Poll: Is legislation needed to clarify the legal position on abortion?
Not sure

bluebird  Posted: 26/11/2012 13:41

James H,   Yes, I take the point you are making and agree we should await the outcome of any inquiries.  I have to add I am slightly apprehensive that any enquiry will actually come up the the full truth in relation to this particular case.There is a tendency in Ireland to try and push things under the carpet rather than accept facts.  eg the Banking crises, how many times recently have you heard it is world wide.   Surely the fact that it has taken 20 yrs for the politicians to act shows there is a problem.  I actually feel that other woman  may have died over the years and because their families accepted things as they happened and moved on it did not make the headlines.   I maybe wrong in this but twenty years is a long time and I do not believe there has not been at least another  individual who  has died in similar circumstances.   

JamesH  Posted: 26/11/2012 12:21

Bluebird, my message number 10 was really addressed to you. Apologies for confusion.

JamesH  Posted: 26/11/2012 12:17

Angel, I hear all that you are saying in message 12. It is far from clear whether you think it is ok to save the mothers life if she is in real and substantial danger. However the thing is that when the mothers life is in danger a call must be made, no matter how unpalatable that is. Below 24 weeks the foetus is not viable, so really there is no reason not to terminate if the mothers life is in danger. One issue at present is to define what is meant by real and substantial danger. The Irish people voted in the amendment that gave rise to the X case that allows for termination in this situation. You are correct that as a potential mother you could decide that is not for you. However with the current technology there really isn’t the option of a chamber or another womans womb. After 24 weeks other options open up that could save both the mother and childs life.

anais  Posted: 26/11/2012 10:48

Oh, dear lord.  Frankenstein does obstretrics.  No, Angle, you cannot build a chamber or implant an inviable fetus from it's miscarrying mother into the waiting womb of an 'incumbator' surrogate mother or any other mad device. It simply would not work -- not on pigs, rats, cows, monkeys or human women.  Seahorses, perhaps -- but even that is dubious.  And how many women and unviable foetus's  do you reckon will have to die first whilst waiting on this mad scientiric advancement to be achieved?

Ireland needs legislation on the Xcase.  Now more than ever.  And even that would not be good enough.  On average, four Irish women fly into England everyday for abortions.  Abortion is a fact of Irish life; it's just ignored and swept under the carpet because it is exported elsewhere.  This country needs to catapulted into the 21st century.  For those who are adamantly opposed to abortion, all I can suggest, is that they don't have one.

Angel   Posted: 25/11/2012 03:12

James, we also need to remember that none of us are aware of what the unborn is capable of noticing within the womb. Just imagine if you or I was in the womb in a case like the X case or Savinas case. Imagine if you could hear what was going on and your fate was being determined. How awful it would be to hear this news! Babies have been known to respond to certain music that was played to them within the womb. The unborn is already alive in this world - it is just in a room out of our sight at the moment but it is still here. Who is this new human being coming on earth? What has this person come here to do?

                                   You must also remember that some mothers would prefer to go and leave their child come in instead. I think I would have been one of those mothers. What about a mother that would feel so angry over this? Everybody thinks differently in these extreme cases.

                                    Then of course there are the doctors who perform terminations. How are they affected throughout their lives knowing that they have killed someone? Even some of their lives have been under threat from people who claim they are murderers. Is it fair to allow a doctor to perform a task like this? I certainly don't think so and I'm sure it must be very traumatising on them. And of course the same would go for those who are present and witnessing these abortions. So how many people in total would be affected by this throughout their lives. There must be some better way of saving the unborn by either having some kind of chamber where they can still survive or be implanted into another woman's womb or something. There just has to be a way.

