Topic: Woman dies after being denied an abortion.
Anonymous A started this discussion 14 years ago #23,441
Savita Halappanavar, 31 years old and 17 weeks pregnant, presented with back pain at Ireland's University Hospital Galway on October 21st, and was found to be miscarrying.
Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.
This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, "this is a Catholic country".
Even though Halappanavar, a Hindu, was emphatic that she was neither Irish nor Catholic, and even though she developed shakes and shivering and was vomiting, the hospital said there was nothing to be done.
Two and a half days later, the fetal heartbeat stopped. Heartbreaking, but the story gets even worse.
After the dead fetus was removed, Halappanavar was taken to intensive care where she died on the Oct. 28. Two days later, an autopsy found she succumbed to septicaemia and E.coli ESBL.
A hospital spokesman confirmed the Health Service Executive had begun an investigation while the hospital had also instigated an internal investigation. He said the hospital extended its sympathy to the family and friends of Ms Halappanavar but could not iscuss the details of any individual case.
Mr. Halappanavar took his wife's body home on Nov. 1 where she was cremated and laid to rest on Nov. 3.
So awful, and yet another painful reminder of the many reasons women must have access to proper medical care. It appears this isn't totally the work of neglectful hospital, the Irish government is to blame here, as well. In 1992, the Irish Supreme Court legalized abortion in cases where the mother's life is threatened, but 20 years later the Irish Republic has failed to put the law into effect.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html
Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.
This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, "this is a Catholic country".
Even though Halappanavar, a Hindu, was emphatic that she was neither Irish nor Catholic, and even though she developed shakes and shivering and was vomiting, the hospital said there was nothing to be done.
Two and a half days later, the fetal heartbeat stopped. Heartbreaking, but the story gets even worse.
After the dead fetus was removed, Halappanavar was taken to intensive care where she died on the Oct. 28. Two days later, an autopsy found she succumbed to septicaemia and E.coli ESBL.
A hospital spokesman confirmed the Health Service Executive had begun an investigation while the hospital had also instigated an internal investigation. He said the hospital extended its sympathy to the family and friends of Ms Halappanavar but could not iscuss the details of any individual case.
Mr. Halappanavar took his wife's body home on Nov. 1 where she was cremated and laid to rest on Nov. 3.
So awful, and yet another painful reminder of the many reasons women must have access to proper medical care. It appears this isn't totally the work of neglectful hospital, the Irish government is to blame here, as well. In 1992, the Irish Supreme Court legalized abortion in cases where the mother's life is threatened, but 20 years later the Irish Republic has failed to put the law into effect.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #366,237
literally right after?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,238
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,239
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,240
This is what the Republicans want for America. Why? So women wont fuck.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,242
Catholic jesus doesn't care.
Jesus wasn't really known for helping the sick, all he cares about is letting a dying fetus live an extra few days. Everything else is secondary. A fetus should live as long as medical science can deny care to a dying woman.
Jesus wasn't really known for helping the sick, all he cares about is letting a dying fetus live an extra few days. Everything else is secondary. A fetus should live as long as medical science can deny care to a dying woman.
Handle !tYHPZ2dvu6 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,243
I approve of this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,245
Handle !tYHPZ2dvu6 replied with this 14 years ago, 48 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,246
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,247
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,248
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,249
@366,246 (Handle !tYHPZ2dvu6)
Cute. I love that you'd put your dick inside of one, but you need proof that they're people.
Cute. I love that you'd put your dick inside of one, but you need proof that they're people.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,250
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/joe-walsh-abortion-exception_n_1983701.html
Republican Rep. Joe Walsh, running against Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, told reporters Thursday night that there should be no abortion exception for the "life of the mother" because "with modern technology and science, you can't find one instance" in which a woman would actually die, according to a radio station. Walsh, of course, is flat wrong.
"There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing," Walsh continued. The comments were first reported by the Illinois radio station WGN.
"There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology," Walsh said, according to the video above. CREDO super PAC, which is opposing Walsh, tipped HuffPost to the comments.
