woman dies for want of a abortion

[Mike Sheehy]

Nobody, other than the extreme loopers on either side has any difficulty with the moral choices when they are clear cut. But, like most reasonable people, I struggle with the choices at the boundaries, where matters do not so easily fall into well-defined categories. I do envy the certainty of those who can pronounce with assurance on the moral issues in these grey areas.

+1

Well said. The world is grey. It always has been and it always will be.

[guy crouchback]

This case appears to be more straightforward legally.

If the above is correct, then the mother's life isn't at risk, sadly.

This is really tough for the family, and the inevitable media attention (along with the horrible prospect of the two extreme groups getting involved) will make it horrible for them. But with the mother gone, surely the medics have to fight for the infant?

this is a terribly tragic case and its grotesque that this families suffering has to be played out in public. whatever your feelings on abortion i think at this stage its fair to say  that the 8th amendment is proving its self to be a bit of a disaster. it has sparked 30 years of hard cases going to court and  referendum after referendum not to mention the appalling state of affairs where babies who cannot live outside the womb have to be brought to term.

all  the while we have more or less the same abortion rate as every other European country only we have ours in England.

in relation to the quote from Muppet above, there was an interesting discussion on primtime last night  regarding similar cases in the US. the problem with  equal right to life argument is that the mother is dead, how can you have an equal right to life with a corpse?

[muppet]

This case appears to be more straightforward legally.

If the above is correct, then the mother's life isn't at risk, sadly.

This is really tough for the family, and the inevitable media attention (along with the horrible prospect of the two extreme groups getting involved) will make it horrible for them. But with the mother gone, surely the medics have to fight for the infant?

this is a terribly tragic case and its grotesque that this families suffering has to be played out in public. whatever your feelings on abortion i think at this stage its fair to say  that the 8th amendment is proving its self to be a bit of a disaster. it has sparked 30 years of hard cases going to court and  referendum after referendum not to mention the appalling state of affairs where babies who cannot live outside the womb have to be brought to term.

all  the while we have more or less the same abortion rate as every other European country only we have ours in England.

in relation to the quote from Muppet above, there was an interesting discussion on primtime last night  regarding similar cases in the US. the problem with  equal right to life argument is that the mother is dead, how can you have an equal right to life with a corpse?

Can you explain please? I see one entity with a right to life not in conflict with any equal right. But I missed the show so didn't hear the argument.

[guy crouchback]

I'm not really in a position to explain it as it was quite technical and they were 2 contrasting cases used, but the crux of it was that a judge in Texas ( i think) ruled  that brain death equalled death, therefore the law as it stood ( no doubt different to ours)  was not applicable, as would itt be when dealing with a living person.

William binchy the pro life lawyer was on with Miriam after this discussion and while he did not explicitly state it, i got the impression that he expects a similar outcome in the high court here, he was at pains to state that this was not a case about abortion or termination or even the 8th amendment, although i thought he was having difficult explaining what exactly it was about then.

Susan mc kay was opposing him with the argument that it was very much about the 8th and i though she got the better of it, although binchy was more convincing  then he usually is.

[muppet]

I'm not really in a position to explain it as it was quite technical and they were 2 contrasting cases used, but the crux of it was that a judge in Texas ( i think) ruled  that brain death equalled death, therefore the law as it stood ( no doubt different to ours)  was not applicable, as would itt be when dealing with a living person.

William binchy the pro life lawyer was on with Miriam after this discussion and while he did not explicitly state it, i got the impression that he expects a similar outcome in the high court here, he was at pains to state that this was not a case about abortion or termination or even the 8th amendment, although i thought he was having difficult explaining what exactly it was about then.

Susan mc kay was opposing him with the argument that it was very much about the 8th and i though she got the better of it, although binchy was more convincing  then he usually is.

Is there a definition under Irish Law for when life begins? As in if the pregnancy is less than or more than so many weeks gone?

Other than some technical reason like that, I personally can't see the right of a deceased individual trumping the right to live.

[seafoid]

I'm not really in a position to explain it as it was quite technical and they were 2 contrasting cases used, but the crux of it was that a judge in Texas ( i think) ruled  that brain death equalled death, therefore the law as it stood ( no doubt different to ours)  was not applicable, as would itt be when dealing with a living person.

William binchy the pro life lawyer was on with Miriam after this discussion and while he did not explicitly state it, i got the impression that he expects a similar outcome in the high court here, he was at pains to state that this was not a case about abortion or termination or even the 8th amendment, although i thought he was having difficult explaining what exactly it was about then.

Susan mc kay was opposing him with the argument that it was very much about the 8th and i though she got the better of it, although binchy was more convincing  then he usually is.

Is there a definition under Irish Law for when life begins? As in if the pregnancy is less than or more than so many weeks gone?

Other than some technical reason like that, I personally can't see the right of a deceased individual trumping the right to live.

The Constitution is not the place for this issue.
The law as framed can't handle situations like this.
And when foreign women need an abortion in Ireland it's just as bad. 

[guy crouchback]

I'm not really in a position to explain it as it was quite technical and they were 2 contrasting cases used, but the crux of it was that a judge in Texas ( i think) ruled  that brain death equalled death, therefore the law as it stood ( no doubt different to ours)  was not applicable, as would it be when dealing with a living person.

