Savita Halappanavar

[Deven]

I searched this, but I couldn't find anything on it.

Two months ago Savita and Praveen Halappanavar were looking forward to the birth of their first baby.
Praveen, 34, an engineer at a firm that makes medical equipment, and dentist Savita, 31, lived in Galway city, Ireland, moving there from India after marrying.
When Savita was 17 weeks pregnant she was admitted to University hospital in Galway with back pain - and told she was miscarrying.
Her repeated requests for a termination were refused on the grounds that Ireland 'is a Catholic country'.
A week after arriving in hospital, she died holding Praveen's hand. Her death sparked an international storm, with calls for Ireland to immediately change its abortion laws.

This has sparked outrage in Ireland, with people demanding that the laws be changed. The Catholic Church, which has a strong hold on Ireland's laws, is defending the current laws, stating that they must "protect the innocent."

he harrowing, cruel experience of Savita Halappanavar, who died of septicaemia in October, has provoked unprecedented national outrage. Her widower alleges her doctors wouldn’t intervene to save her life while her fetus still had a heartbeat, on the excuse that “This is a Catholic country.” Now, following a wave of public protests and an advisory from the European Court of Human Rights, Ireland, the only European Union nation that still outlaws abortion, has begun the delicate process of loosening its restrictions. Earlier this month, Minister of Health James Reilly announced the government is introducing new laws that will permit abortion when the life of the mother is at risk. The new regulations will still be plenty restrictive – a mere risk to the mother’s health will still not be sufficient to obtain an abortion, and Reilly assures that the changes will “clarify what is legal for the professionals who must provide care while at all times taking full account of the equal right to life of the unborn child.”

Yet at a moment when a minute move toward preventing more women from dying in agony is finally on the table, Brady took the opportunity to deliver a Christmas message about “life” to the people of Ireland, urging, “No government has the right to remove that right from an innocent person.” In case you’re wondering, it’s not the innocent life of Savita Halappanavar he’s referencing here.

Wasn't Savita innocent? She wasn't looking to have an abortion because the baby was a mistake. In fact, she WANTED the baby. As she was msicarrying, they even talked of trying again as soon as she could (as chronicled by her husband in the Daily Mail link.)

I'm pro-choice, but I wouldn't bat an eyelash if abortion was made so that it was only obtainable for emergency purposes. And for those who don't think this can happen in the US, it can and it will. As I've pointed out, there are bills passing with no provisions for life of the mother, where some lawmakers have even gone so far as to compare women to livestock, claiming that cows and pigs can do it, why can't women?

Savita is a good reason why it shouldn't be done. She was carrying that fetus for THREE DAYS. In those THREE DAYS, the miscarriage became a death sentence.

There are American politicans that don't think women can die from a failing pregnancy, or just flat out don't care.

Soon to be Former Rep Joe Walsh is a good example.

And with sites like Pro-Life Wisconsin, the misinformation becomes rampant.

The mother's life

The so-called "life of the mother" exception for abortion is unnecessary and dangerous. To begin with, there are no situations where abortion, defined as the direct and intentional killing of an unborn child, is medically necessary to save the life of the mother. Bernard Nathanson, M.D., who himself performed over 30,000 abortions, said:

"In our first book [after he stopped doing abortions], we proposed a lengthy list of illnesses (including but not limited to heart or kidney disease) which would justify abortion. We regard that list now with...disbelief: if women with heart and liver transplants can be carried successfully through pregnancy, we can no longer conceive of any medical condition which would legitimize abortion. In short, we have slowly evolved to an unshakable posture of no exceptions...[W]orkable, morally acceptable legislation proscribing abortion can have no exceptions written into it - not even medical ones." (Bernadell Technical Bulletin, April 1991)

Medical operations such as the removal of a cancerous uterus or the removal of an ectopic pregnancy are moral even under Catholic teaching and are not considered abortions. If a pregnant woman has a cancerous uterus that imminently threatens her life, then the uterus may be removed even though such removal results in the death of the unborn child. Similarly, when a fertilized ovum lodges in the fallopian tube and grows there, the damaged portion of the tube containing the baby may be removed where it is clearly necessary to save the mother's life. Such operations are justified by the "principle of double effect," because the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation independently justified to save the mother's life. They do not involve the intentional and willful destruction of an unborn child.

Legally, such operations are not considered abortions. The removal of such conditions has never been prosecuted in this country, even when the mother's life was not immediately threatened. There is, therefore, no need to provide a specific exception for such cases in a statute or constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. Moreover, an explicit exception for the life of the mother is dangerous. One should never attempt to codify in law the importance of one innocent human life over and above another. Physicians must make their best effort to save both patients, giving equal care to mother and child. They should never be given a license to intentionally kill either of them.

Finally, many abortionists believe that the very condition of pregnancy itself is a life threatening condition. Consequently, a "life of the mother" exception can become a massive statutory loophole through which to drive abortion on demand.

Once pro-lifers say there can be a "good reason" to kill a preborn baby, the foundation of the pro-life movement crumbles. The argument is lost. Either the preborn child is a person, or the child is not a person. Since the preborn child is a person, there can be no exceptions for abortion.

I just find this entire situation horrifying.

 

[hal84]

 

[Deven]

 

[hal84]