The Catholic church calls it collateral damage in the age old war against women. The talibanista christians call it their duty to protect life. Both entities are acting and playing god. We've already heard about the moral value system of the radical right-wing of the repub/tparty members and the clergy and their use of abortions to hide their 'sins,' hide their hidden perversions. The abortion issue is only a distraction of the repub/tparty to garner votes, with the catholics backing them up. The bottom line issue is CHOICE, whether it's Freedom of/for/from religion, Women's Rights or any other personal issues. The bottom line is CHOICE.

It is disgusting, horrific and immoral that the fate of an unborn baby, in particularly one who is already dying, should take precedence over a living, breathing woman. It sickens me that there is even a debate about whose life has more value... proving we have only frosted the sh!t turd that is the religious fundamentalist disregard for women. How does a person justify such a choice in this day and age? God would be ashamed and disappointed, as I assume he loved Savita too. It is not just cowardice, it is murder, as they had the means available to them to save this woman and they chose not to take it.

I am genuinely confused about why there is even a debate here... she was alive, could have been saved and is now dead because the hospital refused to treat her. Where is it written that an unborn baby's life is more important than the mother's? Most mothers I know would die to protect their children both in birth and after but to needlessly die for an unborn child who was already dying? This is inexcusable and thinking women the world over should be outraged. I know I am.

And, for those of you who do not believe in a woman's right to choose, you Right to Lifers, I ask you... how many children had you adopted, thereby putting your money where your mouth is?

@wire, don't kid yourself. The only anti-abortion law in Ireland came from the catholic church. Most Irish want to see this law abolished but the government and the church would not put it on referendum to let people vote. Abortion has been legal here since Roe v Wade, yet, the same sh!t still happen here. I work for a catholic hospital and have seen it myself. We've had obstetricians quit in protest because the hospital administration chose to let a pregnant woman and her fetus die instead to letting the woman get an emergency abortion to save her live. The husband and the parents of this woman all wanted the procedure done to save the woman. The woman was too unstable to get transferred to another hospital so they just let her die. What part of separation of church and state do you not understand; when your faith is interfering with a physician's ability to do his/her job or ignoring the wish of a husband or a parent, your faith is on the wrong side of humanity.

earthgirl et al <<~~~~~>> Yes, in this particular case the doctors misunderstood the CC's postion and should have and could have accelerated the miscarriage already in process. However, chances are good that the mother would have died, anyway. There is, of course no way to know if she would have died or not, but statistics show that maternal death occurs more often in abortion than in difficult childbirth. As for the argument that a woman ALWAYS has the right to make her own choice~~~ Really, The Guttmacher Institution, a strong prochoice think tank, founded by Planned Parenthood, but now independant, has said that most women who abort do so, NOT BECAUSE SHE HAS MADE THAT CHOICE, but because someone who is significant to her has made that choice and will brook no objection by her OR BECAUSE that significent other has simply walked out on her leaving her with the feeling that SHE HAS NO OTHER CHOICE. It a myth in our society today that women now have the right to choose. Sure, somethimes, but more often she is coerced into her "choice."

Well, no, it's not because of religious belief--it's because of governmental regulation. One CANNOT legislate ethics or morality--and it is long past time that secular governments figured that out. I'm a Christian who believes that abortion is morally wrong--but we also live in a real and imperfect world, where we are often presented with ethical decisions in which neither choice is wholly right or wrong. This is just such a case--it is also morally wrong as a physician not to do all one can to save one's patient's life. So...which choice here is "less wrong?" Really, that's what it boils down to. I gather that the fetus was dying anyway--so one chooses the lesser of two evils and hastens the death of the fetus to preserve the life of the mother. There is NO WAY to legislate on a contextual case-by-case basis--which is why governmental interference with medical ethics simply does not work! If the mother had been willing to die rather than prematurely end the life of an already-dying fetus, based on her own religious convictions, that would have been one thing (and certainly the mother's religious views need to be taken into account!)--but that was not the case here. Doctors and patients need to have the freedom to make legitimate choices, even when they are sometimes hard choices without any happy or "right" answer--and if doctors are unethical in the way they present such choices to their patients, then they should face a review board on a case-by-case basis. But for a government to try to make moral decisions is just not right!

Wire,

If 99% of the population in a free country don't want abortion, then 99% should choose not to have them. Nobody is "shoving it down their throat". Instead what they are doing is taking a women, who for whatever reason, chooses not to bring her fetus to term and "shoving it back up inside her."

Seems pretty clear who's doing the shoving.

Matilda,

You are wrong. Death occurs more frequently during childbirth than during abortion, by a substantial margin. I don't know where you get your statistics, but you need a more reliable source. As for all the rest of you moaning and groaning about abortion. . . if you don't approve of abortion, then don't have one. Lots of women don't choose to get pregnant. Boyfriends and husbands lie about using protection. Women get raped or are victims of incest. You have NO RIGHT to decide if a woman has a sufficiently good reason to have an abortion. I know women who have chosen to abort severely defective babies who would have died within hours of birth. I believe they made the right decision. Do I therefore have the right to tell Santorum that his wife should have aborted their trisomy 37 baby? That child will be dead soon. It has not had a pleasant life. It is more often sick than well and has very limited brain development. I happen to believe bringing that fetus to term and condemning it to life is the greater sin. Should I be able to force the Santorums to abort? Because if you can force a woman to give birth you can also force her to have an abortion. No one has the right to dictate what someone else does with their reproductive organs.

I happen to think that if a man fathers more than one child outside of wedlock he should be castrated because he is failing to be responsible. Anyone of you men care to enforce that? After all, he is refusing to be responsible for the life he creates. So he should not be permitted to impregnate any more women.

Thinking Mom,

I've adopted 2 and have 2 others. I am a "Right-to-lifer". I am a Right-winger Teabagger etc. This mother should have been saved and I know nobody on the Right who thinks otherwise. The paradigm of the left is wrong. Next...

wire557

If the majority of Irish voters don't want abortion then who the fukk are you to shove it down their throats.

So it's okay to let a woman die to save face with the Catholic Church and there was no vote about abortion it was enacted by the government not the people.

As to shoving laws... we won't shove anything at Ireland. Boycott is the opposite of shoving.

This is a case of what religion are you. At what point do we defend free speech? True, this did happen in Ireland and the laws may differ there, but all in all it is the same thing.

My question is why did this woman pick a Catholic hospital to go to? In an earlier article it said that the mother of the woman proclaimed that they were Hindus and not christians, so therefore their laws don't apply. However, I find that really hard to believe.

If you go to India, (where a large majority of the country are Hindus), I have to wonder how many people there are willing to oblige you. For instance, say you wanted to eat beef with your meals.... do you think the hospital staff would have the nerve to go out and kill a cow just to suit your tastes? Hindus' value cows as being sacred, much in the same way as christians value children's lives. I doubt very much that they would be willing to bend over backward to help you even if you were starving.

However, I would also have to agree that some common sense should be applied here. The child was already dying. It would make more sense for the Catholic hospital to remove the child from its mother, place it in an incubator, while at the same time trying to save the mother's life.

As for this article, this is just another stupid article that MSNBC uses to champion abortion rights while only presenting one side of it.

Hope this will enlighten you.

Every times a woman give birth, they have a chance of dying themselves. To tell every women that they need to shut up and do it are the same as telling them to die.

