You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Human Rights’ tag.
I needed some time to digest this story… Sorry folks but that is a lie. I needed some time to come back to a (relatively) coherent state before I could write reasonably about what went down with Savita Halappanavar.
A post filled with nothing but white-hot rage and invective against the pustulant ass-pimples known as pro-lifers (anti-choicers, for the sake of veracity) and their equally pustulant,delusion friends, the Catholic Church would serve little purpose other than giving the other side ammunition about how nasty I am (Humourless Feminist, Too Sensitive, Crazy Socialist, Militant Atheist etc…the list is long ). No, my ninnyhammerd-half-witted friends won’t get the pleasure because in Savita’s case there is nothing for me to add, the absolute horror and immorality of their position is chillingly clear – and a young woman had to die because of it (and women are dying of it here in North America too).
Let’s just look at how our pro-life catholic friends “helped” Savita Halappanavar – Analysis from Dr. Jen Gunter (I’m referencing Jen’s post to make my point, she does not hold the same opinion as I). [ed. bold text mine]
This is what is known. Savita Halappanavar was 31 years old and happy to be pregnant with her first child. Then, at 17 weeks, tragedy struck and she was “found to be miscarrying.” Her husband reports that she was in “severe pain” for three days at the hospital and a termination was requested. He says this request was denied because Ireland is “a Catholic country.” He and his late wife were led to believe that the law would only allow her to be delivered when there was no fetal heartbeat.
What does the standard of medical care say about this treatment? Without access to the chart, “miscarrying” at 17 weeks can only mean one of three things”
A) Ruptured membranes
B) Advanced cervical dilation
C) Labor (this is unlikely, although it is possible that she had preterm labor that arrested and left her with scenario B, advanced cervical dilation).
All three of these scenarios have a dismal prognosis, none of which should involve the death of the mother.
Okay, ground rules set. There were no mysteries here, the medical playbook is straight forward.
The standard of care with ruptured membranes (scenario A) is to offer termination or, if there is no evidence of infection and the pregnancy is desired, the option of observing for a few days to see if the leak seals over and more fluid accumulates. If no fluid accumulates and by some chance the pregnancy manages to go beyond 24 weeks (the vast majority of pregnancies with ruptured membranes delivery within a week), survival is unlikely given the lungs require amniotic fluid to develop. I have seen the rare case where a woman with no infection (and no fluid) elects conservative management in the hopes that might make it to at least 24 weeks in the pregnancy, however, I have never heard of a baby surviving in this scenario. Regardless, if at any point infection is suspected the treatment is antibiotics and delivery not antibiotics alone.
The standard of care with scenario B involves offering delivery or possibly a rescue cerclage (a stitch around the cervix to try to prevent further dilation and thus delivery) depending on the situation. Inducing delivery (or a D and E) is offered because a cervix that has dilated significantly often leads to labor or an infection as the membranes are now exposed to the vaginal flora. Many women do not want wait for infection. A rescue cerclage is not without risks and is contraindicated with ruptured membranes or any sign of infection. Rescue cerclage is a very case by case intervention and well beyond the scope of this post. These decisions are difficult and the mark of good medical care is that all scenarios are discussed, all interventions that are technically possible offered, and then the patient makes an informed decision. All with the understanding that if infection develops, delivery is indicated.
Medically speaking, Dr.Gunter explains the outcomes of what these religiously addled doctors did, or more specifically did not do.
As there is no medically acceptable scenario at 17 weeks where a woman is miscarrying AND is denied a termination, there can only be three plausible explanations for Ms. Hapappanavar’s “medical care” :
1) Irish law does indeed treat pregnant women as second class citizens and denies them appropriate medical care. The medical team was following the law to avoid criminal prosecution.
2) Irish law does not deny women the care they need; however, a zealous individual doctor or hospital administrator interpreted Catholic doctrine in such a way that a pregnant woman’s medical care was somehow irrelevant and superceded by heart tones of a 17 weeks fetus that could never be viable.
3) Irish law allows abortions for women when medically necessary, but the doctors involved were negligent in that they could not diagnose infection when it was so obviously present, did not know the treatment, or were not competent enough to carry out the treatment.
