The Political Discussion Thread

[lordofseas]

The most Catholic country in Europe.. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle5273571/

[KEK]

I was just about to post that too. Insanity.

[SoulReaver]

The most Catholic country in Europe.. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle5273571/

why couldn't this happen to a good traditional Irish couple instead :/


btw they harp on the fact that the fetus wasn't viable (as it was doomed anyway)
so what if it had been viable? they saying all this would've been ok?

[lordofseas]

why couldn't this happen to a good traditional Irish couple instead :/


btw they harp on the fact that the fetus wasn't viable (as it was doomed anyway)
so what if it had been viable? they saying all this would've been ok?

G&B tend to be right wing, but not as much as National Post.

[mad_gater]

Actually what seems to have happened is that the woman didn't die from pro-life medicinal practices but from gross incompetence. In a situation like this what most pro-life doctors do is to try to save BOTH lives. An induced abortion would not have been necessary. Labor could've been induced which would safely deliver the possibly still living unborn child. After that they could've attempted to save the child's life, stabilizing him/her for treatment in an incubator. But there are other possibilities. Was the pregnancy ectopic? Ectopic pregnancies can cause things like this too and their removal is permitted as ectopic pregnancies are not viable. The baby may have a heartbeat for a time outside the womb. But yes it is entirely possible that due to incompetence (and trying to blame pro-lifers and the laws they fought for in Ireland to cover up their incompetence) they didn't do everything medically possible to save both the mother and her unborn baby. As I said labor could've been induced right away and the mother treated and the child treated as the separate people they are, or if nothing could be done at least make the child's death as comfortable as possible. It is also possible that by the time she went to the hospital advanced septicemia may have already set in and she may have died anyway even if treatment were carried out in the manner I described

[SoulReaver]

It is also possible that by the time she went to the hospital advanced septicemia may have already set in

hey it's also possible septicemia had set in before she even was pregnant!

[mad_gater]

hey it's also possible septicemia had set in before she even was pregnant!

Possible, though unlikely unless she had prior surgeries where the surgical sites weren't cleaned and protected against infection properly or had other wounds that were infected (and she'd also have to be incredibly stubborn about seeking medical treatment in such eventualities..."oh hey look this big cut on my arm is turning green I think I'll let it fester awhile")

But in the case of her pregnancy it's possible she may have had septicemia already if some of the child's tissue was already necrotized (sp?)

[SoulReaver]

Possible, though unlikely

hey you never know - in fact she may even have had it since childhood!

[mad_gater]

hey you never know - in fact she may even have had it since childhood!

now that would be impossible....septicemia doesn't generally take YEARS to kill a person....

[fems]

Actually what seems to have happened is that the woman didn't die from pro-life medicinal practices but from gross incompetence. In a situation like this what most pro-life doctors do is to try to save BOTH lives. An induced abortion would not have been necessary. Labor could've been induced which would safely deliver the possibly still living unborn child. After that they could've attempted to save the child's life, stabilizing him/her for treatment in an incubator. But there are other possibilities. Was the pregnancy ectopic? Ectopic pregnancies can cause things like this too and their removal is permitted as ectopic pregnancies are not viable. The baby may have a heartbeat for a time outside the womb. But yes it is entirely possible that due to incompetence (and trying to blame pro-lifers and the laws they fought for in Ireland to cover up their incompetence) they didn't do everything medically possible to save both the mother and her unborn baby. As I said labor could've been induced right away and the mother treated and the child treated as the separate people they are, or if nothing could be done at least make the child's death as comfortable as possible. It is also possible that by the time she went to the hospital advanced septicemia may have already set in and she may have died anyway even if treatment were carried out in the manner I described

Did you even bother to read the entire article or does knowledge of a fetus end with "it's a life starting at conception end of discussion" for you? The woman was 17 weeks pregnant, there's no way induced labor could have saved the fetus as it's far too premature; the youngest micro preemie to have ever survived was almost 22 weeks and you can bet that there were many complications.

At 17 weeks the skeleton is changing from soft cartilage to bone and sweat glands are just starting to develop. It weighs about 5 ounces (same as a turnip) and is around 5 inches long from head to bottom. Myelin won't even form around the nerves for another week and the (internal) sex organs aren't even fully finished and in place yet at 17 weeks. The fetus' arms might just be long enough to touch each other and it can possibly form a fist, yet this can't be done conscious yet since the nerves and brain aren't even finished yet. It's not until the 19th week that the brain starts designating specialized areas to process smell, taste, hearing, vision and touch. At 17 weeks it will first start using its eyes and can distinguish light and dark, but that's about it. Its skin hasn't even fully formed yet and its arms and legs won't be in proportion with each other and the body for another two weeks at least. Its eyes and ears have only just moved to the front, closer to their final position at 16 weeks of gestation and it won't be until the 18th week that the ears are in the correct position. It will take about another three weeks before vernix will even be secreted...