Republican Rep. Joe Walsh, running against Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, told reporters Thursday night that there should be no abortion exception for the "life of the mother" because "with modern technology and science, you can't find one instance" in which a woman would actually die, according to a radio station. Walsh, of course, is flat wrong.
"There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing," Walsh continued. The comments were first reported by the Illinois radio station WGN.
"There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology," Walsh said, according to the video above. CREDO super PAC, which is opposing Walsh, tipped HuffPost to the comments.
Handle !tYHPZ2dvu6 replied with this 14 years ago, 53 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,252
@366,248 (F)
> He is just an angry gay irish boy. Don't take him too seriously
FTFY
@366,249 (A)
No I'd let them stick their dick inside me, huge difference.
> He is just an angry gay irish boy. Don't take him too seriously
FTFY
@366,249 (A)
No I'd let them stick their dick inside me, huge difference.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,253
@previous (Handle !tYHPZ2dvu6)
Wow, you'd screw something that isnt even human. Hopefully, every Irish isnt disgusting like this.
Wow, you'd screw something that isnt even human. Hopefully, every Irish isnt disgusting like this.
Handle !tYHPZ2dvu6 replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,254
@previous (A)
Each to their own, I don't judge you on your sexual activities. Bigot.
Each to their own, I don't judge you on your sexual activities. Bigot.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,255
@previous (Handle !tYHPZ2dvu6)
Enjoy fucking your subhuman monsters, bareback. Is this why so many people hate the Irish?
Enjoy fucking your subhuman monsters, bareback. Is this why so many people hate the Irish?
Handle !tYHPZ2dvu6 replied with this 14 years ago, 57 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,256
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,264
> Deny abortion
> Baby and mother dies
So pro-Life.
> Baby and mother dies
So pro-Life.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,270
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
If your uterus can't handle one simple rape baby then what would conservatives want to save you for?
If your uterus can't handle one simple rape baby then what would conservatives want to save you for?
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc double-posted this 14 years ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,271
herp
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 33 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,284
Why should women who can't give birth without fucking dying have the right to live? They're every bit as useless as men who won't go to war.
It may not be not PC, but it's correct from an evolutionary perspective.
It may not be not PC, but it's correct from an evolutionary perspective.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,289
@previous (H)
People who cant survive without medical intervention (diabeties, asthma, etc) dont have the right to live?
People who cant survive without medical intervention (diabeties, asthma, etc) dont have the right to live?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 27 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,290
@366,284 (H)
Men who are attacked and left for dead, because they couldnt fight properly, deserve to live?
Men who are attacked and left for dead, because they couldnt fight properly, deserve to live?
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,292
@366,289 (A)
Nature's a cruel bitch, isn't she?
And just so you know, they do not have the right to live. They have the right to pay for technologies allowing them to live. If they had an absolute right to live such technologies would be provided free of charge, which they are not.
Nature's a cruel bitch, isn't she?
And just so you know, they do not have the right to live. They have the right to pay for technologies allowing them to live. If they had an absolute right to live such technologies would be provided free of charge, which they are not.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,295
@previous (H)
We invented medicine to subvert nature, you've used modern science to be born and not die of a variety of disease. Did you deserve this? If so, why are you more deserving than other peopel?
We invented medicine to subvert nature, you've used modern science to be born and not die of a variety of disease. Did you deserve this? If so, why are you more deserving than other peopel?
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 53 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,296
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,298
@previous (H)
Wait, so some peple do deserve medical care? Name these people and conditions that deserve treatment please.
Wait, so some peple do deserve medical care? Name these people and conditions that deserve treatment please.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,339
@366,292 (H)
Whether or not they die from birth means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but their intellectual properties may be useful to all of humanity.
Whether or not they die from birth means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but their intellectual properties may be useful to all of humanity.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,353
@366,240 (A)
> This is what the Republicans want for America. Why? So women wont fuck.
You are literally obsessed. I find this conspiracy theory worse than 9/11 truthers and birthers, because at least there are motivations there. This has no evidence, is extreme, and has no reward for the conspirators.
