NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > Periscope > Irish government and Catholic hierarchy need to disavow reasons for death of pregnant woman -- Will they stand up and be counted on wrong application of Catholic doctrine?

Periscope by Niall O'Dowd

Irish government and Catholic hierarchy need to disavow reasons for death of pregnant woman -- Will they stand up and be counted on wrong application of Catholic doctrine?

Posted on Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 07:29 AM

Larger Text

E-mail

36 Comments

RSS

36 comments

Next Page 1 of 3 pages

jacersagain | Nov 25, 2012, 09:32 AM EST

BTW eiriamach - I was only 'slagging' you (as we Dublin people say) or bantering in saying the dotty dolt remark. You know well how much I respect your posts (and you) on ICentral even if I don't always agree with them. Long live lively debate...

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 25, 2012, 09:26 AM EST

There goes eiriamach twisting and turning things around once again! Please read my comments under the Lennon confirmation topic. If anyone is making an ‘ad hominem’ mistake it is Lennon, and by extension, eiriamach since she supports his stance – both are pandering to ‘herd-mentality’ emotions of other people on the issue of gay marriage, which intrinsically of its own can never be a fact, thus showing them up as incapable of objective thinking on the subject. Lennon, in my view, showed his immaturity in supporting an unattainable objective: the Sacrament of Matrimony will never be bestowed by gay people upon one another in a Catholic Church. My initial point under that article was that some comments agreed that a 12yr (as I believed until I read that Lennon was 17) knew or had more sense more than the priest. I qualified that later in saying that a 17yr old would have a smattering more sense than a 12yr old but that still didn’t mean Lennon would have the mature learned sense of the priest. Lennon is wrong imo to support a subject unacceptable to the Church he was baptised in. It is Lennon and eiriamach who are ‘ad hominem’ in their thinking on the issue.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Nov 24, 2012, 01:17 PM EST

Jacers, "twistings and turnings"? It seems you're trying to twist and turn your way out of a mistake. On Nov 20, commenting on the article "Boy is refused confirmation after he expresses support for gay marriage," you wrote, "Some are saying a 12 yr old boy ... knows better than a highly trained, educated adult priest? And a lot of posters below think Lennon’s more right than the priest? Good God...." Then, after I pointed out your ad hominem mistake (thinking age was relevant to the truth or falsehood of a person's words), you doubled down on your mistake and replied, "you must be in your dotty years." I thought you were making a joke--LOL! But now I realize that you, Jacers, do not know the difference between a relevant fact and an irrelevant fact. Lennon's age is irrelevant to the question whether he's right or wrong. It's also irrelevant to the question whether my thinking about Savita's case is right or wrong. If you cannot defend your view, you attack the person who holds an opposing view rather than criticizing the opposing view itself. It's a common move, but a mistake nonetheless, and it persuades no thinking person. No trait such as age, faith or atheism, gender or sexual orientation, educational level, etc. can guarantee the truth of our words or falsify them.

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 24, 2012, 04:49 AM EST

As an example of my attempts to lightening up serious debate, have you heard this one? Three men die on Christmas Eve and stand before St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. Peter says “Since it is Christmas time, you each must produce a Christmas theme before I let you pass through the Gates”. The first man digs into his pockets and produces a cigarette lighter, flicks it alight and says “It’s a Candle!” Peter smiles and passes him through the Gates. The 2nd man digs into his pocket and produces a bunch of keys and jangles them under Peter’s nose “They’re Bells!” he says, and is let through the Gates. The third man puts his hand into his pocket… nothing; he frantically rummages through all of his pockets and finally pulls out just a pair of women’s red panties. Peter lifts his eyebrows, glaring questioningly at him… The man says “They’re Carol’s!”

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 24, 2012, 04:04 AM EST

Ah for flip’s sake eiriamach, would ye ever give over your twisting and turnings! I never said anywhere that 17-yr olds were incapable of conscious decisions. I said, early in the discussion about Lennon’s case, that I assumed that Lennon was a 12-yr old, because in Ireland 12 yr-olds make their confirmation to Christianity. I also said that I’d prefer young adults to confirm themselves as Christians at age 17/18, not 12/13 yrs old as In Ireland. I also said, later on, that, on discovering Lennon’s real age of 17, he would have a smattering of more sense than a 12-yr old and should therefore be capable of a young adult’s sense of judgement but still not that of a fully-educated trained priest. Now please give over your gimlet eye interpretations and misrepresentations of what I said, you darling dolt. (You should know by now that I often try to introduce a smattering of humour or banter in my ICentral posts to lighten the seriousness of topics. Bantering does not equate to insulting comments; pardon me if the written word doesn't get that intended lightheartedness across... as a woman from Sligo might say, "the pin is mightier than the sword". We all know she means 'pen' but the Sligo accent pronounces it 'pin', giving a totally different meaning to the phrase).

