Ireland's abortion laws challenged in Europe

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

Only That's true, but I think the objection being made is that in putting it here puts out the message that it is exclusively a woman's issue - which it is not.

This is obviously a bot of a side issue but an interesting one nonetheless. The subject of abortion could properly be debated in dozens of fora on this site from Ah to any of the religon fora to politics to humanities even to consumer issues;), and maybe in the future it will find its way to Bargain Alerts:eek:.

But of all those fora, the Ladies Lounge is as appropriate, if not the most appropriate forum, for it to be discussed in. True, it affects everyone and everyone should have say in how it is resolved but this issue affects women vastly more than men. So the perspective of women should always be at the forefront of this issue. I would be of the view that a mans view/perspective on the ethics of sperm donation is of particular importance and i think it is fair to say that the effect on me (I am male) of a change in that law is far far less significant to me than a change/no change in the abortion law is to the average woman in Ireland.

Khannie

fatmammycat wrote: »

And before anybody starts wittering on at me, no this doesn't mean that women are going to start 'aborting' their 8 month fetus blah di blah whatever. Jesus, give women some credit.

Ridiculous argument. I could equally say "Men aren't going to start raping. Jesus, give men some credit" but the horrible fact is that some men do rape and some women would abort at 8 months given the opportunity (24 weeks isn't that far off it). If you think that a woman who wants to abort at 8 months should not be allowed to then you must concede that she doesn't have complete sovereignty over her body and that you would willingly take that sovereignty from her.

fatmammycat

drkpower wrote: »

Of course 'some' women will, if it is permissable in law. I have no doubt it would be very few, but some will.

So, do you still believe that it is entirely a woman's business when she is entitled to have a termination, that the law should never intervene and that you are prepared for it to be legal to allow abortion at 39 or 40 weeks on the basis that, sure, 'women aren't going to do it'?

When I say bodily sovereignty I really mean it. Right up to the last second. Sounds inhumane I know, but there you have it, a woman either owns her cuerpo or she doesn't. I hand on heart don't think any woman would abort a viable fetus after carrying it for almost 40 weeks and I think women should be trusted on the matter. Personally I would prefer a cut off point, say 14-16 weeks, but that's just my 'ick' factor and the idea that the fetus might be coming close to a point where it could survive outside the womb in which case I feel it would be super nice if it could be given some sort of chance at survival.
See, this is the reality of being pregnant, it throws up all manner of questions. I personally would not have an abortion at any stage, but I will defend another woman's right to control her own body and contents therein. I never understood people who were ''okay' with abortion in the case of incest or rape, the fetus is still a fetus, what changed apart from how it got there. Or people who are okay with an abortion up to a certain week, but not the week after. If you agree a fetus is a developing human at 1 week, it is not still a developing human at 39, and if it is so what? At what point does its rights usurp the biological mother?
I would say at no point. I would further hold anyone who had an abortion at that late stage in a very dim light. But like I say I don't see any woman doing so, and if they did chances are they're not the sort of person who would give a baby a chance full stop. ( Baby P comes to mind for some reason).
Complicated, but then life is. I fully expect people to be up in arms over what I just typed, but I've thought about your question carefully and while I would be sickened at a late stage abortion of a healthy baby, I cannot find any will to enforce another woman to endure a pregancy she does not want.

fatmammycat

Khannie wrote: »

Ridiculous argument. I could equally say "Men aren't going to start raping. Jesus, give men some credit" but the horrible fact is that some men do rape and some women would abort at 8 months given the opportunity (24 weeks isn't that far off it). If you think that a woman who wants to abort at 8 months should not be allowed to then you must concede that she doesn't have complete sovereignty over her body and that you would willingly take that sovereignty from her.

We crossed but I don't equate rape with abortion full stop. Why would a woman abort at 8 months? Actually don't answer that, you don't know and me neither.

drkpower

fatmammycat wrote: »

When I say bodily sovereignty I really mean it. Right up to the last second. Sounds inhumane I know,

Fair enough, that is your view. And yes, it is inhumane, there is little doubt about that. Of course, I find it completely abhorrent that you would be prepared to allow anyone to terminate a foetus while for instance, they are in labour.