> This is what the Republicans want for America. Why? So women wont fuck.
You are literally obsessed. I find this conspiracy theory worse than 9/11 truthers and birthers, because at least there are motivations there. This has no evidence, is extreme, and has no reward for the conspirators.
Anonymous I double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,358
@366,264 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
> premeditated, active killing
> prolife
Please learn the definitions of words before you attempt to discuss them.
> premeditated, active killing
> prolife
Please learn the definitions of words before you attempt to discuss them.
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 48 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,359
@366,353 (I)
How is it a conspiracy? They go on tv and lie that abortion is never medically necessary. They are willing to lie (which they also say is a sin), in order to promote false science.
How is it a conspiracy? They go on tv and lie that abortion is never medically necessary. They are willing to lie (which they also say is a sin), in order to promote false science.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,361
@previous (buspup !!x+kkCmnF4)
> Why? So women wont fuck.
This is the conspiracy.
> They are willing to lie
This is the conspiracy.
These people aren't lying. They are just wrong. These people aren't motivated by a desire to stop women having sex. They are motivated by a desire to protect the life of fetuses.
> Why? So women wont fuck.
This is the conspiracy.
> They are willing to lie
This is the conspiracy.
These people aren't lying. They are just wrong. These people aren't motivated by a desire to stop women having sex. They are motivated by a desire to protect the life of fetuses.
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 17 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,362
@366,353 (I)
Why is it okay to lie, in order to achieve a means? Shouldnt that be against the Christian moral code?
Why is it okay to lie, in order to achieve a means? Shouldnt that be against the Christian moral code?
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 49 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,364
@366,361 (I)
Wait, you think that they never bothered to research any of this? So it's not lying but ignorance? If they are ignorant, than why should they be speaking out about medical conditions at all?
Wait, you think that they never bothered to research any of this? So it's not lying but ignorance? If they are ignorant, than why should they be speaking out about medical conditions at all?
(Edited 47 seconds later.)
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 14 years ago, 0 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,365
@366,358 (I)
Pro-life: both die.
Pro-choice: one dies, the other lives.
Which side is truly pro-live?
Pro-life: both die.
Pro-choice: one dies, the other lives.
Which side is truly pro-live?
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,368
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 30 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,369
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 39 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,370
@366,364 (buspup !!x+kkCmnF4)
> Wait, you think that they never bothered to research any of this?
Yes, or only very superficially.
> So it's not lying but ignorance?
Yes.
> If they are ignorant, than why should they be speaking out about medical conditions at all?
They shouldn't be.
> Wait, you think that they never bothered to research any of this?
Yes, or only very superficially.
> So it's not lying but ignorance?
Yes.
> If they are ignorant, than why should they be speaking out about medical conditions at all?
They shouldn't be.
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,374
@previous (I)
Their ignorance and eagerness to embrace legislation that supports their religious views, actually kills people. They ignore research, and it lets people die. They prefer both the mother and child to die together, rather than saving the mother. This makes sex a hazard for women.
Their ignorance and eagerness to embrace legislation that supports their religious views, actually kills people. They ignore research, and it lets people die. They prefer both the mother and child to die together, rather than saving the mother. This makes sex a hazard for women.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 8 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,375
@366,365 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
The option where nobody is deliberately killed by another person is prolife. The option where somebody is deliberately killed by another person is not prolife.
The option where nobody is deliberately killed by another person is prolife. The option where somebody is deliberately killed by another person is not prolife.
Anonymous I double-posted this 14 years ago, 21 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,376
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,377
@366,375 (I)
The infant was going to die and so was the mother, so if the baby was killed first, the mother would live. If the baby was not removed, the mother would die along with the baby. Saving one life is better than saving no lives at all.
The infant was going to die and so was the mother, so if the baby was killed first, the mother would live. If the baby was not removed, the mother would die along with the baby. Saving one life is better than saving no lives at all.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,389
Anonymous I double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,390
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,394
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,403
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
How is being the instrument of death being anti-death, exactly?
