Irish Woman Dies When Denied Abortion

[dgirl1986]

If the baby was not in the mother´s womb, would you say it is okay to kill the baby if the mother had the same psychological suffering you are talking about?

Like, if the baby has born already, would it be okay to kill him so the mother doesn´t feel this horrible horrible psychological trauma? For this hypothetical we are assuming it would fix her trauma.

Of course not, that is a fully developed baby. What we are talking about here is a baby that hasnt yet developed. I obviously would not agree with terminating a baby at 7 months along in the pregnancy or anyting.

A little bit of logic and common sense doesnt go astray in this kind of situations.

 

[Me Myself]

Of course not, that is a fully developed baby. What we are talking about here is a baby that hasnt yet developed. I obviously would not agree with terminating a baby at 7 months along in the pregnancy or anyting.

A little bit of logic and common sense doesnt go astray in this kind of situations.

Why not? it is a fully developed baby, but not a fully developed human. He doesn´t even have the mental proficiency of an adult dog by 7 months.

Now yo feel it is preposterous I compare the two I would assume. I agree. A human life is a human life. We disagree in the moment of value. I say since conception, you say since birth. I have no idea why since birth, but that is what you say. I say since conception.

 

[dgirl1986]

Why not? it is a fully developed baby, but not a fully developed human. He doesn´t even have the mental proficiency of an adult dog by 7 months.

Now yo feel it is preposterous I compare the two I would assume. I agree. A human life is a human life. We disagree in the moment of value. I say since conception, you say since birth. I have no idea why since birth, but that is what you say. I say since conception.

Once it is a fully developed baby it is a human. I did not say since birth. I am not sure when in the pregnancy it happens but I consider it a developed baby when it has hands, and feet, maybe even digits.

 

[Me Myself]

Once it is a fully developed baby it is a human. I did not say since birth. I am not sure when in the pregnancy it happens but I consider it a developed baby when it has hands, and feet, maybe even digits.

o.0 well then it is obvious from where we disagree. I see a human being were you do not, so it is not about how painful (even if a lot) it is to the mother. No license to kill.

 

[dgirl1986]

o.0 well then it is obvious from where we disagree. I see a human being were you do not, so it is not about how painful (even if a lot) it is to the mother. No license to kill.

Do you disagree with animals being put down?

 

[Drolefille]

The fact of the matter is that women die when abortion is banned.

When women die, the fetus dies, any other children are left without a mother and so on. So, in the interest of minimizing harm, if nothing else, why not legalize abortion for the most possible good?

Because the only other option is to lock all women up and force feed them the correct nutrition and vitamins and never leave them unsupervised while they're pregnant.

 

[NIX]

Yes I agree. As I said, it is not the same when the mother´s life is at risk, and in this case the baby didn´t even had a chance.



Maybe, but I can´t think of another right now.

I can imagine a lot of reasons for which a woman wouldn´t want to be pregnant, but besides her life, I cannot think right now a reason that merits killing her child.

And yet you lump every other reason possible together under the heading of "comfort".

That's a propaganda word. Not a real life one.

 

[NIX]

If the baby was not in the mother´s womb, would you say it is okay to kill the baby if the mother had the same psychological suffering you are talking about?

Like, if the baby has born already, would it be okay to kill him so the mother doesn´t feel this horrible horrible psychological trauma? For this hypothetical we are assuming it would fix her trauma.

At that point we have a viable life independent of the mother. They are now seperate issues.

 

[NIX]

This poor woman may well have fared better with a coathanger than with her country's medical 'assistance'. Dunno if it would have landed her in jail, but maybe she would still be alive. Which is better? Her call I guess.

So messed up. Beyond words.

 

[dgirl1986]

This poor woman may well have fared better with a coathanger than with her country's medical 'assistance'. Dunno if it would have landed her in jail, but maybe she would still be alive. Which is better? Her call I guess.

So messed up. Beyond words.

Agreed.

 

[romana03]

The article also mentiones septicaemia and E.coli, so it sounds to me like she died of an infection as a result of the operation.

