You didn't answer the question. "So you believe that it should be okay for a stranger to kill you and your family if they chose to?"
But you wouldn't be living. Our governments pass laws to protect its people and "Thou shall not kill" is the basis for our laws against murder. .
Do you truly believe that the Scriptures have been the foundation for the US laws? Well, let's see:
God's Commandment: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
God's Commandment: You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
US laws: none that prohibits the engraving of images.
God's commandment: You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
US Law: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
God's commandment: "Thou shall not kill."
US Law: Advocates the killing of those convicted of a crime (death penalty).
We could go on, but I hope you get my point.
You believe that we shouldn't force our beliefs on other people so you must then accept that it is okay for extremists Muslims to kill 4000 people on 9/11 or for Hamas to send missiles into Israel in attempt to kill women and children. You must then also accept that it is allowable for Iran to attain nuclear weapons and drop them into Israeli cities
Almost every country, if not all, have laws prohibiting stealing and
MURDER and things like that under at least some circumstances. Does that make them Christian?
Take China for example, they have laws against murder. Does it mean they're ramming Christian beliefs down people's throats? Does it mean China is a Christian country?
Do not confuse the laws of the governments of this world with God's Laws. There is a huge difference...
You said that she was "forced into inducing labor" not if she asked that she could be induced.
No you didn't. You said: "Ms Halappanavar did not initially want an abortion, but was forced into inducing labor early due to health complications."
The articles don't say that she forced to seek labor induction. She chose to seek them.
Why did Ms Halappanavar request labor induction?
He said Savita had been "on top of the world" before experiencing difficulties.
"It was her first baby, first pregnancy and you know she was on top of the world basically," he said.
"She was so happy and everything was going well, she was so excited.
"On the Saturday night everything changed, she started experiencing back pain so we called into the hospital, the university hospital."
He said she continued to experience pain and asked a consultant if she could be induced.
She was forced to seek labor induction due to the terrible pain form mis-carrying. She wanted the baby.
It was a factor but the family was well aware that they were moving to a Catholic country when they moved there.
Yes, they were well aware of that. But as I said earlier, that doesn't make it ok to impose Roman Catholic values on non-Roman Catholics.
And most all women who acquire the infection live through it. As you point out, it is a "well understood complication of miscarriage". Unfortunately, some women do not survive and no one knows, as of yet, if she would have survive if the abortion have been done.
"May be" is not a good enough assumption when you are passing judgment on the medical team or the law.
Why do doctors perform labor induction on patients suffering from Septicemia?
So you are saying that the infection caused her pain which brought her into the hospital in the first place, showing that the hospital had no part in her death. Case solved.
The hospital could have saved her life; by terminating the pregnancy early, which they refused to do so.
Because the baby was alive and she could still end the pregnancy with the miscarriage, which is how most of these cases end.
This was NOT "most of these cases". Ending the pregnancy with a miscarriage was no longer a viable option, since her life was at risk.
Depends. Do you believe that euthanasia is murder?
Yes, I believe so.
Now answer mine: do you believe inducing labor early in a pregnancy (due to health complications) is murder?
No one knows if the procedure would have saved her life. That is why there is an investigation ongoing.
The doctors knew something was wrong, she was having a miscarriage. There are always dangers in a miscarriage just as there is always dangers and the possibility of death in a normal childbirth.
Yes, I understand miscarriages always carry a risk. But had she been granted her request, her chances of survival would have been better. Medical experts agree on this, thus the international outrage on this tragic case.
And? Ireland is composed of 84% Catholics. One would assume that the laws would reflect that demographic. Still, the family knew this before moving there and one of the reason was for having children. Ireland is one of the top 3 countries in the world for safe childbirths.
There are laws protecting the Christian rights in Iran. Heck, did you know that there is a law that Jews and Christians must serve as members in their Parliament. Even though this is true, they are still persecuted in many ways.
How does that relate to this thread, since they were not asked in any way to stop believing or as a Hindu?
Hindu writings actually strongly oppose abortion but in their modern society thinking has changed regarding certain types of abortion. Many feel that it okay to abort females babies but not males.
Here is what you said earlier:
Yarddog: "And we should obey their laws when we are in their countries. That is the Christian way."
I will ask you again; since you claim that Christians residing in Iran should obey Iranian's laws (because it's the Christian way), does it mean that all Christians there should stop worshipping God?
Iran prohibits the practice of Christianity.
That is a lie. It was never the Roman Catholic position "not to help her." The staff was there to help her through the entire procedure. The Catholic position was to help both mother and child through a very difficult event, a miscarriage. Regardless of what a patient may believe, the hospital has to value all life. Mother and child.
The staff was there to help her all the way? That's not the story I got from the husband:
Doctors at Galway University Hospital said that as long as the fetal heartbeat could be felt, the law prevented them from ending the pregnancy, Holland said. Halappanavar died of septicemia, or a blood infection, after three days in the hospital.
"Tuesday morning, came back and said, 'Sorry, can't help you. It's a Catholic country. Can't help you. It's a Catholic team.' So, Savita said that she was not a Catholic. She is Hindu, so why impose the law of the land on her?" her husband said.
All I can hear is, "sorry can't help you..catholic team, catholic country." If that hospital really had any value in life, why is both the mother and child dead? If this had happened in another country, say England, at least the mother may be alive right now.
You have offered absolutely no proof to back up your opinion that providing the abortion would have saved the woman's life. You claim that she already had the infection and it was the infection which killed her, not the lack of an abortion.
Why do you this case is an international outrage? If the lack of abortion was NOT at cause for the death of this woman, why is Ireland being forced to revise its abortion laws?
Yep, and if you would get that into your head about this incident you may realize that there is far more to this than what you have so narrowly defined.
We make errors and sometimes those errors result in death at our world's best hospitals, and sometimes people die because their bodies cannot handle what is in them, regardless of how much effort goes into saving them.
Let the investigation process be completed before attempting to accuse possibly innocent people of killing a woman.
Yes, but this death could have been easily prevented, had Ms Halappanavar had the abortion. This is why people are protesting against Irish government on their stance regarding abortion.
