Posted on 11/15/2012 3:21:46 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Savita Halappanavar (31), was on her first pregnancy and "on top of the world," according to her husband, Praveen Halappanavar. Then on Saturday Oct. 20, 17 weeks into the pregnancy, she started to develop back pains and began miscarrying. She went to the hospital and by Wednesday night was moved to the Intense Care Unit. But when she asked her doctors to terminate the pregnancy they refused.
The doctors could still hear a fetal heartbeat and abortions are illegal in the country, if the fetus is still alive, even when it puts the mother's health at risk. But technically the law does allow for abortions when the mother's life is at risk.
Ms. Halappanavar died Sunday Oct. 28.
The Irish times reported that an autopsy carried out two days after her death showed she had died from septicaemia.
About 2,000 people protested in front of the Irish parliament in Dublin last night to change the strict abortion laws in the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.discovery.com ...
I am not trying to change the subject.
You said, “A mother is supposed to sacrifice her own life to save her child, not sacrifice her child to save herself!”
I’m trying to understand when, in your mind, it would be acceptable for a woman to save herself.
I’ve of the mind that, if the pregnancy is doomed, it’s better to save the mom and leave the hope that she’ll be able to have future children. Dead mom usually also ends up with a dead baby. It’s better to sacrifice one to save the other.
Yeesh.
Removing an ectopic pregancy is not the same thing as an abortion, but you knew that.
And it's true. Ireland didn't have any troubles until the New Zealand wetbacks started sneaking in.
It ends a fetal heartbeat. It is the exact definition of ‘abortion’ - ending a pregnancy.
What about first trimester preeclampsia? The only way to save the mom is to abort the baby. Would that be acceptable to people here, or is this too close to ‘abortion’? Is that a time a woman should go down with the ship? To give her life for her child?
There are radical comments made here all the time that are as bad as Akin. Many people here believe that there is NEVER a time to end a baby’s life to save the mom. Some are ignorant and believe that modern medicine can save every pregnancy without exception. (Just not true) Others actually believe that women should die before they end a pregnancy.
What REALLY irritates me is that the Left uses these ignorant, uneducated comments as fuel for their cause.
I, and my family, are very pro-life. We look at these lost pregnancies as tragedies and miscarriages. We grieve.
But we feel no guilt.
Wow, that’s a LONG way to swim. Much longer than swimming across the Rio Grande. If they swam that far I think I’d give them citizenship just for the effort.
It’s a New Zealand name. Yes, really.
She actually DID get the abortion, right before she died....
:o)
First trimester preeclampsia? I just asked a doctor friend of mine about that and he said to tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about... They can detect the risk for it in the first trimester, but he’s never seen a full blown case and was taught it happens in the 2nd and third trimester.. His quotes “nothing is IMPOSSIBLE, but you you have a greater chance of having a twoheaded baby, than getting preeclampsia in the 1st trimester....
He said there is never a reason to abort to save the life if the mother. Even ifyou have to end the pregnancy, you don’t have to kill the child, at least deliver it and try to save its life if at all possible...
Well, that's no very adequate definition. Childbirth ends a pregnancy, too.
Morally, abortion is a directly intended killing of the conceived child. That would not include legitimate medical procedures which indirectly cause the child's death, e.g. removal of ectopic pregnancy, hysterectmy for uterine or cervical cancer, meds for mother's illness which trigger miscarriage, etc. --- even when this side-effect of the child's death is foreseen --- and if there is proportionate cause. Preventing the mother's death is a proportionate cause.
In the case of pre-eclampsia --- mother and child both a high risk of death --- a preterm delivery is justified to save the mother, even if the baby's survival chances are very small. There is a decisive moral difference between preterm delivery, in which the child is at least being treated with care, like a dying human being; and a dismemberment (D&E or D&X) where the baby is cut to pieces like a hunk of meat.
Ireland, which prohibits most abortions as illegal, is the country with the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world.
That's a good thing to know.
What's needed here is not precisely "tender-heartedness," but "just judgment" and good obstetric skills.
It's not "just judgment" to intentionally kill an innocent person.
It IS "just judgment," when two people are in danger of death but you can only effectively save one of them, to save the one you can.
With this caveat: the mother and the child are both patients. The doctor must always attack the disease, not the patient.
So do you think inducing labor at 17 weeks gestation is abortion, or would that be all right if you attempt to save the baby?
There is a close connection between abortion and disregard for women in general, and degradation of women specifically as mothers. In the name of a Satanically distorted view of "women's health," women are subjected to dangerous drugs, mutilating surgery, abortions, and a sustained societal and spiritual attack, simply because they can give birth. "D*mn those women! We've got to stop them from having babies! They're supposed to be a consequence-free sexual outlet, and that's all!"
Genuine care for women includes education, vaccines, home and medical sanitation, elimination of child marriage and polygamy, and promotion of the rule of law and free markets for whole societies. It does not include contraceptives and abortion.
Maori, or immigrants to New Zealand from Finland?
“It IS “just judgment,” when two people are in danger of death but you can only effectively save one of them, to save the one you can.”
THANK YOU!
It just seems to me that many around here would rather see a dead mother and baby rather than just one lost life.
I’m sick about the ‘hard heart’ comments. I held my daughter as she bawled hysterically for days over her lost baby. She went into a terrible depression that lasted for months over the loss. My friend was so grief-stricken. Their comfort came in the form of a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby girl less than a year after the one they lost.
Some of these people act like a woman should just allow herself to die with her baby. If she lets go and lives on to have more children, somehow that makes her a hard-hearted monster.
http://worldnames.publicprofiler.org/
Enter the surname -Halappanavar - and then scroll down, and the only place that comes up is Manukau City, New Zealand. Yeah, I thought it sounded Finnish or Icelandic or something like that, too. But the deceased mother in question was brown-skinned, black-haired: looked like maybe Indian to me. But New Zealand seems to be the ticket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.