I could go on, but I think (hope) you get the idea.


EDIT:
Oh and did you know that inducing labor and delivery in the second or third trimester of a pregnancy is one of the methods for abortion? It's called induction abortion, so were you suggesting those highly religious doctors should have performed an abortion any way?

[aretood2]

EDIT:
Oh and did you know that inducing labor and delivery in the second or third trimester of a pregnancy is one of the methods for abortion? It's called induction abortion, so were you suggesting those highly religious doctors should have performed an abortion any way?

A lot of people who see abortion as being bad for religious reasons would actually say yes. When you throw the mother's life into the mix, it's no longer the same situation.

[Goose]

Yeah, this seems reasonable.

[DigiFluid]

Turkey recognizes the Syrian rebels as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people

[Gatefan1976]

A lot of people who see abortion as being bad for religious reasons would actually say yes. When you throw the mother's life into the mix, it's no longer the same situation.

When is the mothers life *not* in the mix?
The distinction you are implying is that all that matters is life, and Quality of Life is unimportant.

[mad_gater]

Did you even bother to read the entire article or does knowledge of a fetus end with "it's a life starting at conception end of discussion" for you? The woman was 17 weeks pregnant, there's no way induced labor could have saved the fetus as it's far too premature; the youngest micro preemie to have ever survived was almost 22 weeks and you can bet that there were many complications.

At 17 weeks the skeleton is changing from soft cartilage to bone and sweat glands are just starting to develop. It weighs about 5 ounces (same as a turnip) and is around 5 inches long from head to bottom. Myelin won't even form around the nerves for another week and the (internal) sex organs aren't even fully finished and in place yet at 17 weeks. The fetus' arms might just be long enough to touch each other and it can possibly form a fist, yet this can't be done conscious yet since the nerves and brain aren't even finished yet. It's not until the 19th week that the brain starts designating specialized areas to process smell, taste, hearing, vision and touch. At 17 weeks it will first start using its eyes and can distinguish light and dark, but that's about it. Its skin hasn't even fully formed yet and its arms and legs won't be in proportion with each other and the body for another two weeks at least. Its eyes and ears have only just moved to the front, closer to their final position at 16 weeks of gestation and it won't be until the 18th week that the ears are in the correct position. It will take about another three weeks before vernix will even be secreted...

I could go on, but I think (hope) you get the idea.


EDIT:
Oh and did you know that inducing labor and delivery in the second or third trimester of a pregnancy is one of the methods for abortion? It's called induction abortion, so were you suggesting those highly religious doctors should have performed an abortion any way?

a TRUE "abortion" would be the doctor doing something he knows will kill the baby (i.e., giving RU486, D&C, etc., which result in the mother delivering a baby that was killed via means known to willfully and directly cause the child's death)...labor, induced or not, is not in and of itself designed to kill a baby. Premature births are not unheard of. According to the article the child was dying anyway. In inducing labor the doctor is merely attempting to safely deliver the baby, in this case so he can attempt to save the baby's life along with the mother's or if the doctor determines nothing can be done for the child can at least make the child's death as comfortable as possible. So basically inducing labor in this case would've allowed the doctors to treat mother and child as the separate people they are.

The principle of double effect would probably apply in a situation like this:

An action having both a good effect and a bad effect can be undertaken if:

1) the action itself is not intrinsically wrong
2) the bad effect cannot outweigh the good effect
and 3) the bad effect cannot be used as a means to achieve the good effect

I think the simple induction of labor would fulfill double effect since as I said before labor in and of itself, induced or not, is not an action willfully and intentionally ordered towards the purpose of killing the child. The dying child could also have been extracted via emergency C-section.

Also in the second or 3rd trimester the child's development is normally more advanced (by 3rd trimester definitely, second trimester could be a little dicey esp. if it's early in the second trimester) and, if healthy has a higher chance of surviving a premature birth so I don't see how the induction of labor in and of itself (or a C-section) would cause the child's death. Post-delivery complications though could arise that could lead to the child's death. I can see the induction of labor as a prelude to late-term direct abortion procedures (according to wikipedia C-sections can even be involved in late-term abortion procedures)

The incompetent doctors may have been confused (esp. if a language barrier was involved) and not known which context the term "abortion" was being used in....for example a miscarriage is sometimes called a spontaneous abortion. Generally what we're opposed to is direct abortion, the intentional destruction of the life of the unborn child via methods known to in and of themselves cause such a thing to occur