way to go, ireland.

Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you guys actually do have law that protects the life (but not the health) of the mother, heartbeat or no. you just need to define it better from what i've come to understand.
Click to expand...
No dude, we need to get us some legal first trimester abortions all up in here.

Fuck the conservative bastards running this place.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
No dude, we need to get us some legal first trimester abortions all up in here.

Fuck the conservative bastards running this place.
Click to expand...
you don't even need to pick that fight with the religious types from what i understand. NPR tells me your supreme court has ruled for life of the mother, you guys just need to legislate it. it's already the law of the land. maybe this will be your catalyst.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you don't even need to pick that fight with the religious types from what i understand. NPR tells me your supreme court has ruled for life of the mother, you guys just need to legislate it. it's already the law of the land. maybe this will be your catalyst.
Click to expand...
The European Court of Justice is freaking out about us not legislating on abortion too.

While they're fixing shit, they better give us the herb too...cos we already all be smoking it...Id say at least 25% of people under 60 smoke now.
 
stonerpaddy

stonerpaddy

Active Member
Lads it's the doctors fault. Regardless of the law they were faced with a simple choice, save a womans life or not and they didn't. There is no way this scenario has never been encountered in an Irish hospital before but in other cases doctors acted differently.
Recently the Irish Medical Board went to the courts to grant them the right to give a blood transfusion to a child when the parents resisted based on religous grounds and as Buck said, even those crazy little christians wouldn't agree with how this situation played out.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
stonerpaddy said:
Lads it's the doctors fault. Regardless of the law they were faced with a simple choice, save a womans life or not and they didn't. There is no way this scenario has never been encountered in an Irish hospital before but in other cases doctors acted differently.
Recently the Irish Medical Board went to the courts to grant them the right to give a blood transfusion to a child when the parents resisted based on religous grounds and as Buck said, even those crazy little christians wouldn't agree with how this situation played out.
Click to expand...
Are you completely insane?

The parents of the child did not want the child getting a transfusion on the basis of it was against their religious beliefs (they were Mormons or something)

Parents have every right to choose what treatments the child receives or doesn't, you're obviously not a parent if you don't respect this.

In the Savita case, the doctors COULDN'T have acted because the law disallowed them, she died of septicemia however it's unclear if even an immediate abortion could've prevented her death.

How in Gods name can you blame a doctor for doing their job exactly as the law prescribes?
Do we want doctors breaking the law now?

How about if the doctor decided he could save 8 people with your organs and decided to just break the law and harvest them? Would we applaud them for having the foresight to break the law like that?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
parents have no right to let their child die
none
Click to expand...
They have the right to refuse a blood transfusion if there's no reason to believe it'll help.

Parents have natural rights which transcend all laws, they should always act in the interest of the child but cannot be forced to do so.

Bear in mind, there's people who'd like to take every single cannabis smoking parent's child off them because cannabis smokers are "abusive parents".

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but none are correct until you're in the situation.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
They have the right to refuse a blood transfusion if there's no reason to believe it'll help.

Parents have natural rights which transcend all laws, they should always act in the interest of the child but cannot be forced to do so.

Bear in mind, there's people who'd like to take every single cannabis smoking parent's child off them because cannabis smokers are "abusive parents".

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but none are correct until you're in the situation.
Click to expand...
Parents have no rights to allow their children to die
at least that is what we believe in western industrialized nations not hobbled by religous beliefs
 
stonerpaddy

stonerpaddy

Active Member
But was the law really against the doctors. Abortion is allowed in circumstances where there is a “ real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by a termination of the pregnancy”.
If an abortion would have saved her life, the doctors could have acted. On the other hand the septicaemia might not have been connected to the miscarriage and fair enough the doctors might not be at fault but the legal framework is there.
 
Winter Woman

Winter Woman

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Are you completely insane?

The parents of the child did not want the child getting a transfusion on the basis of it was against their religious beliefs (they were Mormons or something)

Parents have every right to choose what treatments the child receives or doesn't, you're obviously not a parent if you don't respect this.

In the Savita case, the doctors COULDN'T have acted because the law disallowed them, she died of septicemia however it's unclear if even an immediate abortion could've prevented her death.

How in Gods name can you blame a doctor for doing their job exactly as the law prescribes?
Do we want doctors breaking the law now?

How about if the doctor decided he could save 8 people with your organs and decided to just break the law and harvest them? Would we applaud them for having the foresight to break the law like that?
Click to expand...
Said just like a police officer.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Harrekin said:
Are you completely insane?

The parents of the child did not want the child getting a transfusion on the basis of it was against their religious beliefs (they were Mormons or something)

Parents have every right to choose what treatments the child receives or doesn't, you're obviously not a parent if you don't respect this.

In the Savita case, the doctors COULDN'T have acted because the law disallowed them, she died of septicemia however it's unclear if even an immediate abortion could've prevented her death.

How in Gods name can you blame a doctor for doing their job exactly as the law prescribes?
Do we want doctors breaking the law now?

How about if the doctor decided he could save 8 people with your organs and decided to just break the law and harvest them? Would we applaud them for having the foresight to break the law like that?
Click to expand...
He should try that with me. Ohhh the warranty issues will break him. cn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top