How is being the instrument of death being anti-death, exactly?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,407
@366,374 (buspup !!x+kkCmnF4)
> This makes sex a hazard for women.
No, medical complications and religious crazies are hazards for women.
I don't suppose you see how some might find such a statement just a little, tiny bit extreme?
> This makes sex a hazard for women.
No, medical complications and religious crazies are hazards for women.
I don't suppose you see how some might find such a statement just a little, tiny bit extreme?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,412
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Those people are making sex a hazard for women. Is that not true?
Those people are making sex a hazard for women. Is that not true?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,417
@previous (A)
I was reading it as a criticism of sex with men in general, understandabble given some of your recent posts, but I suppose you could also just be criticising the people who have created the risk of this happening in the first place.
I was reading it as a criticism of sex with men in general, understandabble given some of your recent posts, but I suppose you could also just be criticising the people who have created the risk of this happening in the first place.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,419
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Its a criticism of having sex with men who deny or minimize the risks of pregnancy, who make no effort to pleasure the female, or who hold women as being lower than them. Those people dont deserve sexual intercourse.
Its a criticism of having sex with men who deny or minimize the risks of pregnancy, who make no effort to pleasure the female, or who hold women as being lower than them. Those people dont deserve sexual intercourse.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 14 years ago, 27 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,432
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,436
@366,374 (buspup !!x+kkCmnF4)
Hey bp! I don't know if you have seen this essay yet, but it's worth a read. It's fairly in-line with the topic here as it focuses on how abortion bans do little to actually decrease abortion rates. The take-away message is a criticism of how the pro-life position ends up costing more lives.
Hey bp! I don't know if you have seen this essay yet, but it's worth a read. It's fairly in-line with the topic here as it focuses on how abortion bans do little to actually decrease abortion rates. The take-away message is a criticism of how the pro-life position ends up costing more lives.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 27 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,446
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 23 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,464
@366,432 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Great argument! Want to try again?
How is being the instrument of death being anti-death, exactly?
Great argument! Want to try again?
How is being the instrument of death being anti-death, exactly?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,465
@366,432 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
He's why religious people scare me. I dont want to die from having sex.
He's why religious people scare me. I dont want to die from having sex.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,471
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 14 years ago, 33 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,472
@366,464 (I)
Idol hands are the devil's playmates, and idle hands are what killed this woman along with her DOA baby.
Idol hands are the devil's playmates, and idle hands are what killed this woman along with her DOA baby.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,473
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,474
@366,472 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Learning English better will help you think more logically. Idle hands can't kill. Idle hands can only let die. The idle hands also did not kill, or even let the fetus dies.
Learning English better will help you think more logically. Idle hands can't kill. Idle hands can only let die. The idle hands also did not kill, or even let the fetus dies.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 42 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,475
@366,436 (J)
Interesting quote:
A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.
Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.
The results of the study, a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group, are being published Friday in the journal Lancet.
“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,†Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.â€
But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,†Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.â€
Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.
Both the lowest and highest subregional abortion rates are in Europe, where abortion is generally legal under broad grounds. In Western Europe, the rate is 12 per 1,000 women, while in Eastern Europe it is 43. The discrepancy in rates between the two regions reflects relatively low contraceptive use in Eastern Europe, as well as a high degree of reliance on methods with relatively high user failure rates, such as the condom, withdrawal and the rhythm method.
Interesting quote:
A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.
Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.
The results of the study, a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group, are being published Friday in the journal Lancet.
“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,†Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.â€
But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,†Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.â€
Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.
Both the lowest and highest subregional abortion rates are in Europe, where abortion is generally legal under broad grounds. In Western Europe, the rate is 12 per 1,000 women, while in Eastern Europe it is 43. The discrepancy in rates between the two regions reflects relatively low contraceptive use in Eastern Europe, as well as a high degree of reliance on methods with relatively high user failure rates, such as the condom, withdrawal and the rhythm method.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,476
@366,474 (I)
To let them both die is a greater sin than sacrificing one human to save the other. Holy fuck.