Yes, some women made mistakes, but to pay with theirs life is stupid and disgusting.

Pro-life? No, you are not pro-life since you have your bloody hands in this. More like PRO-CONTROL.

People who support abortion are simply pro-choices, we are letting the women decide what they want to do with their bodies. It's none of ours business, the more we try to control others, the less control we would have on ourselves.

Couldn't she have just gone to the UK? What a horrible travesty, she should have been allowed to do what she needed to in Ireland, but I wish she would have gone elsewhere for the services she needed when she was denied.....

I don't understand why this woman died. According to recently ousted teabagger, jow Walsh. Women dont die in chilfbirth because of modern medicine.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/262945-joe-walsh-abortion-never-necessary-to-save-womens-lives

I just wish people were this concerned about the millions of people who have been murdered in the womb. This is a holocaust. Yes, it's terrible that this woman died...truly terrible...but no more terrible than these other human beings who were not given a CHOICE either. (since choice is what we're ALL hoping for here.) You cannot promote CHOICE and make one person's choices more important than another's. That's, in fact, ANTI-CHOICE.

@Thinkingmom - I'm pro-life and yes, I've adopted. But even if I hadn't, it doesn't give me any less of a right to have a pro-life opinion on the matter.

Every times a woman give birth, they have a chance of dying themselves. To tell every women that they need to shut up and do it are the same as telling them to die.

CuongNYGuyen: So are you saying that every woman has the right to kill their child because they don't want to die? You obviously have a warped sense of reality. Would you tell your wife or girlfriend to never have kids because they might die? Of course not...... so therefore your logic doesn't make sense either.

People who support abortion are simply pro-choices, we are letting the women decide what they want to do with their bodies. It's none of ours business, the more we try to control others, the less control we would have on ourselves.

Actually it is more of our business than you realize since it is funded by taxpayers. If women truly wanted to have control over their own bodies, then let them pay for their abortions and their birth control ON THEIR OWN.

It comes down to this. A doctor took the hipocratic oath to DO NO HARM! And allowed this woman to DIE because of arcane laws regarding a woman's value in this world. THEY ALLOWED HER TO DIE. They didn't give a damn about her! How DARE they. If they have an ounce of honor, they will stop practicing medicine and start practicing humanity.
And those of you that believe she should have travelled to another country for care, would have died anyway, or believe it was god's will, shame on you.

Matilda said:

However, chances are good that the mother would have died, anyway. There is, of course no way to know if she would have died or not, but statistics show that maternal death occurs more often in abortion than in difficult childbirth.

Actually, the woman had an 85% chance of surviving had the abortion been performed.

Here's why: She was infected with EColi, which triggered her miscarriage. Had the doctors performed the abortion immediately when she first went to the hospital and they determined she was already miscarrying, she could then have been given the appropriate antibiotics (the antibiotics used to treat this infection cannot be given to a pregnant woman) and had a 85% chance of surviving.

See my next post for a full medical explanation (I'm posting it separately for those who want the indepth-explanation, not just the summary.)

For those who want the full explanation, here goes.

Doctors knew when she first got there that she was already miscarrying;

Halappanavar's husband, Praveen, said doctors at University Hospital Galway in western Ireland determined that his wife was miscarrying within hours of her hospitalization for severe pain on Oct. 21. He said over the next three days, doctors refused their requests for an abortion to combat her searing pain and fading health.

It was only after the fetus died that its remains were surgically removed. Within hours, Savita was placed under sedation in intensive care with blood poisoning, her husband said. By Oct. 27, her heart, kidneys and liver had stopped working, and she was pronounced dead the next day.

The blood poisoning was from E. coli, per this article from the Examiner:

Savita Halappanavar suffered another 2 1/2 days in agony before the fetal heartbeat stopped. By the time doctors removed the dead fetus, the woman was septic. She died in the intensive care unit on Oct. 28, 2012. An autopsy disclosed that she died from septicemia and an ESBL-producing E.coli strain, which is said to be harder to treat than MRSA.

Here's what I found on E. Coli:

Most people recover within a few days but pregnant women are at increased risk of developing serious complications such as hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) which may lead to kidney failure and death in extreme cases.

Dangers of E.Coli infection in pregnant women: Miscarriage, intrauterine growth retardation, preterm birth, low birth weight babies, pregnancy induced hypertension, preeclampsia, anemia, amnionitis.

Here's what HUS is:

Hemolytic-uremic syndrome (or haemolytic-uraemic syndrome), abbreviated HUS, is a disease characterized by hemolytic anemia (anemia caused by destruction of red blood cells), acute kidney failure (uremia), and a low platelet count (thrombocytopenia). Most cases are preceded by an episode of infectious, sometimes bloody, diarrhea caused by E. coli O157:H7, which is acquired as a foodborne illness or from a contaminated water supply. It is a medical emergency and carries a 5–10% mortality.

Here's the treatment:

The effect of antibiotics in E. coli O157:H7 colitis is controversial. Certain antibiotics may stimulate further verotoxin production and thereby increase the risk of HUS. However there is also tentative evidence that antibiotics like quinolones may decrease the risk of haemolytic uraemic syndrome.

Treatment is generally supportive, with dialysis as needed. Untreated HUS in adults, however, may progress to end-stage organ damage.

It's not safe to give quinolones to a pregnant woman:

There are safety concerns of fluoroquinolone use during pregnancy and, as a result, are contraindicated except for when no other safe alternative antibiotic exists.

Here's the survival rate;

With aggressive treatment, more than 90% survive the acute phase. About 9% may develop end stage renal disease. About one-third of persons with HUS have abnormal kidney function many years later, and a few require long-term dialysis. Another 8% of persons with HUS have other lifelong complications, such as high blood pressure, seizures, blindness, paralysis, and the effects of having part of their colon removed. The overall mortality rate from HUS is 5-15%.

Now, with all of that cited and referenced, yes, she could have survived if the abortion had been performed. She was infected with E. Coli, which triggered her miscarriage. Had the doctors performed the abortion immediately she could then have been given the antibiotics and had a 85-95% chance of surviving.

Oh, and there's a new strain of E. Coli that's been causing a lot of concern in Europe (though we don't know if this was the strain she was infected with):

E coli type 157:H7 is a virulent strain of E coli that has been the cause of several severe outbreaks of diarrhea. E coli O157:H7 bacteria are normally found in the intestines of cattle, poultry, and other animals. A new European strain of E coli known as Shiga toxin-producing E coli O104 (STEC O104) has been responsible for a recent deadly outbreak in Europe, particularly in Germany.

Darlene Murdock said:

Couldn't she have just gone to the UK? What a horrible travesty, she should have been allowed to do what she needed to in Ireland, but I wish she would have gone elsewhere for the services she needed when she was denied.....

Savita couldn't.

She went to the nearest hospital's emergency room with severe pain on October 21. Doctors discovered she was in the middle of a miscarriage shortly after she was admitted.

She asked them, since she was already mscarrying, could they perform the abortion (on a baby that was already dying) so she could get the antibiotics necessary to combat the E. Coli infection that triggered her miscarriage. Because there was a fetal heartbeat, doctors refused to perform the abortion, and also couldn't give the antibiotics necessary because the antibiotics would almost certainly kill the baby (who was, I remind you again, already dying.) Although most miscarriages usually happen quickly, this one took several days to happen, during which time the mother was in intense pain and couldn't go anywhere, and by the time the fetal heartbest finally stopped and doctors removed the dead baby from the mother's body, the virulent strain of E.Coli had reached the mother's internal organs and they shut down on October 27, resulting in her death on October 28.