Report abuse

eiriamach | Nov 23, 2012, 08:36 AM EST

I know I have no say in Irish law, but women's issues have a global scope, and it's 'clear as a bell' to me that Ireland must repeal Article 40.3.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann in order to avoid more tragedies of this kind. ------------- Jacers, you're a stitch! On the IC article about the young man whom the priest refused to confirm, you argued that the 17-year-old was too young to know anything; here, you argue that I'm too old to know anything ("dotty dolt-stage years")! Now tell us all please, who do you think is just old enough to know something-- you? Niall? Your friends the priests? Alice in Wonderland (Lewis Carroll at least knew a fallacy of logic when he saw one)?

Report abuse

eiriamach | Nov 23, 2012, 08:20 AM EST

The bishops are in accord with the Constitution. But when pregnancy endangers the life of a woman, 'equal' protection of her life and that of the 'unborn' results, in practice, in sacrificing one life to a hope of preserving the other. The difficulty this equal valuing tries to avoid is the awful choice of which life to preserve and which one to abandon. Savita's doctors apparently refused to abandon the life of the fetus in order to fight an infection that was, ironically, killing the fetus and soon would kill Savita because her body could not abort naturally, spontaneously. To survive, she needed medical assistance for the efforts of her body to abort the fetus. Allegedly, doctors repeatedly refused her that assistance. They refused to make that difficult choice to end the life of the unborn until its heart stopped beating, at which point the difficulty disappeared. But by that time, it was too late to save Savita. By refusing to choose, they chose by default to let her die; choice was unavoidable. Trying to make the right to life of the fetus 'equal' to the pregnant woman's right to life, they deprived her of her life. Where's the equality of rights? 'Equal right to life' is an illusion in this situation. In practice, Article 40.3.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann functions as an excuse for doctors to avoid making onerous decisions.

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 22, 2012, 06:19 PM EST

Actually, I agree somewhat with eiramach saying that it was once taught (not thought) that saving the life of the child in the womb (the foetus) was more paramount than the life of the mother (because a new soul was being born to a woman whose soul had lived long enough in “God’s Plan of Life”, as I once heard a Christian Brother say back in my school days). But that was as learned in our Irish Catholic schools… the Vatican website says differently, quoting eminent scholars and Popes throughout Christian history from its earliest days. And I think the recent Irish Bishops statement follows the Vatican’s line which concords with earliest Christian teaching. I pity any woman who has had an abortion on demand reading the teachings; they are harsh but, sadly, excruciatingly undeniably true. Given what it exhorts politicians of every state in the world to legislate on, on the topic, it is no wonder that Irish people of largely Catholic and Protestant hue, including its politicians, find it difficult to address the Irish Supreme Court’s judgement on the ‘X’ case and on the European Court’s judgement on the ‘A',‘B’, and 'C’ cases. They may think these Courts got their judgements wrong. I think so.

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 22, 2012, 06:09 PM EST

Well all I can say back to eiriamach about the accuracy of what I quoted of the Irish Bishops’ statement is that the words were copied from an Irish Times report of it, pasted into my ICentral post. If she has a beef about it (in the interst of equality let's say: a cow’s one?? ouch!! No better not!), I suggest she takes it up with the Bishops and not this poor jacers, an ordinary family man of the native Irish community, attacked and beaten black and blue every time by dotty eiriamach, no matter what he says in his honesty. She has it in for jacersagain, pointedly picking up jacers' comments, twisting them around to splurge her own agenda, quoting many other peoples’ ideas and thoughts (rather than revealing her own humanity's independent thoughts and beliefs) more often than she picks up on others’ comments. I’m beginning to think she’s a disavowed Catholic nun or schoolteacher. Is it because what I try to post is true and doesn’t meet her objectives?? Ah, well never mind (this jacers doesn’t), it seems she’s approaching dotty dolt stage years (Shakespeare’s thespians’ 7th age) as evidenced by her constant “rise out” (that’s English for the Gaelic “eiriamach”) rantings. They’re very good though, always worth a read and listening to, if not always sensible.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Nov 22, 2012, 07:47 AM EST