The infection was because the miscarriage had started, so her cervix was fully dilated the whole time. That's a huge risk.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting post about this by a blogging OB/GYN:

Did Irish Catholic law or malpractice kill Savita Halappanavar? « Dr. Jen Gunter

 

[NIX]

As someone who is partially of Irish ancestry, it makes me sick too. I am ashamed of my ancestral homeland for being one of the last holdouts of a mysogynistic, homophobic cult which has no place in today's modern world.



Personally it makes me want to kick the ever-loving crap out of him, but I'd never get past the bodyguards.

As long as people keep filling the pews, they keep their power seat.

It is the PEOPLE en mass, who need to simply say enough is enough and walk out on this ****. Unless you are living in a theocracy, a religious institution only has as much power over the people, as the people WILLINGLY give it.

The hat looks stupid when no one revers it.

 

[Riverwolf]

My heart goes out to my half-Kinsmen, and hope that my Half-Mother Éire can be freed from this nonsense soon.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Those are not all medical journals, even with your selective quoting. Nor are they modern, nor do the use of quotes prove that the studies themselves say the same thing. If you're going to take secondary sources, lets look at wikipedia, or you know the APA - who would be considered experts.

Abortion and mental health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey look, No post abortion syndrome, because there's no evidence for it.
But they disagree with you so I anticipate you ignore them.

I held out for as long as I could, because the publications of such studies are so rarely any good (regardless of the journal), but wikipedia?

There are conflicting studies, and reviews of them, but there are actually many published studies in respected peer-review medical journals which conclude that there is "a strong association between abortion and mental disorders" and similar findings. In fact, the quoted portion comes from the study "Associations Between Abortion, Mental Disorders, and Suicidal Behaviour in a Nationally Representative Sample" published in Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 201 Vol. 55 Issue 4, p239-247.

Same with the study "Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009" (The British Journal Of Psychiatry Volume: 199 Issue: 3) which concluded "Based on data extracted from 22 studies, the results of this meta-analytic review of the abortion and mental health literature indicate quite consistently that abortion is associated with moderate to highly increased risks of psychological problems subsequent to the procedure. The magnitude of effects derived varied based on the comparison group (no abortion, pregnancy delivered, unintended pregnancy delivered) and the type of problem examined (alcohol use/misuse, marijuana use, anxiety, depression, suicidal behaviours). Overall, the results revealed that women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be directly attributable to abortion" and (in their section on "Putative benefits of abortion" state "Procedure benefits of abortion have not been empirically established and the results of the substantial review by Thorp et al described earlier in conjunction with the results of the present quantitative synthesis indicate considerable evidence documenting mental health risks".

And again with "Induced abortion and anxiety, mood, and substance abuse disorders: isolating the effects of abortion in the National Comorbidity Survey" (Journal of Psychiatric Research Volume 43, Issue 8, May 2009, Pages 770–776), where the authors found not only that abortion was a risk factor for a number of mental health issues, but that "What is most notable in this study is that abortion contributed significant independent effects to numerous mental health problems above and beyond a variety of other traumatizing and stressful life experiences. The strongest effects based on the attributable risks indicated that abortion is responsible for more than 10% of the population incidence of alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, drug dependence, panic disorder, agoraphobia, and bipolar disorder in the population. Lower percentages were identified for 6 additional diagnoses."

I could go on, but there's no real point because apart from methodological errors, there is a slew of similar studies (with similar errors) concluding almost the exact opposite: there is no significant mental health risk associated with abortion.

At the moment, there continue to be publications in respected academic sources which conclude that abortion and mental health issues are related (although different studies which find also disagree concerning which is the causal factor of the other). The same is true of the reverse. If anything, there are more published studies which find that abortion is not a significant risk factor.

On a side note, the APA and the APA (one "psychiatric" and the other "psychological") are in a constant battle over the extent to which medicine and mental health are related, and therefore who is more qualified to make statements about mental health.

At the moment, the DSM and similar diagnostic bibles are the result of a medical approach to mental health. The history behind these and the lack of any significant support for the biomedical view of mental disorders, let alone their classification, is problem enough without factoring in how frequently studies like the above lack adequate sampling, adequate data analysis methods, and an adequate theoretical framework.