She was physically unable to leave the hospital after being admitted with a progressing miscarriage on October 21. There was no way any airline would have allowed a 17-week-pregnant woman who was screaming and bleeding from a miscarriage on a plane to the UK. Not to mention which, there was no reason she should have had to--per the article:

In 1992, when challenged in the "X-case" involving a 14-year-old rape victim, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was permitted when the woman's life was at risk....

This was a clear-cut case of the mother's life being at risk without an abortion on a baby already dying, and as such the actions of the doctors in the hospital constitute a violation of the Irish Supreme Court ruling.

Unhappy said:

My question is why did this woman pick a Catholic hospital to go to?

Because it was the nearest one, a progressing miscarriage is a medical emergency, and practically all hospitals in Ireland are Catholic. And because aborting a baby who was already dying from a miscarriage so the mother might survive was against neither the Catholic faith nor the laws of Ireland.

It would make more sense for the Catholic hospital to remove the child from its mother, place it in an incubator, while at the same time trying to save the mother's life.

Exactly. No argument there, although I would point out that the baby was 17 weeks and had zero chance of living, even in an incubator and even without the added complication of being infected with a virulent strain of E.Coli.

As for this article, this is just another stupid article that MSNBC uses to champion abortion rights while only presenting one side of it.

I would respectfully disagree with you here, my only complaint with the article is that they didn't bother to clarify that the mother would have had an 85-95% chance of surviving had the abortion been performed. See my post at 2.20 (and/or the full medical explanation at 2.21.)

Lola said:

And those of you that believe she should have travelled to another country for care, would have died anyway, or believe it was god's will, shame on you.

Exactly.

If they want to use God, then God himself knew that keeping the child was endangering the mother's health (keeping her from getting the antibiotics God created) and tried to reclaim the child unto Himself to spare the mother (hence the miscarriage already in progress when she was admitted to the hospital). The Catholic doctors who are supposed to help God do His work (saving lives, having compassion, having faith that it is all part of His Divine Plan) instead decided to try circumventing God's will and it ended up costing both mother and child their lives.

It's all in how you look at it.

(BTW--I'm not Catholic now, though I was raised as one. Just in case you're curious.)

@Unhappy-1583758

My warp sense of reality? You mean you, right? The problem is some women don't want to give birth to a child they don't want in the first place.

You have so much common sense to tell others that they need to do something because of your sense of morality despite knowing that it can kills them, nice sense of logic there.

As for this concerning everyone or tax payers. You know that it costs more to raise a child to the age of 18 than to have abortion, right?

Oh right, math is not your strong suit and you don't care. You simply want PRO-CONTROL.

Amanda,

Thanks for taking the time! Very educational. This was a case that will, and should, have the ethics committees/members scratching their heads for some time...hopefully. I'm a right-wing nut-job who's adamantly opposed to the generic definition of abortion as it exist today, but this woman could have been saved and all the glory to God could still be securely in place ;) This didn't have to be left v right. The system isn't perfect...and people are unfortunately going to die regardless of mans best efforts.

Captain Trehillion:

You're welcome.

When I originally saw this on the news, I thought there had to be more to the story than the articles were telling. It took a lot of reading other articles and researching E.Coli (and side effects on pregnant women, treatments, and medicines available) to figure all of that out, and I believe many wouldn't bother to do all that research. It is easier simply to make snap judgements about an article one sees than to go, do research and look at all the facts before coming to a conclusion. Now, as the news follows this case, if you see someone else with misconceptions about the case you can correct them. Please feel free to repost any of the information I dug up on this; the more awareness we can get out there, the better the chances are that laws can be made fair for everyone.

The mosty poignant statement I heard about that actually came from "Law & Order: SVU" which was "Why would God give us the ability to create medicine if he did not intend us to use it?" of course it was Gallileo who said "I cannot imagine a God who would give us such curiosity, but not allow us to use it"

Its time for Ireland to stop living in the 15th Century and join the 21st Century.

And if we're not careful, the United States will soon join Ireland in the 15th century. Many states have been making access to safe abortions more difficult in recent years... we have plenty of our own problems to fix.

Its time for Ireland to stop living in the 15th Century and join the 21st Century.

They are since the massive abuse of children by the church has been made public. Church attendance is way down as is the number of young men being ordained which has dropped to almost none in Ireland.

More like the early 20th Century. Abortions were illegal in most states until 1973.

Women couldn't even vote until 1920. Interestingly, it was Senate Democrats who filibustered the amendment allowing us to vote.

Women's rights have had a choppy road in this country.

AG99 - you're not fooling anybody with that "Democrats oppose civil rights" diversion.

We all know that that crowd is GOP now.

Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater^[6] in the late 1960s.^[7] The strategy was successful in many regards. It contributed to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party.

@AG99:

Is this your attemp to re-write history? Read on my Dear Fellow:

The GOP's longstanding "war on women" includes such horrors as giving them the vote.

When the Obama reelection staff began developing its general strategy for duping a majority of the electorate into once again supporting the President, they knew they needed to drive a lot of disenchanted female voters back into the Democrat herd. Thus, they concocted the fictional Republican "war on women." And, knowing that our government education system has long since given up teaching history, Obama's minions had little fear that the public would realize that the GOP's support of women's rights goes back to its founding in 1854. Nor were the President's men worried that Democrat front groups like the National Organization for Women, much less the "news" media, would remind female voters that their very ability to cast a ballot was won for them by the Republicans over the vehement objections of the Democrats.

Most educated Americans vaguely remember that the amendment granting women the right to vote was passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920. But the number of people who know anything about the forty-year legislative war that preceded that victory is smaller than the audience of MSNBC. That war began in 1878, when a California Republican named A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment only to see it voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress. It finally ended four decades later, when the Republicans won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats -- including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as "Kaiser Wilson."

One of the most interesting battles in the long congressional war over women's suffrage involved the Mormons of Utah. In 1870, nearly fifty years before Congress passed the 19th Amendment, the territory of Utah granted women the right to vote. This was encouraged by congressional opponents of polygamy, which was practiced by some wealthy Mormons. Their hope was that given the vote, Utah's women would quickly put an end to "the abomination of bigamy." And the women of Utah did indeed prove to have strong opinions regarding this issue. They voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. Congress responded by passing the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1882, which disfranchised Utah's women while also violating the First Amendment by outlawing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and seizing much of its property.

Meanwhile, the Republicans continued to introduce the 19th Amendment in Congress every year, but the Democrats were able to keep it bottled up in various committees for another decade before allowing either chamber to vote on it. In 1887 it finally reached the floor of the Senate. Once again, however, it was defeated by a vote of 34 to 16. After this setback, advocates of women's suffrage opted to put pressure on Congress by convincing various state legislatures to pass bills giving women the vote. This met with some success. By the turn of the century a variety of Republican-controlled states, including Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho, had granted women suffrage. During the first ten years of the new century, several other states gave women the vote, including Washington and California.