To let them both die is a greater sin than sacrificing one human to save the other. Holy fuck.
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,485
@366,475 (A)
Yeah, it's often pointed out how making something illegal doesn't get rid of it, and some in the feminist movement have been writing about how abortion bans don't save lives since the at least the 60s. It's nice to see someone put some numbers on the issue. I liked the point where the author was relating when it dawned on her why the bans don't affect abortion rates.
> The cause of abortions is unwanted pregnancies. ... Banning abortion doesn’t make those pregnancies wanted. Many women in a situation like that will be willing to do anything to end that pregnancy, even if it means trying to induce their own abortions (say, with a coat hanger or by drinking chemicals) or seeking out illegal abortions.
While a certain chunk of people would be happy to try to legislate their morality, it's eye-opening to realize that this isn't going to change how people act and looks like it would actually prove more harmful in the long run.
Yeah, it's often pointed out how making something illegal doesn't get rid of it, and some in the feminist movement have been writing about how abortion bans don't save lives since the at least the 60s. It's nice to see someone put some numbers on the issue. I liked the point where the author was relating when it dawned on her why the bans don't affect abortion rates.
> The cause of abortions is unwanted pregnancies. ... Banning abortion doesn’t make those pregnancies wanted. Many women in a situation like that will be willing to do anything to end that pregnancy, even if it means trying to induce their own abortions (say, with a coat hanger or by drinking chemicals) or seeking out illegal abortions.
While a certain chunk of people would be happy to try to legislate their morality, it's eye-opening to realize that this isn't going to change how people act and looks like it would actually prove more harmful in the long run.
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,490
@previous (J) They dont care about harming the mother at all
Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed a law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges in a local hospital. Mississippi has one clinic left, where, because of the state's anti-abortion climate, they commute to work from Alabama. It's no secret that Mississippi Republicans, in particular, are delighted by the prospect that they might put the state's one and only clinic out of business.
Mississippi State Representative Bubba Carpenter, speaking to the Alcorn County GOP on Thursday, said as much:
"We have literally stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi. Three blocks from the Capitol sits the only abortion clinic in the state of Mississippi. A bill was drafted. It said, if you would perform an abortion in the state of Mississippi, you must be a certified OB/GYN and you must have admitting privileges to a hospital. Anybody here in the medical field knows how hard it is to get admitting privileges to a hospital...
"It's going to be challenged, of course, in the Supreme Court and all -- but literally, we stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi, legally, without having to-- Roe vs. Wade. So we've done that. I was proud of it. The governor signed it into law. And of course, there you have the other side. They're like, 'Well, the poor pitiful women that can't afford to go out of state are just going to start doing them at home with a coat hanger.' That's what we've heard over and over and over.
"But hey, you have to have moral values. You have to start somewhere, and that’s what we've decided to do. This became law and the governor signed it, and I think for one time, we were first in the nation in the state of Mississippi."
I got a chance to ask Representative Carpenter about the coat hanger part today. "That was what a lot of our critics on the House floor said during the debate," he told me. "That was just some language that some of the African-Americans used." A few white Democrats also spoke out about the old "home remedies," he remembered, but in the end the measure passed with support from several Democrats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IsM4n8DeSi0
Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed a law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges in a local hospital. Mississippi has one clinic left, where, because of the state's anti-abortion climate, they commute to work from Alabama. It's no secret that Mississippi Republicans, in particular, are delighted by the prospect that they might put the state's one and only clinic out of business.
Mississippi State Representative Bubba Carpenter, speaking to the Alcorn County GOP on Thursday, said as much:
"We have literally stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi. Three blocks from the Capitol sits the only abortion clinic in the state of Mississippi. A bill was drafted. It said, if you would perform an abortion in the state of Mississippi, you must be a certified OB/GYN and you must have admitting privileges to a hospital. Anybody here in the medical field knows how hard it is to get admitting privileges to a hospital...