William binchy the pro life lawyer was on with Miriam after this discussion and while he did not explicitly state it, i got the impression that he expects a similar outcome in the high court here, he was at pains to state that this was not a case about abortion or termination or even the 8th amendment, although i thought he was having difficult explaining what exactly it was about then.

Susan mc kay was opposing him with the argument that it was very much about the 8th and i though she got the better of it, although binchy was more convincing  then he usually is.

Is there a definition under Irish Law for when life begins? As in if the pregnancy is less than or more than so many weeks gone?

Other than some technical reason like that, I personally can't see the right of a deceased individual trumping the right to live.

just thinking out loud here but could it be that the law states that  the baby (foetus) has an equal right to life to its mothers right, as opposed to both of them having an ''equal right to life'' in general.  if its an equal right to life as its mothers ( the mother) right then the mother being deceased causes a major problem.
if its an equal right to A life , as its mother and everyone else had/has, then i think the point your making stands.

I'm not sure if what i have just written makes much sense.

[LeoMc]

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

My reading of that is that the state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn but that does not trump the right to life of the mother.  As the mother in this case is sadly no longer with us then the right to life of the child is the only consideration.

[seafoid]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1219/667944-eighth-amendment/

Joan Burton said difficult situations arise and the people she would want to see around the bed were the doctors, not the lawyers.

[muppet]

I'm not really in a position to explain it as it was quite technical and they were 2 contrasting cases used, but the crux of it was that a judge in Texas ( i think) ruled  that brain death equalled death, therefore the law as it stood ( no doubt different to ours)  was not applicable, as would it be when dealing with a living person.

William binchy the pro life lawyer was on with Miriam after this discussion and while he did not explicitly state it, i got the impression that he expects a similar outcome in the high court here, he was at pains to state that this was not a case about abortion or termination or even the 8th amendment, although i thought he was having difficult explaining what exactly it was about then.

Susan mc kay was opposing him with the argument that it was very much about the 8th and i though she got the better of it, although binchy was more convincing  then he usually is.

Is there a definition under Irish Law for when life begins? As in if the pregnancy is less than or more than so many weeks gone?

Other than some technical reason like that, I personally can't see the right of a deceased individual trumping the right to live.

just thinking out loud here but could it be that the law states that  the baby (foetus) has an equal right to life to its mothers right, as opposed to both of them having an ''equal right to life'' in general.  if its an equal right to life as its mothers ( the mother) right then the mother being deceased causes a major problem.
if its an equal right to A life , as its mother and everyone else had/has, then i think the point your making stands.

I'm not sure if what i have just written makes much sense.

It makes sense alright. I really hope it doesn't go down that road.

[guy crouchback]

the notion of keeping the body of a dead woman artificially alive to act as a human incubator for the next 3 and half months at least against the wishes of her family is extraordinary.
its tragic that this poor young woman should suffer such a terrible fate  but in my opinion her foetus should be allowed to pass away with her, if that's what her family want. even if its not what what her family want I'm not sure  the alternative  strikes me as very ethical.

[laoislad]

I keep hearing people mention her family. Can anyone tell me is this her husband and father of the unborn child or is it the girls parents/brothers/sisters?
I'm just interested as I find it odd the father of the child hasn't been mentioned.
God forbid if I was in this position but if the doctors told me that my unborn child could be saved then I would want them to do everything they could to save him. If that meant keeping my wife on a life support machine then so be it.
I haven't asked my wife her opinion yet but I'm pretty sure she would want to do the same thing.

[foxcommander]

the notion of keeping the body of a dead woman artificially alive to act as a human incubator for the next 3 and half months at least against the wishes of her family is extraordinary.
its tragic that this poor young woman should suffer such a terrible fate  but in my opinion her foetus should be allowed to pass away with her, if that's what her family want. even if its not what what her family want I'm not sure  the alternative  strikes me as very ethical.

The child should have a chance to live. If the family don't want it there are plenty who would love the chance to raise him/her.
I can think of no reason why you would stop something good happening from a tragic situation.

[Maguire01]

You'd like to believe if the mother was still alive she'd be fighting tooth and nail for the child. You wouldn't think it from the press coverage so far.

If the mother was still alive the situation wouldn't exist.

[blast05]

I keep hearing people mention her family. Can anyone tell me is this her husband and father of the unborn child or is it the girls parents/brothers/sisters?
I'm just interested as I find it odd the father of the child hasn't been mentioned.
God forbid if I was in this position but if the doctors told me that my unborn child could be saved then I would want them to do everything they could to save him. If that meant keeping my wife on a life support machine then so be it.
I haven't asked my wife her opinion yet but I'm pretty sure she would want to do the same thing.

Agreed.
I can't help but feel the media stories about the family wanting to end the life of the mother are unsubstantiated and driven by a media that wants a liberal abortion regime. Even if this is not the case, i nonetheless find it very disturbing the the #repealthe8th fanatics are hi-jacking this tragic story to push their agenda.
And their agenda is to ultimately remove constitutional protection for the unborn thus effectively bringing in abortion on demand.... a horrendous proposition for me.
Let this case play out and keep the abortion debate/discussion completely seperate.