What we do know is that a young, pregnant, woman who presented to the hospital in a first world country died for want of appropriate medical care. Whether it’s Irish Catholic law or malpractice, only time will tell; however, no answer could possibly ease the pain and suffering of Ms. Halappanavar’s loved ones.
This is what we get when we allow insipid religious prevarication into important parts of our society. Mythology and magic have no place in secular institutions, not now and not ever. Yet we still allow the bullshite in despite the injuries, deaths and pain it causes. Religion poisons everything and everyone it touches and yet Religion is
just one head of the hydra that conspired to end Savita’s life. By now the ironically named “Pro-life” band of fetus fetishists need to take their bows and unsuccessfully try to wipe their bloody hands of this uncomfortable case.
Savita’s death is on their hands because this is what you get when you don’t value women as people and see them only as incubators. Savita and other women are dying because of the batshite-insane anti-choice nuttery that goes on that somehow makes it okay to take women out of the pregnancy equation and deny her rights. So have your prayer vigils, your fetus-porn, your 40 days of fuckwittery – all so you can feel fucking morally superior(?) when a women like Savita Halappanarvar dies? Your fetid morality is repugnant and has no place in a civilized society… none whatsoever.
You know what the best tell is from these anti-woman fetus worshipping zealots is? The absolute fucking silence from the pro-life side of things when details of Savita’s death rang around the world. The author(s) over at Reasonable Conversation nailed it with this post which I excerpt here. [ed. bold text mine]
The fact of the matter is, these people can only thrive when the deaths are anonymous. The moment we had a name for one of the victims of their horrible and irrational beliefs, they needed to shut up and hide so nobody could ask them if Savita Halappanavar should have died, if it was god’s will, if they should have allowed her to be treated. They can’t answer these questions because the answers they would give would make them look like monsters if they were honest and undermine their message if they lied.
This. A thousand times just this.
This is why we fight for the rights of women because the regressive religiously addled view women as second class citizens not worthy of human rights or treatment. Your
torpid bronze age shenanigans have gone on for much too long and hurt too many people. Where is the apology from the pope? Where is the outcry from the anti-choicers? There is none because they cannot or will not see the monstrous evil of their positions, better to whip up some more fetus porn or get some more red duct tape and pray to your imaginary sky-daddy.
When the consequences of your bullshite come to light the religiously anti-choice zealots scurry away from the light of reason(rule one in the nutter playbook), when the unnamed become named and the travesty of your rotten ethics is bared to light you offer no defense, because there is no defense for your untenable immoral position.
I see and hear this little piece of dudely wisdom far, FAR, too often. It represents such an massive break from reality, and yet this harmful trope continues onward. The usual suspects make their appearances, privilege, misogyny the unexamined life – reasons but not excuses for not being in the know when dealing with the basic issue of should we treat women like human beings. It should be concise answer. It almost never is because there inevitably is that lovely word ‘but’ appended to the answer.
Oh yes, women should be treated as human beings, but this Feminism stuff has gone to far.
Yes, women should be treated like human beings, but why all the hate for men why can’t we all just get along?
Yes, but we’re already equal, so what’s the big deal?
The most basic rule when dealing with oppressed classes of people is – shut up and listen. *You* (privileged while males, for example) do not get make the call on saying when someone is genuinely oppressed or when their oppression is done, or anything to do with what they are experiencing as a member of that particular oppressed category. Get over yourself and realize that your opinion has no magical qualities that make it better than those of others, sure it has been the default in society for ages now, but that is changing slowly and will continue to do so whether you are with the program or not.
Feminism is fighting the good fight attempting to make society a better place for women. Feminism is dealing with the mischaracterizations and stereotypes that hurt women in our society, but the fight is far from over. I may have already posted this video, but I found the extended trailer of Miss-representation on youtube. Thank you Sociological Images.
Listen, reflect and take the time to think about what is being postulated. Enjoy.
