by Grania
An Irish High Court has ruled that the clinically dead pregnant woman who has been kept on life support against the wishes of her family may be removed from those machines. Fortunately no-one wishes to appeal this decision, so her family, who already have suffered the trauma of losing a loved one will now be able to grieve in privacy.
However, much as I am relieved that this grisly case has ended this way, the pronouncements of the court give no comfort or reassurance. This appalling situation, and others like it, will happen again. The Irish government has stated that they do not intend to do anything about the state of abortion law in Ireland, and therefore a teenager raped by an uncle will be forced to bear his baby unless she can find a way out of the country to secure a termination; and a suicidal rape victim will be restrained until she can be delivered by C-section. A woman whose fetus is diagnosed with a severe abnormality will likewise be compelled to bear it or find the means to leave the country.
The outcome in the court is largely thanks to the testimony of the doctors, all seven of whom agreed that there was no prospect for the baby to be born intact. This is in no small part because the body is starting to decompose and infections are setting in. It is almost unthinkable that in a modern country medical staff have to actually contemplate doing something as absurd as maintaining a decomposing corpse for fear of prosecution under the country’s abortion law.
What the lawyers had to say gives one pause:
“Lawyers instructed to represent the interests of the woman argued the treatment should continue. It was argued, given she was a full-time mother devoted to her children, she would have wanted to allow every opportunity for the unborn to get to a position where it would be viable.”
Unless the lawyers managed the world’s first ever successful seance, one can only wonder at how they arrived at that conclusion.
“Lawyers representing the interests of the unborn also argued, given the woman is clinically dead, the unborn’s right to life surpassed her right to a dignified death.”
As grotesque and inhumane as this sounds, legally they are correct. Ireland will continue to be a country where pregnant women can expect the most bizarre, obscene and brutalizing treatment should anything happen that makes them wish to obtain a termination.
This is exactly what happens when a government legislates not for the benefit or well-being of its people, but to conform to religious ideology.
sub
What I don’t get about the whole “debate” is the emphasis placed on the question of when life begins. Never mind that it began a few billion years ago; for this question, we can even grant the hard-core religious interpretation that fertilization is the moment of ensoulment.
So what?
Do we require that parents donate their organs to their children if that’s the child’s only hope for life, even if the hope is most desperate or even truly hopeless? Do we prosecute parents who fail to rush into burning buildings to save their children, who may or may not have a chance of survival anyway?
Sure, we might hope that a parent would choose a noble sacrifice in the not-completely-hopeless cases, but do we ever condemn those who choose self-preservation? Especially when they have other children, other responsibilities? Of course not! We merely sympathize with the parents and realize how awful it must be to find themselves in that situation.
So why the double standard for “children” not yet born? Since when does the “pre-born” have the right to jeopardize the woman’s life, to suck literally dry her very precious bodily fluids, when the “post-born” most certainly doesn’t?
Of course, the real answer has something to do with Exodus 20:17….
Cheers,
b&
Because:
Nature!
Women are *made* to be incubators
“Sluts” need to be held accountable for their actions
Pregnancy is a minor inconvenience, akin to stubbing your toe
^Most popular pro life arguments
Oh, sad. I wonder how long it will take for Ireland to shake itself loose of the religious pest? I’m sure the secularist community there is doing its best, but what will it take to finally throw off the ancient monster? The Irish dead baby scandal should have been enough you would think.
The religious pest is a good way to put it. As bad as Ireland is, in some ways we are not so far behind. Our Supreme court is packed with a batch of catholics, some that turn to the bible before they look at the law. Frightening is the word for it. Going to Kansas or Texas today is like a trip back to the Dark Ages.
Just as a matter of interest, what’s the going rate for rent-a-womb services in Ireland? Otherwise known as “surrogate mothers”. Obviously since the courts wanted to use this woman as an incubator, then they should have been required to pay her (or her estate – that should be reasonably clear, legally?) the appropriate fee.
Just wondering if this might be a fruitful line of attack to follow. Maybe even a line of defence where the attack can be gotten in first (the best form of defence – kick ’em in the squishy bits before they realise there’s a fight in the offing ; from behind if available ; use crampons).
OK, I’m probably being wildly optimistic to imagine that one country’s laws are going to be vaguely like my own country’s laws, and I’m not sure if such a legislative assault would work on this side of the border either. But the prospect of being hit in the wallet does have a fair success rate at getting the attention of government agencies.
I’ve often wondered whether it would be worth asking the Irish anti-abortion lobby whether they would be against a government-ordered compulsory impregnation for every woman at least once before she is 30.
I am guessing most of them would be against it. But I can’t quite see why, seeing as they think that even underage incest victims should be forced to carry their unwanted fetus to term.
There is just is no reasoning with dogmatic belief.
Iona et al. are against any form of artificial insemination
Surrogacy laws, we don’t have any. The current understanding is the woman who gives birth is the mother of the child, end of story.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/supreme-court-rules-genetic-mother-of-twins-is-not-their-legal-mother-1.1992112
I’d send that to the OED (IED?) as a fine exemplar of “tautology.”
I’m at a loss to understand how any sane human being would elect to remain even remotely associated with this insane cult.
If you want to help Irish women who want to deal with unwanted pregnancies but they can’t afford to leave the country:
https://www.abortionsupport.org.uk/donate/
The site says:
“As ASN is largely volunteer-run and operates with no office, limited overhead, and minimal operational costs, the majority of donations go directly to help cover the cost of a woman’s abortion or her travel to England.”
Well I thought I’d better put my money where my mouth is so I sent ’em a token donation. Good to have an opportunity to do a little to thwart the foetus freaks.
This idea of abortion-as-sin from conception onwards is quite recent, I think, particularly in protestant sects (a few decades).
Even the Catholic absolutist ‘from conception-stance’ dates from the 19th century only, if I’m not mistaken. ‘Ensoulment’ was thought to take place at ‘quickening’ (the moment the mother feels the first stirrings) or even ‘crowning’.
Different note, during my early years here in South Africa I carried out abortions on a regular basis. I noted that the moral crusaders, those who shout ‘abortion is murder’ loudest, are the first in line to demand abortion when they have impregnated their ‘maid-servant’ (or underage niece).
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
I can see where a person might think, in theory, “save my baby if I die” – and I say in theory, because it’s easy to say a thing like that and not really have thought through all the awful ways that might play out. If the mother is not on the record so consenting, that’s a pretty disgusting leap the prosecutors are making.
What a bizarre case – hopefully it’s a precedent for future Irish families’ need for relief from religious injustice.
So it needed SEVEN doctors to advocate against the state. SEVEN!. So six wouldn’t have been enough for these brainwashed f**kwits, it took seven. If I was in the mood I’d now start a (mostly satirical) lecture about Catholic numerology in the Middle Ages, and the importance of the number seven. (Seven and nine were the Virgin Mary’s numbers – the perfect mother.) But this situation is just too sick and depressing to revert to satire.
Wait — you mean? Jesus is a Borg baby?
…sure would explain an awful lot, come to think of it….
b&
I guess Jeri Ryan’s as good a choice as any for a holy person.
I wouldn’t think the idea of keeping a pregnant woman on life-support until viability or even full-term was all that grotesque, if:
the woman had indicated that was her wish
there was a good chance the baby would be alive, whole and healthy, and
someone, most especially the father, had expressed a wish to raise the child.
But I agree that the RCC’s determination to go through such a charade in the absence of those conditions is hideous.