Congress, however, didn't deign to vote on the issue again until 1914, when it was once again defeated by Senate Democrats. It was subsequently brought up for a vote in January of 1915 in the House, where it went down by a vote of 204 to 174. Nonetheless, the Republicans continued to push even after it was defeated yet again in early 1918. The big break for 19th Amendment came when President Wilson, a true Democrat, violated his most solemn campaign promise. Having pledged to keep the United States out of the European conflict that had been raging since 1914, he decided to enter the war anyway. This set the stage for the 1918 midterm elections in which voter outrage swept the Republicans into power in both the House and the Senate. This finally placed the GOP in a position to pass the amendment despite Democrat opposition.

During the following spring Rep. James R. Mann, a Republican from Illinois, reintroduced the 19th Amendment in the House and it finally passed by an overwhelming majority. Shortly thereafter a now Republican-controlled Senate also passed it, clearing the way for ratification by the states. By this point, President Wilson had also faced the reality that women would inevitably get the vote and abandoned his opposition. But the Democrats' resistance was by no means dead. They did their level best to prevent the amendment from being ratified: "When the Amendment was submitted to the states, 26 of the 36 states that ratified it had Republican legislatures. Of the nine states that voted against ratification, eight were Democratic." Many of these Democrat-controlled states refused to ratify the amendment until the 1970s.

My my, don't much like to be reminded of history, do you? Look it up. Democrats have only recently championed the little guy. Before that they opposed not only the vote for women, but also the Civil Rights Bill. Little touchy, aren't you? And I'm not even a Republican.

But my original point is that Ireland is not living quite so far in the past as other posters have suggested and that we weren't any better until fairly recently.

(And I'm not a "fellow.")

That is because prior to Phyllis Sclafly and the early 1970s STOP-ERA movement there was no such thing as "social convservatives". Prior to that movement there was no "Moral Majority" or Reaganomics with huge cuts in Medicare, Social Security, Aid to Families w/ Dependant Children, and school lunch problems. Before Reagan there was no concept such as "free market" feminsim. Ya'll really screwed the pooch on that one. Good luck to you, cause the women have had ENOUGH!

this is what happens when religion has a seat in government. decisions that should should be between the doctor and patient are controlled by religious fanatics. i know many people who will vote for any candidate that will vote for ''christian values'' ---which includes making christianity the state approved religion. a religious state is a recipe for loss of human rights. i have always respected the land of my ancestors and am ashamed that the country that has given the world an example of liberty loving people should deny this poor woman the right to have a life saving abortion which is available in many third world countries. the catholic church has done enough damage to ireland-----the irish should have thrown out the catholic church right along with the english tyrants.

From birth until they're old enough to be used as fodder in the military, the repub/tparty will give them nothing. After their military service, they're on their own again. That's the repub/tparty way.

granny22: Thank you.

AG99

My my, don't much like to be reminded of history, do you? Look it up. Democrats have only recently championed the little guy. Before that they opposed not only the vote for women, but also the Civil Rights Bill. Little touchy, aren't you? And I'm not even a Republican.

The Democratic Party and Republican Party have changed over the past 50 years. Don't you agree? Sure, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were Republicans, but they couldn't get themselves nominated to run for county clerk in today's extreme-right Republican Party. And most of the segregationists switched from Democrat to Republican after the Civil Rights legislation passed. It's not that what you say isn't true. It's just irrelevant except to historians.

Dear TONYWARVET,

Your logic is truly unassailable! And so I think it is time that we apply your logic to all, not just to the unborn. Let us find all of the "poor and suffering" people in our communities and abort them so that we may relieve their suffering as well. The only remaining question is "how"...machine guns? ...drug them? ...cement shoes? I suppose it does not matter, as long as we end their lives...oops, I meant to say "suffering".

Houston: Of course I agree. A lot. Which is why I said "interestingly" in my first post to indicate my comment was more of an aside than anything to get excited about, but some people will jump on their party bandwagon at the slightest provocation. It's all pretty silly.

I am definately pro-life and a religious nut. My complaint about abortion is when it is used as a means of birth control. The fetus was dying, she should have been given an abortion to save her life. I don't think you'll find many religious nuts or pro lifers who would condone letting the mother die in most circumstances.

CWater, have you seen the republican party in this country, the "Christian Conservatives"(Whom are, incidentally, the most un-Christ like individuals on the face of the planet, not all are, granted, but enough are)? They want to ban all abortion in all instances, even medically necessary situations

i don't think most pro choice people want abortion used as birth control. i know i persoanlly think abortion is wrong. just not sure it's the goverments place to say what a person can do with their own bodies. there are radicals on both sides of the issue. some want no abortion, no birth control no mater what the case. some want abortion on demand at any time. i think most people are actually in the middle. they think abortion is wrong but don't think the goverment is the best way to prevent them

I'm not sure what Time Running Out's screed has to do with today's political parties, but in any case he left out the vital role played by Prohibitionists in passage of the 19th Amendment. Women supported prohibition of the alcoholic beverages (with good reason, but that's another story) in disproportionate numbers, so enfranchising them was key to passage of the 18th Amendment.

@AG99: #3.8 - Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:55 PM EST

My dear Fellow:

Your Post :

"But my original point is that Ireland is not living quite so far in the past as other posters have suggested and that we weren't any better until fairly recently."

Please explain how Females not being able to vote in the USA (Because of the Demcorates) Has ANYTHING to do with your post:

(Could it be that you were PROVEN WRONG and are trying to save face amoungst your Lefty Followers?)

"My my, don't much like to be reminded of history, do you? Look it up. Democrats have only recently championed the little guy. Before that they opposed not only the vote for women, but also the Civil Rights Bill. Little touchy, aren't you? And I'm not even a Republican.

But my original point is that Ireland is not living quite so far in the past as other posters have suggested and that we weren't any better until fairly recently."

I Am going to put a post on the Gov't site, that all POSTERS have to back their post with FACTS. (Myself included) How would that affect your Post????

Krell67: An example of these horrors coming to the U.S., the new Ohio law:

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_125

It is a "heartbeat" law that would have also killed Savita.

I am wondering when all the OB/gyns are going to move out of state. No more Cleveland Clinic etc., sorry.

More propaganda from the liberal left.

How can you democrats live with yourselves? You want everyone to have access to healthcare but only at a level which satisfies your needs. Nobody really needs to have govt. funded birth control or abortions.

Can't you see how one-sided you are becoming? Everyone else has.

@Times-Running-Out How about some more history. What preceded the Great Depression? A decade of Republican presidents and their economic policies. So? What do the parites stand for today? Both pretty much go for the status quo.

Times-Running-Out: What are you talking about? Are you suggesting what I posted was factually incorrect? Look it up yourself; I can't be bothered to educate you.

As for my bringing up votes for women, it was a further example of how backward we used to be as a nation regarding women's rights, just as we were regarding abortion. Since I have to connect the dots for you, it's all to do with posters looking down on Ireland when we weren't so different ourselves not so long ago.

AG99,

the particular people you speak of were Dixiecrat, democrats from the deep south. When the party changed into what it is today, more freedom and less religious control, all or at least most of the Dixiecrats fled and eventually found their way into the Republican party. I believe some of the hard Rightists in this country would find that their relatives were, in fact, Dixiecrats. I have a few of them in my family tree as well.

How about the middle east? How about Pakistan vs India? How about the World Trade Center? How about Northern Ireland, catholics vs. prodestants? How about Srilanka, buhdists vs. hindu?

There are way too many better examples. But this example brings it home personally.