JamesH  Posted: 23/11/2012 10:27

Angel life and medicine is cruel sometimes and people inevitably die. It is enshrined in our constitution that the mother and the unborn both have equal right to life and this was voted in by the people of Ireland, so nobody is disagreeing with you there. However, what you seem to be having difficulty in accepting is that amendment was interpreted in the Supreme court X case as meaning that if there was a real and significant threat to the mothers life a termination was legal. Medicine is not an exact science and is always a case of balancing risks. There may still be cases where the mother dies even after the terminations. Balancing risks in case you don’t realise really is a case of gambling. If for example a woman was in severe threat to her life and having a termination gave an 80% chance of the mother surviving, that still means there is a 20% chance of her dying even following a termination. Yet the X case judgement and presumably most people would support a termination in such case. I would hope that you would support saving the mothers life in such a scenario but it is not clear to me and that was why I challenged your conditional support for saving the mothers life in your last paragraph in message 6.

JamesH  Posted: 23/11/2012 09:31

Angel, we need to be really careful in what we are saying here. Despite all the conversations on the media, nobody knows exactly what happened yet and that is why there is an investigation. The X case says that abortion is permitted when the mothers life is in danger and as a nation we put in the amendment that lead to the X case, so therefore logically as a nation we must support the outcome of that amendment. However in Savita’s case nobody knows at this stage whether her life was in danger during the period of miscarriage to the extent that justified a termination. You do not know at this stage that her life would have been saved. Nobody knows if the risks to Savita of termination outweighed the risks to her life if there was no termination. You do not know what would have been best practice in this particular case until the investigation is over. Medical treatment is always about balancing risks, there is no risk-free treatment. So it really is best to not prejudge the outcome of the investigation, nobody at this point knows all the facts.

Angel   Posted: 22/11/2012 15:15

Bluebird, I think you have got a better gist of what I am trying to say than James H on that last particular post that I wrote. If you look again James you will see that the mother's life is equally important to me as is the child's life. I am always a believer in saving both lives as much as possible. Fair enough, we don't always get it right but I feel anyway that in this particular issue anyway that we must keep striving to get it right anyway.

                                In this particular case we might only need to make ONE tiny change but what this could be at the moment is really something I genuinely do not know. For the moment though I would really and truly NOT like to see a complete reversal at all. I think that is another extreme again which has the potential of causing even greater problems for the future. We have a long way to go there is no doubt and yet on the other hand we could be so close to coming up with a better decision. I feel that 1. We need to ask far more questions (and hopefully the right questions) firstly to ourselves and then to others. This could take some time but as far as I'm concerned something vital is definatly missing. Now we have to search and we have to search really hard within ourselves first and yes we have to find it fairly fast otherwise as you say someone else is going to die - either a child or a mother. I suppose the major question at the moment (or at least that is the feedback I am getting is) Who is the most important person to save at the moment? That is one of the hardest decisions anyone can make not only today but it must have been just as hard back along all through the centuries and it will still be right into the future. No-body genuinely from the bottom of their hearts or somewhere in their minds wants to see anyone die. Everybody wants everybody else to have a great life, a productive life and most of all a delightful life.

                                  When I think this way - I see no difference between the mother's life or the child's life because both are just as important to me. You cannot have one without the other in my eyes but of course I'm sure that you think differently on this matter. But I think we need to really keep in mind or be aware of at least is the fact that whoever dies in these situations - we all die on some level ourselves because it is so simple - none of us can do without each other in the type of world we are living in.

                                      So James, when I said that I might go along with saving the mother's life what I really meant was - if abortion comes in under these type of conditions and still the mother dies - then that decision should immediatly be reversed again until we either come up with a better solution or we really see the mistakes we made.