Thankfully there are few people with such views and their role in coming to a solution to this issue is non-existent.

fatmammycat

drkpower wrote: »

Fair enough, that is your view. And yes, it is inhumane, there is little doubt about that. Of course, I find it completely abhorrent that you would be prepared to allow anyone to terminate a foetus while for instance, they are in labour.

Thankfully there are few people with such views and their role in coming to a solution to this issue is non-existent.

There may not be many people with my view, as you say, but again so what? My view is just my personal view that woman ought to be in charge of their own bodies. And I am big enough and old enough to know that some people will find that beyond their ken or when they really think about what that means will be 'squicked' out.
I'm going to respectfully bow out of this convo now, I have answered your question with honesty and feel I've said every thing I needed to say- repetition bores me and everyone else.
To Khannie and Cathy, good luck and continued success with your pregnancies, I hope everything goes smoothly and you'll find great joy in your babies.

The Corinthian

fatmammycat wrote: »

I hand on heart don't think any woman would abort a viable fetus after carrying it for almost 40 weeks and I think women should be trusted on the matter.

Why should we trust them? After all, while less common with the availability of abortion, infanticide still occurs and that is typically carried after birth out by the same women you are suggesting we should trust.

If you agree a fetus is a developing human at 1 week, it is not still a developing human at 39, and if it is so what? At what point does its rights usurp the biological mother?

What I find interesting is that at no point does the father feature in your logic. If the mother does not want to be a mother, then that's OK by you, regardless of the father's wishes. If the mother does want to be a mother, then the father becomes financially responsible, regardless of his wishes.

Ultimately the consequences of a pregnancy are not limited to the nine months of gestation. Even if we ignore the foetus, there are long reaching psychological, financial and social consequences to both the man and the woman involved, and it seems a little self serving that only one of them has the right to choose what those long term consequences are. So unless you redress such an imbalance, you really are attempting to have your cake and eat it with regards to the rights of those two parties.

fatmammycat wrote: »

Why would a woman abort at 8 months? Actually don't answer that, you don't know and me neither.

For the same reasons she would abort at 2 months. Maybe she did not get a chance to then. Or didn't realize she was pregnant. Or changed her mind.

Why would the reasons differ?

The Corinthian

fatmammycat wrote: »

And I am big enough and old enough to know that some people will find that beyond their ken or when they really think about what that means will be 'squicked' out.

Just because someone may disagree with you does not mean that it is "beyond their ken".

To believe that is to believe that the truths you hold are self evident and could only be disagreed with because they are not understood - and that is, well, not exactly a rational POV.

drkpower

fatmammycat wrote: »

And I am big enough and old enough to know that some people will find that beyond their ken or when they really think about what that means will be 'squicked' out.

It is interesting that you think it is so fanciful and so remote a possibility that any woman would actually have an abortion at 8+ months, when you yourself are of the view that they are perfectly entitled to and that, seemingly, the only reason not to do so is because it is a bit icky or 'squicky' (whatever that is).

sparkling sea

Stats from Britian and other countries like Canada, Norway, Sweden and the US confirm that 90% of abortions take place before the 12th week.

Also 1 % of abortions are preformed after the 20th week.

As women in Ireland do have abortions in England, the English figure would be a fair yard stick to measure the likelihood of a woman having an abortion after the 12th week. It is very low.

I really believe that abortions should be legal in Ireland and as the vast majority of people who have them do so up to the 12th week, this could the guide that is used on deciding a time frame.

There is no credibility in the agrument that many women will have abortions after the 12th week, it also shows that some people still dont understand what must be a very painful decision making process.

People may disagree on the issue of abortion, but anyone who thinks that the vast majority of people who have an abortion come to the decison easily is greatly mistaken and very naive. A wealth of evidence exists on this matter and is fairly easy to find

The Corinthian

sparkling sea wrote: »

I really believe that abortions should be legal in Ireland and as the vast majority of people who have them do so up to the 12th week, this could the guide that is used on deciding a time frame.

As I said in my initial post here, I think that even if they were women would ironically continue going to abroad for a variety of reasons.

The question of abortion's legality in Ireland probably matters more at this stage, not to those seeking abortion, but those campaigning either for or against.

