[TK-421]

Originally Posted by Altaris

All religion tries to bring people back into the stone ages. Religious laws like Sharia, and hard line anti-abortion laws like this do nothing but harm people.

I honestly think we'd have flying cars if not for religion. Hell, the Romans had better concrete than we do today, we still haven't figured out exactly how to replicate it. And if it hadn't been for the dark ages, we might have been able to keep all the good technological advances, and grow upon them, instead of having to start all over.

[Sneegrl]

.....

[HollowHead]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

Under Ireland's socialized medical system, the government will reimburse the hospital and doctor for treatment of any injuries she sustains as a result of the miscarriage, but not for performing an abortion absent a demonstratable threat to the mother's life.

For the hospital, the decision to abort or not when the pregnant woman originally came in complaining of back pain came down to "If we abort now and the government beauacracy disagrees that her life was in peril, we don't get paid. If we ride out the miscarriage and hope for the best, we get full reimbursement."

The socialized reimbursement system adds a financial incentive and beaurocratic angle to what would otherwise be a matter of discussion strictly between the doctor and a medical review board on whether the doctor acted appropriately and her life was in danger.

Edited to add: Don't take this post as implying that Ireland's strict anti-abortion law is defensible. I don't believe it is. I'm just pointing out that the socialized medicine aspect does play a role in such cases.

According to this morning's Irish Times the woman offered to pay for the abortion herself out-of-pocket and was still denied. This had absolutely nothing to do with "socialized medicine." HH

[Andy W]

I don't know what to say. The whole situation as it unfolded is totally ridiculous. Nobody likes abortion but situations like this are why it should be legal.

[Patchman]

Ireland. Asians. Maybe their skin colour played a role?

[mikeflys1]

Originally Posted by TK-421

I honestly think we'd have flying cars if not for religion. Hell, the Romans had better concrete than we do today, we still haven't figured out exactly how to replicate it. And if it hadn't been for the dark ages, we might have been able to keep all the good technological advances, and grow upon them, instead of having to start all over.

[goldenlight]

Originally Posted by vikingsoftpaw

A miscarriage is a natural abortion. No need to provide the additional service. Abortion to save a mother's life is legal in Ireland.

It is Socialized Medicine Issue.

Wow, the derp is strong in this one.

[RicoGordo]

Originally Posted by RenoF250

Yes, I supposed you are correct. I just doubt this is a standard miscarriage case. Why did fetus that still had a heartbeat cause an infection?

If the baby is miscarrying I do not see a good reason to let it fester.

The fetus was dying, and probably had some dead tissue. Dead tissue gets infected, or the fetus may have actually been overrun by an infection. Either way, she likely had rotting flesh in her uterus.

You are correct in supporting immediate termination. Most US state law considers human euthanasia to be murder no matter what the circumstance, so the same concept apparently applies to a fetus in Ireland.

[RicoGordo]

Originally Posted by norton

Its a good thing for democrats the soon to be aborted fetus can't vote.

Are you trolling?

These were Indian citizens living in Ireland. There are no Democrats in Ireland. The fetus isn't soon to be aborted because it died along with the mother.

[glockdoc21]

LOTS of missing information here...living babies don't typically kill people. If she had a septic abortion, that's a different story, but there's no heartbeat with that one. I think that she either had a premature rupture of membranes w/ endometritis (probably would have died anyway) or she had a botched abortion (common in countries like this, and the uterine manipulation can cause sepsis in the mother). I've never heard of a closed uterus w/ a living fetus causing the mother to die if she hasn't been in some kind of traumatic accident....this looks like the media having a witchhunt.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by TK-421

I honestly think we'd have flying cars if not for religion. Hell, the Romans had better concrete than we do today, we still haven't figured out exactly how to replicate it. And if it hadn't been for the dark ages, we might have been able to keep all the good technological advances, and grow upon them, instead of having to start all over.

You are probably right. I watched a show a while back - I think an episode of Sagan's Cosmos, about how advanced the Ionians were in science and how much of that was lost and had to be rediscovered over centuries, because of christians becoming a dominant force and suppressing science.

[norton]

Originally Posted by RicoGordo

Are you trolling?

These were Indian citizens living in Ireland. There are no Democrats in Ireland. The fetus isn't soon to be aborted because it died along with the mother.

I think you missed my point. This thread has morphed into "gee ain't abortion great".

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by norton

I think you missed my point. This thread has morphed into "gee ain't abortion great".

norton,

I think where the viability of a fetus is statistically improbable (as in this case), a medically induced abortion is a great thing, just like amputations to save someone's life can be a great thing, just like needle decompression might be great for dealing with certain types of pneumothorax.

Can you point out in this thread those responses that support your stated observation?

- G

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by RicoGordo

How can you blame the doctors? You don't know what the law is or how it is applied there.

How can you make that assertion? You don't know my occupation, or where I live.

Furthermore, I don't need to know the sun is hot from not having lived there, or that equatorial regions are warmer than living at the poles.

I can blame the doctors because I know what the Hippocratic Oath is, and BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE AND IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN it is clear where the blame lies.

[jtmac]

Originally Posted by Bushflyr

Perfect example of what would happen here if the anti-choice zealots got their way. Go GOP, overturn Roe vv.Wade.