"It's going to be challenged, of course, in the Supreme Court and all -- but literally, we stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi, legally, without having to-- Roe vs. Wade. So we've done that. I was proud of it. The governor signed it into law. And of course, there you have the other side. They're like, 'Well, the poor pitiful women that can't afford to go out of state are just going to start doing them at home with a coat hanger.' That's what we've heard over and over and over.
"But hey, you have to have moral values. You have to start somewhere, and that’s what we've decided to do. This became law and the governor signed it, and I think for one time, we were first in the nation in the state of Mississippi."
I got a chance to ask Representative Carpenter about the coat hanger part today. "That was what a lot of our critics on the House floor said during the debate," he told me. "That was just some language that some of the African-Americans used." A few white Democrats also spoke out about the old "home remedies," he remembered, but in the end the measure passed with support from several Democrats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IsM4n8DeSi0
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,497
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 50 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,499
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 40 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,500
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,510
Ever heard of symphysiotomy? Probably not; my spell check doesn't even know what it is. But it's a painful surgical procedure which involves breaking a woman's pelvis during childbirth that sounds like an ancient torture method but was once an alternative to Caesareans used in maternity hospitals across Ireland in the 20th century.
When members of the Survivors of Symphysiotomy (SOS) met in Dublin yesterday, they were able to recognize each other thanks to the "signature limp" survivors have. (Other less visible related problems include chronic back pain and incontinence.) Group members, many of whom are in their 70s and 80s, say that the operations were carried out without the women's consent "mainly for religious reasons, by obstetricians who were opposed to family planning." Huh; sounds horrifingly familiar.
The survivors met to see the first screening of a documentary about the practice, which compares it to methods used in Kenyan hospitals today. But based on Savita Halappanavar's tragic story — she was denied a medical termination in an Irish hospital even though she was miscarrying and in severe pain, and later died — it's not like things have gotten all that much better for modern-day Irish women, either.
The TheJournal.ie's account of the documentary is sickening:
On screen, former midwife Laura Mann explains that when she was working in Dublin hospitals in the 1950s and 1960s, "the big thing was to have children even if you dropped dead."
She discussed Catholic Church influence, and even interference, in maternity hospital hospitals.
Survivor Micheline Gilroy remembers being "held down" and a strange man looking annoyed at the end of her bed. "I thought this was the way," she said. It was her first and only labour.
Even though they now know they underwent symphysiotomies, there is still mystery and unanswered questions around the childbirth experiences of these women.
"‘I'm going to give you a symphysiotomy'," Marie Cowly's doctor told her. "Sure I didn't know what it was," she says. "He could have danced a jig at the end of the bed. I'd never heard of it. I still have no explanation."
The nurses looked sick, some even got physically sick, begins Nora Clarke.
"I saw the hacksaw, I know what hacksaws are. He started cutting my bone and my blood spurted up like a fountain." She remembers how the doctor looked annoyed that he had gotten her blood on his glasses. Until she spoke to her son Wayne about it many years later, Nora believed she had gone through a C-Section. "You'll never get rid of [the pain] until you're not living anymore," she says during the film.
Hopefully the documentary will help educate more people about what the survivors of symphysiotomy went through, but also put more pressure on Ireland to fully legalize abortion ASAP before more women suffer and die.
http://www.thejournal.ie/symphysiotomy-survivors-gather-to-recount-stories-of-torture-673113-Nov2012/
When members of the Survivors of Symphysiotomy (SOS) met in Dublin yesterday, they were able to recognize each other thanks to the "signature limp" survivors have. (Other less visible related problems include chronic back pain and incontinence.) Group members, many of whom are in their 70s and 80s, say that the operations were carried out without the women's consent "mainly for religious reasons, by obstetricians who were opposed to family planning." Huh; sounds horrifingly familiar.
The survivors met to see the first screening of a documentary about the practice, which compares it to methods used in Kenyan hospitals today. But based on Savita Halappanavar's tragic story — she was denied a medical termination in an Irish hospital even though she was miscarrying and in severe pain, and later died — it's not like things have gotten all that much better for modern-day Irish women, either.