Eamonn, how many of those "eleven women" who "died from septicaemia, in the very same situation" but died in England last year were Irish citizens who could not obtain help terminating their problem pregnancies in Irish hospitals? Septicemia is often lethal. Survival requires prompt, aggressive treatment, which is not available to pregnant women in Irish hospitals, as this case tells us. If a woman must travel to obtain help in such a situation, I wouldn't expect a high rate of survival. So how many of those fatalities were Irish women? Do you know?

Report abuse

eiriamach | Nov 21, 2012, 09:53 PM EST

Jacers, if your account is accurate, the bishops knocked down a straw man, an over-simplification of the opposing argument. Many of us were taught in Catholic school that it is wrong to prefer the life of the mother to the life of the fetus (it is not a "baby," and it is not a "child" before it is born and certainly not at four months' gestation). So when the bishops deny ever teaching that the life of the fetus should be preferred to that of the mother, they simply mis-state their actual teaching and then deny that they ever taught the mis-stated view! What was it that the Taoiseach said about the "gimlet eye of a canon lawyer"? Do you expect very many people to be taken in by that "explanation"? The situation is analogous to canon law protecting "equally" (1) the right to due process of the victim of a sexually abusive priest and (2) the reputation of the accused priest. It is in practice impossible to do both, so the right of the accused cancels out the right of the alleged victim. The right of the "unborn" cancels out the right of the pregnant woman, "clear as a bell" as you say. In practice it's impossible to protect both lives when continuing the pregnancy deprives a woman of her life.

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 21, 2012, 02:51 AM EST

BTW, in the context of what has been put out there by the media re Savita’s tragic death, the Irish Bishops have come out to say that the Church “has never taught that the life of a child in the womb should be preferred to that of a mother”. They also say “whereas abortion is the direct and intentional destruction of an unborn baby and is gravely immoral in all circumstances, this is different from medical treatments which do not directly and intentionally seek to end the life of the unborn baby… Current law and medical guidelines in Ireland allow nurses and doctors in Irish hospitals to apply this vital distinction.” They added: “Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.” So there you have it, clear as a bell. I doubt any medic said the words “This is a Catholic country” to Praveen or Savita during her treatment for sepsis, which is what was actually ailing Savita, not her unborn baby.

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 21, 2012, 02:32 AM EST

It is really disappointing that Niall should have written this assumption-filled article before the facts of the case have been established. I read somewhere that he appeared on Al-Jazeera TV, spouting the same rubbish. Sorry to say, forget about Gabriel Byrne and his disservice to The Gathering event… it pales in significance compared to what Niall has done to Ireland’s maternity care image with his huge disservice by this article and his ill-informed ‘Head hanging in shame’ ranting appearance on Al Jazeera TV, if what I read is true. I would at least expect that he “Man-up” and apologise… on both ICentral and Al Jazeera TV for getting it so wrong above “Wrong application of Catholic doctrine” – that had nothing to do with Savita’s death at all - and for putting all the wrongness “out there”.

Report abuse

EamonnDublin | Nov 18, 2012, 11:35 AM EST

What on earth is all this stuff from Niall O'Dowd? It appears to be a totally unqualified and unjustifiable vicious and hateful anti-Catholic rant. Mr. O'Dowd, in England last year, eleven women died from septicaemia, in the very same situation as this Indian lady in Ireland. England HAS abortion, virtually on demand, and it is NOT a Catholic country. So what the hell are you talking about mister? Éamonn, Dublin.

Report abuse

misneac | Nov 17, 2012, 08:12 PM EST

Why do you sensationalise this article by endeavouring to apportion blame on the Irish Catholic hierarchy ? The present Government of Ireland has an anti-Catholic agenda promoted primarily by self confessed atheists like Gilmore and Quinn .These people have not implemented the existing legislation already approved under the Constitution .Had they done so the recent tragedy may have been averted .The Catholic Church can not be blamed in this instance .Also,the hysterical reaction in India is ridiculous when one considers the record of that country on the rights of women and children .It needed the heroic efforts of an Albanian nun (Mother Theresa )educated in Ireland to rescue the slum children of Calcutta !

Report abuse

Next Page 1 of 3 pages