There is no credibility in the agrument that many women will have abortions after the 12th week

I agree. Historically, where the option to terminate early exists, women will terminate early. However "vast majority" does not constitute all. Additionally, attitudes to what constitutes a 'late' termination will likely change over time.

it also shows that some people still dont understand what must be a very painful decision making process.

How does it show that?

fatmammycat

drkpower wrote: »

It is interesting that you think it is so fanciful and so remote a possibility that any woman would actually have an abortion at 8+ months, when you yourself are of the view that they are perfectly entitled to and that, seemingly, the only reason not to do so is because it is a bit icky or 'squicky' (whatever that is).

'Only reason?" Oh please, give me a break. There are many reasons a woman would not consider or be horrified by a late term abortion. And for the record 'squicked out'= be disgusted by, there, better now?
And no it is not fanciful at all to assume most women would not consider aborting a fully gown healthy fetus. Being allowed by law does not mean a stampede of heavily pregnant women clamboring at the doors of termination centres. Most women carrying a child for 40 week wants very much to have that child-unless the fetus is seriously compromised in some way.
Seriously, next you'll have me in the abortion clinic applauding a late term termination.
Balls to that. I have stated my position pretty clearly- if you want to turn it into something else, don't bother. I don't expect people to agree with me, which is why I said REPEATEDLY that while I would not be personally be in favour of abortion-for me- I would not enforce a pregnancy on any woman who did not wish to be pregnant.
And no The Corinthian, I won't be drawn into a tedious debate on father's rights and whether or not men should have to pay for the brood they may or may not sire.

drkpower

fatmammycat wrote: »

'Only reason?" Oh please, give me a break. There are many reasons a woman would not consider or be horrified by a late term abortion.

If you do not want the baby (lets take that as a given, because otherwise an abortion doesnt come into it), what other reasons, in your view (not other women's views), are there not to have an abortion at 39 weeks?

fatmammycat

In 'my' view reasons not have a late abortion at 39 weeks would be
A) the fetus is mature enough to survive outside the womb
and
a C section can be performed or a birth induced.
C) if you're going to go to 39 week, why on earth would you not wait one week more and deliver the baby- who could then be adopted?
I have a question to you, do you REALLY think any mother/woman would wait until the 39th week and then request an abortion?

EDIT- heading to cinema, will check later if anyone really believes a woman would wait 39 weeks and then decide an abortion is the way to go about ending her pregnancy.

Khannie

fatmammycat wrote: »

I have a question to you, do you REALLY think any mother/woman would wait until the 39th week and then request an abortion?

I don't think the answer to that is relevant. What I think is most relevant is that you think that request should be granted. As such, I have to more or less discard everything you say.

As has already been said, people already kill children outside the womb. There's no reason to think they wouldn't do so inside the womb at 39 weeks. I think it would be exceedingly rare, I'll give you that, but that's not relevant either.

sparkling sea

The Corinthian wrote: »

As I said in my initial post here, I think that even if they were women would ironically continue going to abroad for a variety of reasons.

The question of abortion's legality in Ireland probably matters more at this stage, not to those seeking abortion, but those campaigning either for or against.

I agree. Historically, where the option to terminate early exists, women will terminate early. However "vast majority" does not constitute all. Additionally, attitudes to what constitutes a 'late' termination will likely change over time.

How does it show that?

Because if people didn't care the percentage of abortions after 12 weeks would be much higher. People have to get the money together to travel and pay for the procedure, its a huge decision to make yet the vast majority have the procedure before 12 weeks. This figure has remained constant both in boom and bust times.

Stats suggest that about 93% of abortions are preformed for what is termed "social reasons". This gives the impression to some that the reasons are trival. However the early termination rate suggests that women seem to give great consideration to falcts like, takes 12 weeks for the fetus to fully implant in the lining of the womb, also the neural and nervous systems have not developed and the developing foetus is not consciously aware.

sparkling sea

Khannie wrote: »

I don't think the answer to that is relevant. What I think is most relevant is that you think that request should be granted. As such, I have to more or less discard everything you say.

As has already been said, people already kill children outside the womb. There's no reason to think they wouldn't do so inside the womb at 39 weeks. I think it would be exceedingly rare, I'll give you that, but that's not relevant either.