The TheJournal.ie's account of the documentary is sickening:
On screen, former midwife Laura Mann explains that when she was working in Dublin hospitals in the 1950s and 1960s, "the big thing was to have children even if you dropped dead."
She discussed Catholic Church influence, and even interference, in maternity hospital hospitals.
Survivor Micheline Gilroy remembers being "held down" and a strange man looking annoyed at the end of her bed. "I thought this was the way," she said. It was her first and only labour.
Even though they now know they underwent symphysiotomies, there is still mystery and unanswered questions around the childbirth experiences of these women.
"‘I'm going to give you a symphysiotomy'," Marie Cowly's doctor told her. "Sure I didn't know what it was," she says. "He could have danced a jig at the end of the bed. I'd never heard of it. I still have no explanation."
The nurses looked sick, some even got physically sick, begins Nora Clarke.
"I saw the hacksaw, I know what hacksaws are. He started cutting my bone and my blood spurted up like a fountain." She remembers how the doctor looked annoyed that he had gotten her blood on his glasses. Until she spoke to her son Wayne about it many years later, Nora believed she had gone through a C-Section. "You'll never get rid of [the pain] until you're not living anymore," she says during the film.
Hopefully the documentary will help educate more people about what the survivors of symphysiotomy went through, but also put more pressure on Ireland to fully legalize abortion ASAP before more women suffer and die.
http://www.thejournal.ie/symphysiotomy-survivors-gather-to-recount-stories-of-torture-673113-Nov2012/
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,516
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,517
@previous (I)
Probably, neither side should call themselves prolife. Because death is involved in both scenarios.
Probably, neither side should call themselves prolife. Because death is involved in both scenarios.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 21 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,526
@previous (buspup !!x+kkCmnF4)
But only in one is it intentionally and deliberately caused by a human actor.
But only in one is it intentionally and deliberately caused by a human actor.
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,530
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,537
@366,298 (A)
> > The cause of murder is unwanted individuals.... Banning murder doesn’t make those individuals wanted.
ftfy
> > The cause of murder is unwanted individuals.... Banning murder doesn’t make those individuals wanted.
ftfy
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,556
@366,530 (buspup !!x+kkCmnF4)
Yes, you can. There are literally thousands of unprevented deaths every day. If you are not intentionally and deliberately killing people you can be classified as prolife.
Yes, you can. There are literally thousands of unprevented deaths every day. If you are not intentionally and deliberately killing people you can be classified as prolife.
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,560
@previous (I)
I'm actually pro birth control, and think that people should be drilled from childhood, on how to use prophylaxis. I also think that it should be provided free from the government. Paying for birth control is much cheaper, than footing the bill for a bunch of unwanted welfare children, and it would also decrease the amount of abortions being performed.
I'm actually pro birth control, and think that people should be drilled from childhood, on how to use prophylaxis. I also think that it should be provided free from the government. Paying for birth control is much cheaper, than footing the bill for a bunch of unwanted welfare children, and it would also decrease the amount of abortions being performed.
henn joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,562
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,563
@previous (henn)
I also believe that the government should provide free vasectomies, and tube tying.
I also believe that the government should provide free vasectomies, and tube tying.
henn replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,565
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 40 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,576
@366,560 (buspup !!x+kkCmnF4)
I don't believe that people should be forced to subsidize ideas and practices that they find morally abhorrent.
I don't believe that people should be forced to subsidize ideas and practices that they find morally abhorrent.
buspup !!x+kkCmnF4 (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,578
@previous (I)
That could mean anything to anyone. Like war, aid to children, money sent to churches etc anything could be against someones religion, or moral code. To me, this is strictly a public health issue.
You want less abortions right? You also want less people on public aid. Wouldn't this help with both of those things?
That could mean anything to anyone. Like war, aid to children, money sent to churches etc anything could be against someones religion, or moral code. To me, this is strictly a public health issue.
You want less abortions right? You also want less people on public aid. Wouldn't this help with both of those things?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Syntax joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,579
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 36 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,589
@366,578 (buspup !!x+kkCmnF4)
> That could mean anything to anyone.