It goes to show that Catholics aren't very far ahead of Muslims as far as women's reproductive rights are concerned.

It goes to show that most organized religions are the enemies of freedom.

it goes to show you that most secular religion are the enemies of intelligence

@JPC Was that supposed to be a dig at someone? Let's see, bad grammar, no punctuation, and using the term "secular religion," which is an oxymoron. Yeah, that's some grand intelligence right there.

Comparing us to Pakistan? IMHO, your standards are pretty low but we do have crazy christian taliban here just as the taliban is mid-east. Hopefully we have more sane folks than the insane.

@Lyaso Was that suppose to be a statement? Let's Secular religion is an oxymoron in your views yet the ones who express the most personal belief are mostly religiously secularist because they blame...or rather yet condemn religion (Christianity) for protecting the child from being aborted yet there was no news about a woman who died from Abortion because they care very little. Yep, it goes to show most secularist are the most bias because they want government handouts rather then fixing the problem for themselves. As for religion(Christianity), I think it would best if you stop condemning a noun when the verb is fleeing scot-free which mean you shouldn't be bias towards religion including other. Other wise, it will too conflicting.

The day we have a govt. truly free from religion, is when you will see the word COMMUNISM take place.

Then the cycle for freedom will begin all over again.

LIberal "atheistic" talibans: Stop perpetrating your ideals on the rest of society. We all know what happens to other countries as the result of your inhumane treatment.

It was one of the reasons why so many people decided to come to the US.

lonesome george: In the U.S.A., we almost elected a President who has these extreme right-wing views. His running mate, Ryan, co-sponsored a bill with Akin in the House that prevents abortion for any reason, and Republicans still stand by that, and they are the majority in the House. In some states such as Ohio, there is already a law, H.B. 125, which does not allow abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, as in Savita's case.

What many of these men don't know is that many women haven't skipped a period before the time when the heartbeat is detected. Many women bleed during their regular cycle at least for a month or two at the beginning of pregnancy; it isn't unusual.

What worries me is how much of the freedoms of women in America have already been taken away in the last few years, and it seems that few know this for some reason, and the result is that women have already died.

How a doctor who took an oath could watch this woman die...disgusting. Look at this closely, Americans. This is your future if there isn't separation of church and state.

Ram, I agree. They deliberately watched this woman suffer and die. Disgusting.

Republicans, will never allow separation of church and state. They believe this nation was founded as a Christian nation and they have the authority to force their Christian beliefs upon all people, but they do not have to abide by their beliefs they are forcing upon others. Just as they would demand the ten commandments be on display in all public buildings, but they exempt themselves from being expected to obey the ten commandments. Americans, wake up! Stop the old gray men from controlling the womens' body.

There would be no refusal for a 'medical procedure' if you're a candidate for the nomination to the presidency. Ask Santorum, don't expect a truthful answer, how they handled their last pregnancy upon learning the fetus had the same condition as their daughter.

This doctor, or these doctors, have violated their first ethical obligation: to the welfare of the patient. Licenses should be revoked.

Docjt, we are talking about Ireland; they do have laws putting doctors in prison for performing abortion. They even put parents in jail for taking their under aged daughter to England for abortion, this child was raped.

@Eric, this does happen here. See my post #2.4

Uh George, I said it could happen here, if certain politicians have their way.

Republicans, will never allow separation of church and state. They believe this nation was founded as a Christian nation and they have the authority to force their Christian beliefs upon all people, but they do not have to abide by their beliefs they are forcing upon others. Just as they would demand the ten commandments be on display in all public buildings, but they exempt themselves from being expected to obey the ten commandments. Americans, wake up! Stop the old gray men from controlling the womens' body.

GreaterGran101: You have a small-minded view that all Republicans are old and white and MALE. Stop with your lies. There are many women who vote Republican who can't stand to see the death of a child in any capacity. These women control their bodies just fine. They DO NOT NEED the govt. help to keep it in check for the choices they make. If anything, it is only liberal idiots who require help because they can't control themselves on their own.

As for the christians controlling people..... most prison inmates don't care about the 10 commandments or any christian ideologies, so therefore you have your PROOF of what your atheistic ideals really bring forth. Afterall, that really is the "WORLD WITHOUT GOD".

So spare us your liberal lectures when we can see the "facts" in our prisons.

How a doctor who took an oath could watch this woman die...disgusting. Look at this closely, Americans. This is your future if there isn't separation of church and state.

Ram: Actually that oath would apply to the unborn child as well...... You know " do no harm"....... so much for your twisted point of view.

Unhappy-1583758 #5.9~~WOW! Your screen name fits you very nicely. FYI, I am a Christian, with a strong faith in God. I am not a hypocrit. I do not judge the faith of anyone. I do not worship a political party. I do not believe religion or morality, could or should be legislated. I do agree with you, in that ALL women can, (not just republican women) control our bodies just fine. None of us need the government telling us what we can and/or can not do with our own body. I also agree with you, in that ALL women, (not just republican women) can make our own choices, without any help from the government. As for your radical rant, concerning atheist and prisoners, makes no sense to me. They have no relevance to my comment at all.

By the way, Jesus was God's son, not Mary. Why do they pray to Jesus' mother?

For the same reason reason pray to Jesus rather than God...idolatry. Believing in gods is just man's way of not having to take responsibility for their own existence and behavior.

culheath:

WRONG....

John 14:6: (NIV)

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me.

Wow. Okay the real problem is humans have serious control issues. Big ones. Mostly because they are afraid to get into any trouble with authority. And "No one comes to the Father except through me". Controlling much?

We can only worship in this manner at this place. You must parent as I say (and never as I did) to be a good parent. You must be successful, absolutely right all the time, on guard to protect yourself from the heretics, strongly support who ever you believe is right. ETC. ETC. But never be in or the cause of any trouble. Do nothing rather than something that pushes you to the front of the crowd.

This woman and her family are suffering because the very people they sought help from wanted to control the situation for their own personal benefit! Most staff/people/goodsamaritians/evildoers do not get involve to save their reputation from critics or fearing to put themself or family at risk of poverty or condemnation by standing up for the correct choice that really helps.

Their oath to their religion/philosophy is more important than their oath to medical care and helping humanity. Why don't we "let go and let 'God'"? Especially if that would allow us to use our 'God given" talents to really help and save humanity and the planet while 'God" does whatever it is a god really does.

Hmm. Think I have wanted to point this out for awhile. Oh well, tag you're it.

Materra: You obviously have a problem with Christians being controlling.

Yet, I have to wonder if you can't see how your own ideology has flaws. Afterall, killing an infant in the US is seen as an act of murder. But it is only liberals who can justify the reasoning behind one way to kill an infant, and not being allowed to do it in another way.

At least, you can say that christians are "consistent" with their ideology which is why we don't trust liberal views.

Times-Running-Out

culheath:

WRONG....

John 14:6: (NIV)

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me.

When Jesus was saying "I" or "me" in that statement, was he talking about Jesus the "carpenter's son" or was he speaking as the Christ? If you think they are the same thing, you are the one who is wrong. Jesus never once asked anyone to worship or to pray to God through him. When Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God it was in the knowledge that we are ALL sons of God.

Unhappy-1583758

At least, you can say that christians are "consistent" with their ideology which is why we don't trust liberal views.

