Very few

then why bother making a policy around it

Because it would save a life?

the child is effectively dead and the birth can be completely harmless to the mother

Or not put the mother through the crippling mental anguish of carrying around effectively a dead body inside her till birth

BUT in the rare case that it is not, I think its allowed since the childs spirit already left the body

School shootings are rare it doesnt mean they can be dismissed

its called a miscarriage again

the child is brain dead

And removing it is an abortion apparently

this is retarded argument, it doesn't justfy ur position of aborting a child for your own life

in many many cases where a child is perfectly healthy but the mother had it tough or had a chance of complications

Its not retarded, it illustrates that an all no policy isnt quite right

And in those cases they should tough it out

I don't know if such a specific case even existed

if u can bring an example

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

isn't this the fault of doctors then?

she was septic and they didn't diagnoze her

Blood infection isnt something you can just see I dont think

That and they predicted it was going to happen anyways meaning she could have been saved with an abbortion earlier

seems like a doctors fault

and even when the abortion is allowed when mother is in danger it still fails

In this case if the abortion took place when requested she would be alive

But because of the laws she was force to try and give birth to a dead baby and died in the process.

and because of this freak case lets go on and murder our children

Because the baby wasnt actively rotti g when the request was made

It isnt an all or nothing thing

still it seems to me like doctors fault and not the fault of the law

Im not saying that all abortions should be allowed because of this

they failed to properly diagnose and treat her

and for that reason she died

Im saying in these specific situations it should be an option

They failed to treat it because of the retarded law that didnt allow an abortion even rhough the baby was already dead

sure, seems like the catholic irish are fine with abortion if the pregnancy threatens the mothers life

The doctors didnt react in time to the change.

well its not the fault of the policy then is it?

And the baby was already presumed dead just the full misscarrage hadnt talen place yet

The policy in place restricted the medical treatment that could have saved her.

Its a freak accident but it happens

it restricted them for the life of the child, however the child was already dead and the mother was in danger

the doctors failed

not the policy

No

yes it did

According to policy the mother was not yet in danger

And had to wait it out

because the doctors didn't diagnose the sepsis

There was absolute certainty the baby was dead

But he misscarrage was allowed to try and take place

and what we should allow abortion on demand now?

In this situation yes

the doctors failed in properly diagnosing the mother

They shouldnt need to wait until sepsis occurs to act

nothing is wrong with the policy

and doctors do make mistakes

Prevention beats a cure any day

ok its up to the doctor then

The policy is responsible for the death because she was forced to give birth to a dead baby

That doctors didnt catch it is secondary

then maybe he should not followed the law to the specific and realized the situation he was in

They knew it was going to happen

because the policy wasn't at fault

again

I keep telling u this

that the doctors failed

well if they knew then they should've aborted the child

and not wait for sepsis to take root

Because they couldnt act untill the mothers life was In danger

it was in danger

holy shit

this entire argument is pedantic

Not until sepsis by the laws description

its not like he couldn't do anything about it, the doctor.

They couldnt abort until the moms life was in danger

this is, I don't think this happened

u're lying to me

Sure whatever

>there was legal uncertainty regarding the precise circumstances in which this exception to preserve the life of the mother would apply in practice, as the matter had not yet been enacted in legislation.

if its not written in law then its null and void

it wasn't that they didn't abort because of the law, it was because the law didn't specify the specific circumstances

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/how-the-death-of-savita-halappanavar-changed-the-abortion-debate-461787.html

I don't give a shit how it changed

I'm looking for who's responsible for this

and so far its entirely doctors fault

utterly nothing wrong with the policy

and doctor could've acted

because it wasn't specified in law

Doctors dont make laws

however he didn't and this moment of uncertainty led to a death

not what I said

If the law doesnt specify they cant act

Its their life or the patients

And strict laws like that force the doctors to need to take chances lile what was in this case

as I said before, even if they went to courts this could be settled by doctors

they saved a life in the end

What?

The baby and mother died

and it was already a miscarriage

Who did they save?