Perhaps in the future the association between mental health and abortion will be clearer and can better inform women who are considering abortion. At the moment, we aren't there, but even if abortion is a significant risk factor, there are preventative therapeutic treatments which have been effective in cases where an individual is undergoing or participating in something (divorce, combat, unemployment, etc.) known to have possible adverse mental health effects.

 

[crossfire]

There are always outlier cases... what is most important is to look at what is going on in the majority of the cases.

Why Do Women Have Abortions?

9/10 abortions - the vast majority - are not done for legitimate health reasons.


Here's another link - I've seen other studies that claim the percentage is as high as 33% trying to kill themselves after having an abortion.
Suicide Risk

considering all the women who kill themselves after having an abortion due to PTSD, I think pro-life laws save more than just the lives of the children.

If you would like a first-hand account of childbirth related PTSD, I would be more than happy to tell you all about it.

Methinks the risks of pregnancy and childbirth have been actively suppressed and minimized in modern times. The shoddy OB care I've seen in the HMO's actively highlights this, as well as the continuing unlawful practice of shackling women in prison when they are in childbirth. (A $4+ million lawsuit over this just went through.) This minimalization makes it easy for anti-choice ignore and mock the very real risks associated with childbirth.

 

[lunakilo]

The infection was because the miscarriage had started, so her cervix was fully dilated the whole time. That's a huge risk.

You may be right, but do you know for a fact that that is what caused the infection, or are you just repeating other peoples speculations?

I am not a doctor and have no medical training to speak of, nor was I at the hospital at the time so I don't think I have the knowledge to say what caused the infection that killed the woman.

If the doctors knew she had an infection and ignored it, or if they ignored to test the woman for infections during the miscarriage then they are guilty of gross neglect of their duty as doctors. IF that is what happened.

As far as I remember from the original article in the OP, the woman spend two and a half day miscarrying, but spend a week in the hospital. That leaves 7-2.5 = 4.5 days after the termination of the pregnancy until she died. How can you be sure the infection started before the termination of the pregnancy and not after?

Don't get me wrong, I see absolutely no reason why a termination of the pregnancy should be denied when according to the doctors there was no way to save the fetus anyway. That is a stupid law (or a stupid interpretation of the law?), and I do not know of many counties where an abortion would not be carried out in a case like this.

 

[Rakhel]

It's funny that the medical community calls a miscarriage a "spontaneous abortion" and asks if you need to talk to someone about your "spontaneous abortion." Yet no one considers asking a woman if she wants to talk to anyone after a "forced abortion."

I have know a few women that have had abortions. One had the attitude of being free of an ugly pair of shoes. The second was so nonchalant about it, and the third, who's abortion was a medically induced abortion, followed by a D&C, was mentally disturbed by it.

Seems to me they all had mental issues that needed to be addressed by someone. But then, I'm not a doctor, just a study of human nature.

 

[Quiddity]

That when a miscarriage occurs it does not mean the fetus's heart has stopped beating. At 17 weeks, when a woman's body is rejecting a fetus - whether due to the fetus, her body, or some combination of problems - the fetus could not survive. Whatever the cause, the doctors stated the fetus would not survive, but refused to complete the miscarriage with a D&C because the fetus was currently still possessing a heart beat. The infections she died of are known complications from miscarriages - ones avoided by performing a D&C aka a termination aka an abortion (which is a misnomer in this case as she was already spontaneously aborting the baby.)

This is what you are missing.

Not all miscarriages are over in a matter of hours. In this case, there was no saving the fetus, but it still took days to die. In that time, the mother was infected. It's likely that aborting the fetus and repairing the damage would have saved her life.

My wife has had a miscarriage and D&C.......I just wasn't used to hearing about cases like this.

Ok, now I'm confused as to why this is perceived to be an issue for Pro-Lifers? Mind clarifying? Miscarriages or situations that put the mother at risk have never been an issue or contradiction for us. The idea is always to save a life. If the fetus is unable to be saved, then the choice seems obvious (safety of the mother). If the fetus and mother are healthy, then that choice is left to the family. This is what most pro-lifers I know support. So what's the issue here?

 

[Quiddity]

Somehow, the false idea that the life of the baby should be saved at all costs (even if it means the death of the mother) has been perpetuated.