Which is weird considering that Jesus was pretty much a liberal himself. Modern conservative Christians are for the most part idolators and control freaks who refuse to take responsibility for their own existence and insist on perpetuating the myth that God is "out there".

I mean when you think about it, God is the biggest abortionist of all. He created an entire world, filled it with all sorts of living beings and when he thought stuff was not going he wanted it, he just did the etch-a-sketch thing and flooded the place to death. I doubt all the folks he wiped out would consider the rainbow much compensation. And hey even the second version is pretty crappy...can't this God of yours get creation right even the second time?

Unhappy-1583758 #6.4~~WOW again! You really need to seek help! I and millions of Americans, are Christian and liberal, just as Jesus Christ. If you read your Holy Bible, you would learn Jesus was/is liberal. Liberals are not hypocrits. Republicans are hypocrits. If you do not know the definition of hypocrit, check webster. Liberals, live by the ten commandments, including non-Christian liberals. Republicans espouse displaying the ten commandments in public places, rather than living by them. (hypocrisy). Liberals, believe, we are ALL in this together and we care for all people, poor, sick, dis-abled, elderly and especially little children. Republicans hate, dems, GLBT's, women, minorities, blacks, Hispanics, seniors, poor, sick, dis-abled, all immigrants, President Obama, and children after they leave the womb. And you still worship the republican party.

Nope, it radical in-tolerates skeptic that is barred people from the truth about history. They are the ones who should be barred from interring from the truth about abortion. SMH

William: In front of cameras. Makes good copy.

Nora: I'm a conservative and a Catholic - no one is threatening to take away women's rights to birth control and contraception. You have certainly bought in to the incredible amount of misinformation that has been promoted by Barak Obama and company...by the way, when President Obama was in the Senate, he supported a law in Illinois that permitted abortion doctors to end the life of babies that happened to have the audacity to survive a "botched" abortion. Is that any more humane than what happened to the poor woman described in this article?

@juanita I love it when you people try to convince us that it was Obama telling us that Conservatives are against birth control and contraception. I never heard Obama say a damn thing about it; I heard that information directly from the Conservative's mouths.

Already at Catholic-owned hospitals.

And in Ohio, which up to this year had some of the best hospitals in the country (and the world, with people coming to Ohio for treatment from other countries), we now have a "heartbeat" law that would not have allowed the abortion of the fetus in Savita's case. Goodbye Cleveland Clinic! It was nice having great doctors here; I'm sure many will move out of state.

We ought to try and punish the people in government that passed these idiotic laws.

No, she was begging for them to ABORT the non-viable and dying fetus. She was NOT begging them to "save the baby". The husband was not begging them to "save the baby" ... they were begging for the doctors to save THE MOTHER'S LIFE.

She went to the hospital because she was worried about her pregnancy. She and her husband wanted that child. Doctors told her that her child was going to die, and then they let her die, too. They are murderers. And apparently by your choice of bold, you support killing a mother and wife, too.

Cat, please ignore my comment, I was trying to reply to someone else and for some reason this computer skipped to replying right under you.

I disagree. There are absolutely a few Talibanest nutj-obs that would happily do that - but the vast majority of religious Americans believe in the existing system and have no desire to merge their governments with their churches.

Have you listened to the GOP candidates lately? There sure are a lot of those "few Talibanest nut-jobs".

LOL. Agreed. But they did lose the election.

Thank God!

It's already started with charter schools. We're being taken for a ride, on taxpayer money. It takes a heap of reading and investigating.

Mifo: The repub/tparty taliban is biding their time, meanwhile the repub/tparty governed states will be doing their ALEC mandates. Sneaky and underhanded is how they work.

How are charter schools playing into this? They hold the teachers accountable for their quality of teaching based on educational standards not religious. In too many education systems once the teacher is tenured their quality of teaching wanes because they don't have to prove themselves anymore. I'm not a Republican by any stretch of the imagination but charter schools aren't religiously controlled.

Republicans lost the Presidency, and have fewer Republicans in the Senate, but still a majority in the House. And the billionaires spent their money on many states' positions. The Ohio statehouse, filled with Republicans (even though Ohio is not a Republican state; all those campaigns were supported by out of state money), passed a "heartbeat" law, not allowing abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. So don't think that we are safe because we won at the Presidential level. People, learn who is who in your state, and who votes what way, and please go to the polls in those "off-year" elections and vote with some knowledge and foresight. It could be the life of somebody you love that is endangered by these Talibanistas.

religion is not the problem. the problem is those who wish to push their religious views on others.

That number is far, far lower than the number of women killed by childbirth, Harry.

Add the fact that a lot of the terminated pregnancies were high-risk, and what you advocate is a huge rise in maternal mortality for the sake of your self-righteous ideology.

It's the WOMAN'S choice - not yours.

The U.S. maternal death rate is 21 per 100,000 pregnancies.

Abortion is much safer:

The CDC identified 12 abortion-related deaths in 2009.

I don't care what Christians think any more, bug off Harry!

And her death leads me to ask, where is the outrage for the women killed or permanently damaged, physically or psychologically, from LEGAL abortions?

There is less outrage over folks who enter into a procedure with eyes wide open. This woman was denied life-saving medical treatment against her will.

I almost died in the delivery of my now 6 year old son. I had a completely uncomplicated pregnancy, the only "high risk" was for genetic anomalies due to me being almost 37 when I got pregnant. My blood pressure bottomed out in the 19th hour of hard labor and I was taken for an emergency c-section to save my life and the life of my son. My SIL (husband's brother's wife) also had her blood pressure plummet during delivery of HER now 4 yo son. My sister has placenta previa and had to have an emergency c-section with her daughter. My brother's widow had a placental abruption with her second child at 27 weeks and nearly bled to death before her emergency c-section. Women find themselves with placenta accretia where the placenta attaches/burrows too deeply into the uterus and poses a danger of literally pulling the uterus inside out and THROUGH the birth canal if the woman doesn't have a c-section where the placenta can be surgically REMOVED from the uterus.

Yes, women still DIE every year from pregnancy and delivery related complications. Some of them have advanced warning that there is an issue, but many do not.

There was outrage. That's why enough people stood up to demand accessibility to safe and legal abortions instead of the kind women are left with when sterile, safe, and legal ones are banned. Perhaps you missed the truth of the situation before abortions were available from real doctors in real clinics. Where is your outrage about all the deaths and mutilations that happened before it was legal?

And there isn't any pro-abortion spin. No one goes around cheering for abortions and you know that if you know facts. This is about saving women's lives in some cases and on others giving the woman privacy and the choice about her body. It isn't about people being FOR abortions, but is about some being anti-choice.

ram, anyone who was born from the 70's on probably does not remember how it was before abortion was legal. They never really heard about the number of women who died horrible deaths from illegal back alley abortions (or worse yet, self inflicted abortions) as those of us who are older did. If they had, they might have a different perspective.

Harry and Brian are trolls....don't feed the trolls....notice they comment once and then they're gone? Hmmmm. Where is their noise when standing up and defending their positions after folks comment back to their nonsensical drivel?

Harry, just from personal experience--a friend of my mom's in the 1950's ended up hemorrhaging from an illegal abortion. I had friends/acquaintances from the 1980's, who obtained safe, legal abortions without physical or psychological damage--I still know 2 of them--no regrets what-so-ever about the choices. If you think they are coldhearted, you're wrong. They just understood the implications of the choice they faced at the time, and had the courage to take responsibility for making it- without allowing other people or institutions to make it for them.

