Meanwhile, in Ireland...
...A woman dies after being denied an abortion:
A young woman died of septicaemia in Ireland after Catholic doctors refused to terminate her miscarriage because abortion was against the country's law and religious beliefs.
Savita Halappanavar, 31, died last month in University Hospital Galway after three days of agony, the Irish Times reported on Wednesday.
Doctors told her she was losing her 17-week pregnancy, as her cervix had dilated and the amniotic sac had broken, and that the foetus would not survive.
Her husband told the newspaper she begged for birth to be induced but was told this was not possible because the foetal heartbeat was still present "and this is a Catholic country".
I mention this because it reminds me of the debates we've been having in this country over the future of conservatism. Specifically, here is what the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens has to say about abortion (and other touchy topics) in his column from this week, "Earth to GOP: Get a Grip":
Also, please tone down the abortion extremism. Supporting so-called partial-birth abortions, as too many liberals do, is abortion extremism. But so is opposing abortion in cases of rape and incest, to say nothing of the life of the mother. Democrats did better with a president who wanted abortion to be "safe, legal and rare"; Republicans would have done better by adopting outgoing Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels's call for a "truce" on social issues.
I agree. What do you think?
- Comment (161)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (12)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
Doing good sometimes yields bad results.
Doing bad sometimes yields good results.
Therefore, do nothing.
Flawless.
Mar '11
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
Earth to Stevens: killing a child because of the circumstances of his conception is pretty damned extreme itself. Keep your advice.
I'm so sick of defining deviancy down, as D.P. Moynihan put it. Truly, the Devil is the ruler of this world, and most of the world seem to love him.
Abortion... always a tragedy... is acceptable if, and only if, in cases like these in Ireland where the mother's life is clearly in mortal danger (not "psychological danger", either). In almost all such cases, BOTH mother and child will die, so an abortion is acceptable. So now we're going to see one lapse in judgement used as a hammer to try to implement unlimited murder of children.
Edited on November 14, 2012 at 9:44pmAug '10
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
A "truce" on social issues isn't the same thing as opposing abortion when the life of the mother is at stake. It's the same as not opposing abortion in any meaningful way.
It wasn't entirely the biased liberal media's doing, painting the conservative position on abortion as "extreme" while ignoring the extremism of the liberal position. It was the doing of most Republicans, including Mitt Romney. Akin and Mourdock weren't staking out a position on abortion, they were suckered into responding to tendentious questions on the matter from hostile media. The default position of most Republicans was to act as though a "truce" had already been declared on social issues, and try to keep attention on economic ones. It's likely that, had conservatives made an effort to highlight the extremism of the liberal position on abortion (e.g., Obama's vehement support for the right to kill a baby that survives a botched late-term abortion), it would have been a net plus for the conservative side.
Aug '10
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
Please direct me to any partially-influential Republican who has said publicly that they oppose abortion even in the case of saving the life of the mother.
Even before Roe v. Wade, rape, incest, and medical need were all legal justifications for abortion.
The vast majority of Republican politicians these days limit their objections to government funding of abortions, and they're still labeled as extremists.
I do not buy that, in general, Republican politicians are too extreme on social issues. Most of them stick to aspects of the issues which they believe are actually achievable, politically.
Wanting to stop taxpayer-funding of Planned Parenthood. Not wanting to force employers to pay for employees' birth control. These are not extremist positions.
Edited on November 14, 2012 at 9:01pmSep '10
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
I'm sure they'll give equal coverage to this as they did to Kermit Gosnell.
Oct '10
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
If continuing a pregnancy can only lead to both mother and child dying, there is nothing wrong with saving the mother's life. God doesn't want women committing suicide. I had a relative who was in a similar situation, and had an "abortion." Can you even call it an abortion, if there is no chance the fetus can survive?
There is a limit to how far you can stretch pro-life rhetoric.
Apr '11
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
The law is made by people, it will invariably reflect our values. If the people are conflicted and confused on an issue so will be our laws. I think with respect to abortion the goal of the pro life movement, which I have a strong sympathy for, should not be to try to outlaw all uses of abortion they find immoral. Rather they should focus of codifying an end to the idea of unrestricted abortion. I think just codifying a stringently enforced policy of a fetus deserves human rights at time point X will do wonders to shaping peoples ideas and behavior, even if X is a moment after conception.
Nov '11
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
They won't grant you a truce while they're still winning.