The furour brought about by threatening to burn the koran has made it all the way to youtube as Thunderf00t has recently had to deal with assertions he is ‘bigot’ and endorses genocide for the nations of Islam. Of course, he was misconstrued and most likely misunderstood by the people in question. The key part of Thunderf00t’s message is simply this: We cannot take a step back from our rights to free speech (a cornerstone of civilized society)when they cause a violent reaction in the Islamic world. It is they who have the erroneous expectation that they have the right to apply their religious laws to the rest of the world. Once the centre of learning and advanced civilization the nations of Islam allowed the radical fundamentalists to plunge their world into a backward state of being resembling the Dark Ages (thank you christianity) of old.
When I rail against religion is precisely because of its threat to modernity and civilization. Religious thought is antithetical to most human rights, free speech and progress.
Thunderf00t comes to similar conclusions in his video, but of course multi modally thanks to the wonder known as youtube.
This article from Al Jazeera is yet another exemplar of how societies, if they wish to have freedom and human rights as key features, must steer away from theocracy and toward rational, secular rule.
Shiva Nazar-Ahari charged with “warring against God” and having links to opposition groups as trial opens in Tehran.
A court in Tehran, the Iranian capital, has tried a female human rights activist and journalist on charges including “warring against God,” which has the potential punishment of death.
Shiva Nazar-Ahari, 26, went on trial on Saturday “on charges of Moharebeh [warring against God], conspiring and gathering to commit a crime, propaganda against the regime and harming public order,” Mohammad Sharif, her lawyer, said.
How lovely; and sadly, unsurprising as the corrosive effects of religion are clearly on display for the world to see. Where religion is a dominant force we can simply toss away rational thought and belief in reality. You can be put to death for creating war on fictive characters that most likely do not exist.
Consider, if god is omnipotent, does he really need to be defended by mere mortals? I would think that if he existed he could deal quite succinctly with anyone that brought war to his house. However, in context of a human based and perpetuated theocracy that will actually kill people who dare to question its bullshite beliefs the reasons are evident. Persecuting people for calling the deluded on their fatuous nonsense becomes a useful method for dealing with dissent and rational objections to state endorsed mythology.
“But the story here is not about a trial or seeking to get to the bottom of a crime. It is about trying to created a narrative that the authorities would like to portrary about justifying the continued clampdown that we are seeing in this country.
A sham trial that is propping up a vapid theocracy, nothing new here. Expect more to come soon as Tehran roots out more people who dare to make war on imaginary beings.
*Update: The situation is not improving.
Canada’s Prime Minister Stephan Harper went to China. Fascinatingly enough it was to encourage economic relations between Canada and China. Previous relations have been described as cool as Canada has been pushing the issue of China’s human rights record, dampening Chinese enthusiasm toward our diplomatic and economic overtures.
I’d like to do a little comparison of similar dealings with China and our plucky PM. 2006 and 2009.
In 2006 our benevolent leader said:
“Prime Minister Stephen Harper says his government will not abandon “important Canadian values” by toning down criticisms of China’s human rights record to improve trade relations with Beijing.”
In 2009 Harper said:
“Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday his government would not let the pursuit of expanded economic ties with China lead to silence on human rights issues.”
Okay well, I’ve seen our PM say less auspicious things, so really we are still in ‘win territory’ here.
“Canada-China relations have been frosty since Harper became prime minister in 2006, particularly because of his past comments on China’s human rights record and his public support of the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader who has been living in exile since China annexed the region in 1958.”
Showing ethical backbone is so unlike our PM. Time in power will often fix that:
“The Conservative government has backed off in the last year from publicly chiding China, opting instead for more quiet diplomacy, a recognition of China’s growing importance as an economic power.”
There we go, dilemma resolved! We simple will not discuss human rights anymore to any significant degree. Why? Because we can make some money! And as we all know, economics trumps morality.
“They [Harper on Canadian’s preferences] don’t want us to sell that out to the almighty dollar.”
Huh. It is almost like in 2006 when the stability of the minority government was in question it made political sense to at least make noise about caring for human rights. Now in 2009 we get the ‘realistic and pragmatic’ conservative version of enlightening Canadian foreign policy:
Thursday’s statement only briefly mentioned the issue of human rights, saying the two sides agreed they had “distinct points of view.”
Checkmate human-rights. Although our point of view is getting much closer to China’s every day.




Your opinions…