What other banned medical procedures do you have in mind?

Lobotomy.

Dang. I was hoping for something more along the lines of The Island of Doctor Moreau...

Funny, Mifo. But I don't think Expatdownunda was even a beam in her dad's eye when you were watching "The Island of Doctor Moreau" on your grainy black and white RCA, so she wouldn't get the joke. That reminds me--she is probably a woman of child bearing age, so this is an important and meaningful topic for her. Why don't you mosey on over to the travel section--I think there is an article on the 10 best places to retire that you may find relevant.

There are also banned cancer treatments that are banned just because the FDA isn't getting its "fee" of more than a million dollars for putting the treatment on the market.

However, in just about every case, there is another country that will do the procedure. The trouble is, the poor can't just hop on a plane and go to where they can get the procedure, and somebody who is very sick like Savita can't get to the procedure either.

Ireland would have put her in jail if she had had the abortion and then returned to that country.

Would it matter if they moderated their view? For every radical on the pro-life side, there's another on the other side screaming that anyone should be able to get an abortion - no matter what the circumstances. They're both rigid in their positions.

But if our view ruled this woman would still be alive. How can you possibly justify her being killed?

I don't. I'm frustrated that nobody anywhere, any time can actually have an intelligent discussion on abortion because there are so many people at either end of the extreme ends of the spectrum. Watch this: all I've said is that we should have a discussion and people are going to completely lose their $ht on me because of it.

I don't think she should have died. I also don't think an individual doctor should be forced to perform an abortion if it goes against his beliefs. In a perfect world, maybe another doctor could have stepped in and dealt with it for him - but that didn't happen.

On the other end of the spectrum: there is a clinic that advertises in my local paper for early-term determination of the sex of your fetus. Why? Because there is a certain ethnic population here that prefers male babies over females. Gender selection via abortion. Absolutely disgusting (to me).

I don't hold the position that abortions should be outlaws. I'm just saying a moderate view might have a better chance. A moderate view would have saved this woman's life.

Mifo, I personally know a young woman who was informed at 18 weeks that the baby she was carrying had no stomach, half a kidney, a quarter of a brain and was incompatible with life. She went home and made a very tough decision with her fiancee to end the pregnancy ... but when she called the clinic back, the "pro-life" OB told her that she had to come in and discuss it with him. He then canceled her appointment more than once and took an "emergency vacation" until she was past the 22 week mark so that she couldn't terminate the pregnancy. He also then REFUSED to induce her labor at 37 weeks and forced her to go into labor naturally. The state that she lived in does not give birth certificates unless it's a live birth ... and doesn't classify a birth as a live birth unless the baby lives for at least an HOUR after delivery. She knew that the likelihood of this very low, and in fact her baby died 44 minutes after delivery. The NURSES prevented the doctor from going into her room until an hour and 5 minutes had passed so that she could at least have a birth certificate.

The OB put her through emotional and psychological TORTURE as she continued to carry this baby for half of her pregnancy KNOWING that it would die shortly after birth and that she probably wouldn't even wind up with a birth certificate to show that the pregnancy happened. He did this KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY. She is on disability and so she couldn't go to anybody EXCEPT this OB and he KNEW she had no other recourse. She exemplifies the reason why the pro-choice side is so adamant that the WOMAN'S choice should be paramount. And pro-choice people are pro-ALL choices - including having a baby and giving it up for adoption or having a baby and keeping it, even if it means that the mother and child will need WIC or food stamps to get by and Medicaid for the baby to take care of it.

Cat - that's a terrible thing.

And, guess what, right-wingers? Her medical bill probably went on Medicaid - so you got to pay for it.

Bummer - nobody lost it on me (yet, anyway).

Cat: that is horrific and unforgivable on the part of the "doctor".

hard to blame the doctor who followed the law. seems to me the problem is the law and this is far from the first country to experience this. hapen in south america where a mother was dieing of cancer but could'nt take treatment because the treatement endangered the unborn baby

There should be a complete ban on interference in women's health issues. The word is CHOICE. It is of no business to anyone about a woman's personal life. No one, not a government, legislator, insurance, religious, not anyone. You do not compromise. The word is CHOICE.

And what of the baby's health issues? I am pretty sure killing the baby is a pretty serious violation to his or her health issues. If the most innocent form of life can not be protected then what have we come to as a culture?

Mr Gday, if you are not going to take the time read in full, please deprive us of your ignorant, ill-informed posts.

Mifo and others: Doctors consider it medically necessary to abort pregnancies that occur outside the uterus. Any surgeon will do that abortion, because otherwise the woman will die. What is the difference between removing the "products of conception" in a fallopian tube or abdomen outside the uterus, and removing the "products of conception" that are dying because of a decaying placenta inside a uterus?

Eric-2189088,

I was responding to the comment of earthgirl not the article in general. It was on the overall case of abortion, i believe the women should have recieved an abortion in a case like that but as a means of birth control abortion is utterly and completely immoral and wrong

Your tax dollars should be used to uphold the Constitution if you want to continue living here, and your repressive notions about turning America into a Christian nation don't match the Constitution.

I eagerly await judgment from your god, which actually is never going to happen. Do you people realize that the United States is built upon the notion of religious freedom, meaning that your god doesn't get to make the rules for people with other beliefs?

Of course you don't, you people never do. You think that relgious freedom means the freedom to force everyone to live by your beliefs, because you're the only ones who are right. Even though most of the world believes totally different things.

Sigh.

Deleted

Apparently you can not read. I am not trying to push my religion on anybody. But do not expect me and my hard earned dollar to pay for your life choices either. What part of I do not believe religion and government belong together do you not understand. Oh, by the way, I know you do not like this but....our forefathers and the people that elected them in the beginning were very religious. Take a quick look at that bill in your pocket.

And our constitution keeps us from being persecuted by the government for our religious beliefs. So, instead oh reading the constitution as you see it, you just might want to read it in line with how it was written. But then again, you libs believe it is a living breathing document. If you believe that then we "religious nut jobs" have a right to make it a living breathing document also.

1. Read about the Hyde Amendment.

2. "In God We Trust" wasn't added to our money until the 1950's.

3. This country was not based on religion, no matter how the Founding Fathers personally felt.

Apparently, you have not read the Declaration of Independence.

I have read the Declaration, and I'm not sure why you brought that up.

Just another RWNJ who can't/won't do even the slightest amount of research into the meaning of 'natural God' in the Declaration. The religious right has been willfully misinterpeting that for years....

so no roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, airports

my what a country you would have

titansidewinder does not know of what he speaks

Umm. Sources, please? I mean real ones....

Are you sure you're not talking about how many fetuses died?

(That number seems a little high to me)

According to the CDC, there were 12 abortion related deaths in the US in 2009. Now, not every state reports about abortions to the CDC, but even if we times that nunber by 10, we're still only getting 120 possible deaths, which would be no where near the 10,000 that you're claiming "truth"Speaker.

This is a simple Google search as these statistics are part of public record, and 1TruthSpeaker is totally making things up. There are generally less than 10 abortion fatalities each year.

So I think what we're saying here is that 1TruthSeaker is either a liar or an idiot (or both).

