think. The mn antenatal testing thread got me through those few days and via that I was in touch with a few other Irish women who hadn't been as lucky and had had to travel to the UK in already tragic circumstances.

I know this is all beside the point in some ways, but there is a much broader context relating to women's lack of control over their own bodies.

TheDailyWail · 14/11/2012 22:45

I can't get my head round practising surgeons/doctors who would refuse to save their patients lives because of the

sabine · 14/11/2012 22:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheDailyWail · 14/11/2012 22:46

...country's laws

AThingInYourLife · 14/11/2012 22:48

"Ireland wouldn't allow women to travel for abortions until the X case."

It wasn't until the X case that the issue of women travelling for abortions was raised as a legal issue. It was the far-reaching, ill-advised 8th amendment to the constitution in 1983 that made it arguably illegal.

OP posts:
LineRunner · 14/11/2012 22:52

Non-aftercare was involved in the ruling (EU) that Xiao linked to upthread a while ago.

TheDailyWail · 14/11/2012 22:53

Oh Edam - that Wiki link - that procedure is horrific.

How can they consider themselves fit to practice?

hhhhhhh · 14/11/2012 22:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SolidGoldYESBROKEMYSPACEBAR · 14/11/2012 22:55

I support abortion on demand up until the moment of birth. It's easy and perfectly logical. To think otherwise is to think that this poor woman's death was oh dear, regrettable but better than letting women have a choice.

If your own views on abortion are 'complicated' and you think it's a bad thing to terminate a pregnancy, well then, don't terminate any of yours. Your views are only relevant to what happens in your womb. (If you haven't got a womb, your opinion is totally irrelevant). If you've ever campaigned against abortion, or for a tighter restriction on its availability, then you have a degree of moral responsibility for Savita Halappanava's death, Angela Carder's death, and the deaths of all the women who were killed by botched illegal abortions or by pregnancies that put their lives at risk.

And if you're even thinking along the lines of 'waa, waa, waa, some women have really late abortions for 'social' reasons and that's horrible and that's why we have to restrict abortion' then you're a woman-hating moron. Yes you are. Because you think that women, if not controlled by men and the state, will 'murder their babies' because they want to go and get their hair done or something.

squoosh · 14/11/2012 22:57

X Case was a 14 year old girl who became pregnant through rape. She wanted to travel to England for an abortion. People tried very hard to stop her.

This was 1992.

sabine · 14/11/2012 22:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ZombiesAreClammyDodgers · 14/11/2012 22:59

She may not have had a visa to drive up to Belfast. Just saying.
I firmly believe recognising the "soul" of the foetus and such is just another way to control a woman's body, choices and life.

ZombiesAreClammyDodgers · 14/11/2012 23:00

Hear hear solidgold.
Don't have a uterus? Keep your opinions to yourself.

ZombiesAreClammyDodgers · 14/11/2012 23:01

Blush obviously what I meant was not female, don't speak.
Not uterus specific.

gussiegrips · 14/11/2012 23:02

Sawing a symphysis pubis under local anaeshetic? Until WHEN?

Jesus Wept.

squoosh · 14/11/2012 23:02

More evidence below. She wanted to use some of the foetus DNA as evidence against her rapist. She and her family asked for the Gardai for advice on this.

This brave girl was then hampered to near suicide by the Attorney General trying to prevent her going to the UK for an abortion.

It's hard to stress how huge this case was in Ireland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X

LineRunner · 14/11/2012 23:02

If you believe that a woman has autonomy over her own body, which under EU rights she actually does, then all else flows from that.

Good luck Nadine Dorries in The Jungle, by the way.

Swipe left for the next trending thread