This is ridiculous.

Nearly the entirety of the pro-life movement has no problem with an abortion procedure that is intended to spare the life of the mother.

It's the same principle that most proponents of self-defense have: Protect life, unless that life is a threat to someone else's life.

I'm sure that there are people who don't even allow for abortion in such a case, but they are Conservative Bigfoot. Even the Catholic authorities allow for procedures that save the mother but happen to result in the death of the child when it is medically necessary. The much more relevant argument is with those who think that it's never medically necessary, which is an issue Ireland has with its medical system oversight and not one that exists much anywhere else.

[mhambi]

This thread would be hilarious were it not for the fact that a woman is dead. Best wishes to her surviving family.

Originally Posted by glockdoc21

LOTS of missing information here...

That's completely irrelevant these days.

[AlexHassin]

Originally Posted by norton

I think you missed my point. This thread has morphed into "gee ain't abortion great".

as a EMT i can say from personal experience that saving someones life is great.

[Sharkey]

Originally Posted by jtmac

This is ridiculous.

Nearly the entirety of the pro-life movement has no problem with an abortion procedure that is intended to spare the life of the mother.

It's the same principle that most proponents of self-defense have: Protect life, unless that life is a threat to someone else's life.

I'm sure that there are people who don't even allow for abortion in such a case, but they are Conservative Bigfoot. Even the Catholic authorities allow for procedures that save the mother but happen to result in the death of the child when it is medically necessary. The much more relevant argument is with those who think that it's never medically necessary, which is an issue Ireland has with its medical system oversight and not one that exists much anywhere else.

Finally, some wisdom in this thread. We can talk about flying cars all you want but this is an isolated case. How many millions have been aborted here in the US when there was NOT a threat to the mother's life? CNN wouldn't be a slanted "news" source either huh?

[Weiser 878]

Pro abortion arguments for the health of the mother, or in case of rape or incest piss me off. If you're pro-life because of a religious belief, then don't pick and choose caveats; be pro-life no matter what.



________________________________
Proudly Pro-Choice and Anti-Religion

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by Sharkey

Finally, some wisdom in this thread. We can talk about flying cars all you want but this is an isolated case. How many millions have been aborted here in the US when there was NOT a threat to the mother's life? CNN wouldn't be a slanted "news" source either huh?

What do all the dead aborted babies matter in the context of this story?

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by HollowHead

According to this morning's Irish Times the woman offered to pay for the abortion herself out-of-pocket and was still denied. This had absolutely nothing to do with "socialized medicine." HH

If she did indeed offer to go out-of-pocket, then yes, you're right and this particular case would step outside of the bounds of the Socialized system completely.

I think you can see my point, however, in that with many (most?) abortion cases involving a miscarrying mother in these circumstances, the socialized system does play a role by taking what would have been purely an ethics and actions decision between the doctor involved and a medical review board and turning it into an accounts payable issue with the hospital and government beauracracy.

[badge315]

Originally Posted by Weiser 878

Pro abortion arguments for the health of the mother, or in case of rape or incest piss me off. If you're pro-life because of a religious belief, then don't pick and choose caveats; be pro-life no matter what.



________________________________
Proudly Pro-Choice and Anti-Religion

Huh?

[Andy W]

Originally Posted by Weiser 878

Pro abortion arguments for the health of the mother, or in case of rape or incest piss me off. If you're pro-life because of a religious belief, then don't pick and choose caveats; be pro-life no matter what.



________________________________
Proudly Pro-Choice and Anti-Religion

A couple of republican sentate candidates tried that already. Didn't work out so well for them and for good reason.

[treeline]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

If she did indeed offer to go out-of-pocket, then yes, you're right and this particular case would step outside of the bounds of the Socialized system completely.

I think you can see my point, however, in that with many (most?) abortion cases involving a miscarrying mother in these circumstances, the socialized system does play a role [...].

The bigger issue is the criminal liability. Procuring an unnecessary abortion means loss of medical licence and a 5 year jail term for the doctor. The mother faces life in prison. The law defining when an abortion is legal is so vague that in practice doctors routinely refuse to abort whatever the circumstances.

Edit for clarity: the 1992 court decision that abortion was legal if the mothers life was in peril was never put into legislation. No-one knows if it would protect doctrs or not.

[SC Tiger]

Originally Posted by jtmac

This is ridiculous.

Nearly the entirety of the pro-life movement has no problem with an abortion procedure that is intended to spare the life of the mother.

It's the same principle that most proponents of self-defense have: Protect life, unless that life is a threat to someone else's life.

I'm sure that there are people who don't even allow for abortion in such a case, but they are Conservative Bigfoot. Even the Catholic authorities allow for procedures that save the mother but happen to result in the death of the child when it is medically necessary. The much more relevant argument is with those who think that it's never medically necessary, which is an issue Ireland has with its medical system oversight and not one that exists much anywhere else.

This is true. The pro-life crowd (me included) is concerned with the use of abortion as a form of birth control and as a result of consensual sex (which is, as I understand it, around 98% of cases). Rape, incest and danger to the mother are cases that have to be dealt with separately.

Sounds like the problem in Ireland (in this case) is that the penalty for performing an unnecessary abortion is much stiffer than being wrong, and places the doctor in an untenable position.