(But it was very polite of you to ask.)
It's foolish to think about a truce until they ask for one.
Keep fighting or you're sure to lose--more than has already been lost.
Aug '10
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
FYI: Abortion is LEGAL IN IRELAND when done to save the life of the mother.
This incident is about medical malpractice, not abortion law.
Feb '12
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
May I suggest an alternate "truce"? How about military funding say, or taxes, or what about drug laws? Why is always "social" issues that must be hidden? I am not ashamed of my absolute opposition to abortion except in narrowly defined "life" of the mother cases. And when I say narrowly defined I don't mean emotional well being.
Jul '12
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
You have to wonder why the reporting isn't as diligent when it comes to the complications and death of women that arises from successful abortions...
(or carcinogenic birth control pills...)
Dec '10
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
My understanding of the facts of this case is:
1) The doctors waited for the fetus to die.
2) The doctors extracted the dead fetus (or had the mother expel it, giving birth to a stillborn baby).
3) The mother died a week later from septicemia.
In none of the news coverage of this case do I see an indication that the mother had a septic infection before she expelled the stillborn baby. It's entirely possible that her infection and subsequent death were a result of the procedure to remove the dead fetus, rather than a complication resulting from the delay in waiting for it to die.
In other words, it is possible that the "abortion" killed her.
May '10
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
An exception for the life of the mother-- yes. You have to choose between losing one or possibly both of two human lives in this situation.
But for rape? Really? You want to allow the killing of an innocent human being for the (very horrible and wrong) acts of another?
If we truly believe the fetus is a human being with rights, this is the most consistent position to take.
Edited on November 14, 2012 at 9:37pmAug '11
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
I'm 99% sure that you're right. Catholic teaching is that if doctors have exhausted all means of saving the child's life and the mother's life is at risk, then the loss of the child is not considered an abortion.
Apr '11
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
I normally like Stephens, but that piece was all assertion, no argument.
It may be true when it comes to opinion polling that support for partial-birth abortion and opposition to a rape and incest exemption are equally extreme (I think both are at roughly 20%). However, given our current legal regime, they are not politically equivalent. Partial-birth abortion could be legal with just simple majorities in legislatures. Outlawing abortion in cases or rape and incest would require overturning Roe v. Wade, and quite possibly another Supreme Court case that would have to go further allowing such laws. In addition, of course, there would have to be new legislation. Thus, the extreme pro-life side is not in the practical position to impose their view on the other 80% that the extreme pro-choice side is.
May '12
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
Someone in Ireland got too bloody-minded.
Such people bring discredit on everyone who believes in the Sanctity of Life.
Let me know who that moron is.
I'm on the next Aer Lingus flight to throttle them with their own intestinal tract.
Edited on November 14, 2012 at 9:54pmNov '12
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
No truce is necessary. What is necessary is for social conservatives to make their case competently and persuasively. Holding up Akin and Mourdock as reasons to call a "truce" is like calling a truce on using the color blue because a color blind person was asked to point it out and couldn't.
Teach social conservative candidates how to talk about these issues with warmth and compassion, avoid saying idiotic things, and highlight the double standard the media and culture like to employ on these issues. That is the answer, not a truce.
Edited on November 14, 2012 at 9:40pmMar '11
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
Grrr... we need a delete button
Edited on November 14, 2012 at 9:45pmMay '10
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
"Truce" = "surrender" in this case.
Think about it. If you truly believe human beings are being killed by this barbaric practice, would you make a truce just to win an election with candidates most of whom won't even lift a finger to address this issue? Important issues take a high priority, and we don't bargain them away because someone thinks we'll win more elections that way.
May '10
Re: Meanwhile, in Ireland...
Because of the hardness of people's hearts, for the time being, we are going to have to accept the legality of abortion for rape and incest (in the case of life of the mother, all possible skill should be used to save both lives, but in the tragic case where it is not possible to save both, then it is consequence of a fallen world which we have to accept) while we continue to argue the morality of the value of every life.
Pro-life politicians (of which 99.9% are Republicans) are going to have to learn how to give coherent answers to the questions they must know they are going to be asked, and learn how to take the fight to the pro-choicers.
Pro-life is a bearing wall in the foundation of the Republican Party, remove it and the structure collapses.
Republicans may think they can't win with pro-lifers, they will find they certainly can't win without them.
Edited on November 14, 2012 at 9:51pm