bluebird  Posted: 21/11/2012 18:45

Angel, have you figures for the number of women who have died after having had an abortion and if so what is your source for these figures.  You appear to imply that there was a "scene" created when this unfortunate lady died because she had not had an abortion.   That is the whole point of the "scene", if the pregnancy had been fully terminated, and she appears to have been told thatit was self terminating then her life would  apparently have been saved.   There was no chance of the baby surviving therefore it was in the interest of the mother to have the procedure completed.   All other European countries allow for abortion/termination  to some degree most I thiunk in the 12 week frame, some like Sweden have l8 weeks but in some cases where the parent has requested a termination due to medical information and on the strict advice of two medics up to 22 weeks.   Who has the right to insist that a girl must carry the pregnancy to full term especially in rape cases, incest cases and where medical knowledge has advised that there is no hope of life being sustained outside the womb.   There has to be some compassion shown, no one is forced to undergo a termination.   It is high time that Ireland grew up and stopped exporting her problems abroad.   The land of Saints and Scholars, I think not. No one  in any govoernment for the past 20 yrs appears to be able to comply with  Court requirements.  Perhaps they will comply with EU requirements.  The time is running out for beating about the bush from the EU side of things.

JamesH  Posted: 21/11/2012 12:46

Angel are you saying that you are not in favour of saving the mothers life? Because that seems to be your message in your last paragraph. Just to remind you of the history the people of Ireland voted in the amendment that lead to the X case that allowes for limited abortion. This is what we call a democracy. So you in effect are asking the people of Ireland to reverse a decision that they have already made. There have already been three referendums relating to this area.

Angel   Posted: 20/11/2012 23:16

Amazing how there was never a major outcry when someone died during an abortion. How is this so covered up? Many of these women were belonged to our own country yet it took another person from another country to make such a huge scene when there was no abortion involved. There is something wrong somewhere.

                        If those who advocate abortion will stand up and immediately reverse a decision that could bring in limited abortion to this country - then I might go along with trying to save the mother's life. They'd all have to agree with this first though.

JamesH  Posted: 20/11/2012 16:33

Jamie, I think that as a nation we need to step back from this case for a while. There is some very inflammatory language on the go from both sides. With comments referring to politicians and indeed doctors having blood on their hands in relation to this case, neither side can claim the moral high ground. Absolutely nobody knows whether any change in law that complied with the X case judgement would have saved poor Savita's life. So let us stand back and let the investigation be carried out to establish the facts and then go from there. It may well turn out to be a tragedy that the balancing of risks, that the clinicians have to at all time carry out, might have made the final outcome inevitable. We just don’t know yet and anyone that prejudges the outcome should carefully consider why we would ask any expert to chair this investigation.

bluebird  Posted: 20/11/2012 14:50

Listen everyone if I had a Euro for everytime I heard, during the last abortion debate on TV, Radio, etc., that no woman would die because she needed a pregnancy terminated, I would be a very very  rich individual.

Ireland lacks "backbone" in everything.   What do all the other countries in the world do in relation to woman who present in hospitals and who require a termination to save their lives.  What actually concerns me is that Everyone is Pro Life  but when the children arrive into the world a considerable amount of those Pro Lifers appear to forget about them.   Its a case of get them here and then let them look after themselves.

As regards this Enquiry Panel, to have the hospital checking up on themselves seems very strange to me. 

Jamie  Posted: 20/11/2012 11:44

One thing is certain from reading the anti-abortions crowd reaction. And that is they shouldn't be allowed use the phrase "pro life" any more.

JamesH  Posted: 19/11/2012 10:13

John I agree that legislation is required to address the supreme court X case judgement. However it is a step too far to accuse the politicians of having blood on their hands now. Despite all the tabloid-like headlines everywhere it is far from clear whether any change in law that complied with the X case judgement would have saved poor Savita's life. It would be advisable to await the outcome of the investigation before prejudging. None of us know all the facts yet. You may well turn out to be correct but at present without all the facts you have no way of knowing that.

John Williams  Posted: 17/11/2012 19:22

Yes and it should have been done twenty years ago. Our cowardly politicians haven't the guts to do it in case they bring down the wrath of Mother Church on their heads. Now that they have blood on their hands maybe they will be forced to legislate.


Back to the list of discussions

Back to Homepage

Back to top of page

Back to Homepage