Well that's clearly my point.
I also don't want people to be forced to subsidize ideas and practices that they find morally abhorrent.
> That could mean anything to anyone.
Well that's clearly my point.
I also don't want people to be forced to subsidize ideas and practices that they find morally abhorrent.
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 40 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,601
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,646
Luck of the Irish
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 50 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,652
@366,589 (I)
such as war and the killing of armies? people find that morally abhorrent but everyone still pay taxes just the same.
that's part of living in a democracy, you don't get to choose what tax dollars pay for. instead, everyone votes on it.
i want people to be forced to subsidize ideas and practices that are chosen by the will of the majority.
otherwise they won't do it.
such as war and the killing of armies? people find that morally abhorrent but everyone still pay taxes just the same.
that's part of living in a democracy, you don't get to choose what tax dollars pay for. instead, everyone votes on it.
i want people to be forced to subsidize ideas and practices that are chosen by the will of the majority.
otherwise they won't do it.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 49 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,654
Antikhristos !M6R0eWkIpk joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,674
So much rage.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,675
Antikhristos !M6R0eWkIpk joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 36 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,683
@previous (A)
I wasn't very clear with the way I framed that post so I will attempt to redress that here.
I think the whole thing is fucking sad and I found this article unsettling.
Thanks.
I wasn't very clear with the way I framed that post so I will attempt to redress that here.
I think the whole thing is fucking sad and I found this article unsettling.
Thanks.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,684
Antikhristos !M6R0eWkIpk replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,685
@previous (A)
I will gladly divert cytotec from various hospitals and preform DIY abortions in alleyways if it comes to this.
I will gladly divert cytotec from various hospitals and preform DIY abortions in alleyways if it comes to this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,686
@previous (Antikhristos !M6R0eWkIpk)
lol Can you imagine this happening to someone that you love? They basically let a fetus rot inside of her.
lol Can you imagine this happening to someone that you love? They basically let a fetus rot inside of her.
Antikhristos !M6R0eWkIpk replied with this 14 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,689
@previous (A)
I don't want to imagine that. I just couldn't let this happen to my wife and if it did I would go on a rampage 4srs or off myself in some pretty horrendous fashion. Probably both. :|
The conflicted approach these compassionate christian souls take to prophylaxis and abortion just boggles my mind... which is a pretty discordant place to begin with.
I don't want to imagine that. I just couldn't let this happen to my wife and if it did I would go on a rampage 4srs or off myself in some pretty horrendous fashion. Probably both. :|
The conflicted approach these compassionate christian souls take to prophylaxis and abortion just boggles my mind... which is a pretty discordant place to begin with.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,690
@previous (Antikhristos !M6R0eWkIpk)
That's what they're trying to do. Why do you think that so many have actually gone on television, and claimed that abortions never save lives? Most Christians don't care if the woman dies at all. They just say that it was meant to be, and continue using medical care to extend their own lives.
That's what they're trying to do. Why do you think that so many have actually gone on television, and claimed that abortions never save lives? Most Christians don't care if the woman dies at all. They just say that it was meant to be, and continue using medical care to extend their own lives.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Antikhristos !M6R0eWkIpk replied with this 14 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,700
@previous (A)
I don't know what to do but educate our fellow man and oppose them wherever possible.
It has got to be a one of the most painful choices you could make even when it's medically nessecary to save the mother. The lack of sympathy, empathy, self knowledge, understanding, compassion, and just plain old real fucking human values in xthians makes me physically ill.
I am a pretty oblivious person at times but how they can be so hypocritical and blind to their own inequities is staggering.
I don't know what to do but educate our fellow man and oppose them wherever possible.
It has got to be a one of the most painful choices you could make even when it's medically nessecary to save the mother. The lack of sympathy, empathy, self knowledge, understanding, compassion, and just plain old real fucking human values in xthians makes me physically ill.
I am a pretty oblivious person at times but how they can be so hypocritical and blind to their own inequities is staggering.