Does anyone ever consider what happens to all those unwanted babies born into this world, with parents who didn't want them? The Catholic Church's dontrine of unlimited child birth created a whole world of childern who either starved to death in famines, or became criminals and miscreants, or lived their whole lives in poverty and misery, just because they weren't aborted... it's called the third world ... a world created so the "Divine right of Kings" could prosper in creating a world of slaves to do their work for them. Finally this third world is wising up to the ways of religious organizations that have ulterior motives that are actually only the power hungry commands of people who want to force their beliefs on others. All human beings should be brought into this world into a loving and caring family, if abortion is the way to achieve that, then at the very least early abortion and abortion for extraordinary circumstances should be allowed!

1: FALSE. Did you get that info from Akin or Mourdoch?

Does anyone ever consider what happens to all those unwanted babies born into this world, with parents who didn't want them? The Catholic Church's dontrine of unlimited child birth created a whole world of childern who either starved to death in famines, or became criminals and miscreants, or lived their whole lives in poverty and misery, just because they weren't aborted... it's called the third world ... a world created so the "Divine right of Kings" could prosper in creating a world of slaves to do their work for them. Finally this third world is wising up to the ways of religious organizations that have ulterior motives that are actually only the power hungry commands of people who want to force their beliefs on others. All human beings should be brought into this world into a loving and caring family, if abortion is the way to achieve that, then at the very least early abortion and abortion for extraordinary circumstances should be allowed!

So basically murdering the innocent is the solution?? That sounds humane...

O and how can you say things such as that about the Catholic Church when they are sending out immense number of missionaries to help serve the poor and less fortunate. There is a reason the Catholic Church has so many people declared Saints.

mr gday --

A human being begins after the first trimester; your beliefs about just what a human being is -- is just that -- a belief, as are your beliefs about a soul; if or if not it really exists! Life on this earth is REAL, not a belief. A fetus that never left the womb is not a human being in any sense of the word; but those unwanted childern are -- the same ones your missionaries created until the mid seventeenth century -- and let starve to death. The Catholic Church has a lot to atone for, but it just keeps making the same mistakes over and over again.

A fetus doesn't suffer until its born, but those unwanted childern are suffering right now; stop trying to force your beliefs on others! True Saints try to truly stop the suffering on this earth, not keep producing it by forcing their beliefs on others!

Obviously you have not educated yourself, any medical textbook will state that life begins at CONCEPTION. A baby begins to have a heartbeat as early as its 3rd week. Not that is not a "belief" that is a medical fact.

Also, how am i trying to force my beliefs? I spoke my opinion you disagreed with it. But my "belief" as it may be is also agreed with through scientific research.

When it comes to "my" missionaries, they let those children starve? Excuse me if you have found an answer to world hunger? Is your answer population control?

The Decleration states everyone has a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That doesn't mean everyone has to be born into a loving and caring family. It is sad to see broken families. However when you do not allow life you are not allowing the person to pursue happiness. Happiness is viewed differntly by every person however you cannot achieve happiness if you do not have life.

I love it when men like you call women whores for having sex. Because, you know, it has nothing to do with the men keeping their zippers closed.

I can tell that you're one of those "legitimate rape" people, given that you've made a number of comments about the evils of loose women who "can't keep their legs closed".

You're a real charmer, you are.

titan, your "statistics" have absolutely nothing to do with your conclusion. That would be because you had your conclusion, then went looking for data you might twist to claim it supported your position.

Zipper cant do nothing until those legs come open. There were 90,000 rapes in 2011. In 2011, there were 1.1 million abortions. So, knowing these numbers, do you not think that women should be a little more conservative with having unprotected sex.

Give me a break. This kind of thinking is absurd. Men can not have abortions, but I guess you did not know that.

You do know that birth control is not 100% effective, and can fail. Not all those women were having "unprotected" sex.

It is also estimated that roughly half of all rapes go unreported.

"Zipper can't do nothing until those legs come open."

Oh, because once the woman's legs come open the dude is helpless to resist? LOL.

Again, Personal Responsibility. But, I guess you do not get it. Enough said.

Personal responsibility is a two-way street, Titan, and yet in all of your comments -- every single one -- you've NEVER mentioned a man's responsibility. Not once. You have, however, waxed poetic about the sluts who can't keep their legs closed.

Because you think women are whores, as you've clearly said. And that, Titan, is why you're a laughing stock.

Convenient that there's no equivalent "personal responsibility" for the man involved, eh?

No chance that that joined sperm and egg is going to kill him off.

If there were such a chance, I can guarantee you we wouldn't still be arguing over the right to an abortion.

titansidewinder (#23)

How stupid can you get???

Men need to keep it in their pants with the pants (permanently) zipped up. You best do that. We certainly don't need more people with your kind of ignorance and stupidity around.......

Quit making the assinine statement (directly or indirectly) that it's all a woman's fault if she gets pregnant.

Seems to me it takes 2 to tango, or have you forgotten?

Guess what folks, as one made the statement "seems to me like somebody needs to keep their legs closed until they are ready to have children" isn't going to happen and "we all know that don't we, even if we don't say it". Lets face the facts and tell it like it is: Majority of people (unless you are Muslim and/or of a culture where you are not supposed to have sex and/or children until married), have sex before they get married, that's a fact. Let's not point no fingers here and judge nobody like we're the innocent saints here and/or better people "because the majority who judge are far from that. People don't be in such a haste to judge. How many of us so called people who point fingers have children from other women that our wives don't know about?? How many men "have sex with women who get pregnant from them and then try to kill the women?, I guess that's the woman's fault too ha?? How many men who are married go out there cheating on their wives not using comdoms??, which is how the women they cheat with get pregnant and the man also risks taking home a disease to his unsuspecting wife??, which is how the wives find out at times that their husband is cheating. Yes it takes two to tango folks. Don't point a finger at any one person. Even when a person does not get pregnant and/or does not get someone pregnant, that does not mean they are not running around with every la-de-da. Just for the record, when it comes to the men a lot of them who are divorced and/or have broken up relationships, often it has been because they were cheating (with the woman's friend). I have been told by many women that their ex is now married to their friend who they found out "way later" was in a relationship with their partner and they did not know what was going on.

titansidewinder#23~~So, you are saying 84.3% of abortions, had the fetal seed planted by un-wed fathers?????

I'm a man and find titans statements revolting. Good God you are pathetic. and GreatGran I'm sure that number is way less just because of extramarital affairs and the man (being wealthy or otherwise) doesn't want to "face the music" by having to pay child support. So they pay for an abortion and maybe even going so far as making the appointment, driving the woman there and sitting there until it's done.

titansidewinder~~How many children do you have?

TCLucas~~Do you think titan will honestly answer my question on #23.14? How will he ever explain??

I hope that titiansidewinder has no children, no contact with children, and does not pass along his hateful ideology to any other humans.

Rick-881466,

"Civilized nations should recall their ambassadors and expel Irelands?" Really, would you do that in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, and Egypt? Because at last count, they don't allow abortion either. Or do you just have a hatred for Catholics?

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you, Rick.

I would agree Rick, although it would be simpler to boycott travel and purchases from Ireland and also many other countries that are so terrible to women. (Robin doesn't seem to understand that people are outraged at Ireland because it is a European nation that should have European laws, and people assume Christian means compassionate, not intolerant control freaks.)

But we also need to work on our laws at home here; many states have very restrictive laws, such as in Ohio, its new heartbeat law, and Catholic-owned hospitals already have heartbeat rules they follow in the U.S.