You would find it very difficult to find someone to preform the procedure. Its a nonsense to suggest that it would ever be legislated for in Ireland.

Khannie

sparkling sea wrote: »

You would find it very difficult to find someone to preform the procedure. Its a nonsense to suggest that it would ever be legislated for in Ireland.

Irrelevant. My point was that the lady in question thinks that abortion at 39 weeks should be allowed. This is a hypothetical discussion and it serves to illustrate the extremity of her views.

sparkling sea

Khannie wrote: »

Irrelevant. My point was that the lady in question thinks that abortion at 39 weeks should be allowed. This is a hypothetical discussion and it serves to illustrate the extremity of her views.

Relevant in my opinion - and your answers illustrate the extremity of your views.

drkpower

fatmammycat wrote: »

In 'my' view reasons not have a late abortion at 39 weeks would be
A) the fetus is mature enough to survive outside the womb
and
a C section can be performed or a birth induced..

A) every normal 39 week old fetus is mature enough to survive outside the womb
and
in every case, a C section can be performed or a birth induced.

So, why would you legally allow a woman to have an abortion in these scenarios given that these are reasons you give not to have an abortion?

fatmammycat wrote: »

C) if you're going to go to 39 week, why on earth would you not wait one week more and deliver the baby- who could then be adopted?
I have a question to you, do you REALLY think any mother/woman would wait until the 39th week and then request an abortion?

Of course some women will. Mainly for this reason:
1. Why does anyone do bad/immoral/distasteful things?
and also for these (and many more I could postulate):
1. They change their mind.
2. quite a few women only realise they are pregnant very late in pregnancy, some while in labour (no, its not just an urban myth).
3. get pregnant while in relationship, breaks up weeks before delivery; some people react to such scenarios in unusual ways
4. massive change in personal circumstances late in pregnancy (financial pressure, death of partner etc etc)
5. late diagnosis of a foetal disorder

Khannie

sparkling sea wrote: »

Relevant in my opinion - and your answers illustrate the extremity of your views.

My views are hardly extreme. I don't like killing a foetus in the womb because I consider it an innocent child. Last time I checked that was normal enough. I argue my points vehemently, but that doesn't make my views extreme.

edit: to be honest, I think you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of it. If you really want to go down this route: How is it relevant? All I pointed out was that her views were extreme. You then said "oh but it will never be legislated for" eh...nobody said that was ever a possibility. We were engaged in a hypothetical discussion so the fact that it would never be legislated for was irrelevant to that hypothetical discussion. If you somehow think it was relevant to the hypothetical discussion and the fact that the lady in question thinks that abortion at 39 weeks should be allowed, I'd ask you to back that up.

What about you? You think it should be ok to abort at 39 weeks?

The Corinthian

sparkling sea wrote: »

Because if people didn't care the percentage of abortions after 12 weeks would be much higher.

That does not logically follow. There are numerous reasons why terminations generally take place during the first trimester, cost/difficulty being one example - late term abortions are more complex and expensive.

Stats suggest that about 93% of abortions are preformed for what is termed "social reasons". This gives the impression to some that the reasons are trival.

Again, that does not logically follow. Social reasons may not imply critical or life threatening, but it is incorrect to assume that the opposite extreme of trivial should be assumed either.

However the early termination rate suggests that women seem to give great consideration to falcts like, takes 12 weeks for the fetus to fully implant in the lining of the womb, also the neural and nervous systems have not developed and the developing foetus is not consciously aware.

That is complete conjecture, with nothing to back it up. One could just as easily postulate that it is because women in that situation want to deal with the problem quickly and reduce hassle/cost.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is complete conjecture, with nothing to back it up. One could just as easily postulate that it is because women in that situation want to deal with the problem quickly and reduce hassle/cost.

I agree; but noone has mentioned the reason that most women abort early in pregnancy...... because it is before they are 'showing'. Regardless of how 'liberal' some are, most women do not want anyone (or at least no more people than they have to) to know that they are having an abortion and at 8-14 weeks, most are very very unlikely to be showing overt signs of pregnancy. That is by far the most significant reason in my own view.

johnnyskeleton

fatmammycat wrote: »

When I say bodily sovereignty I really mean it. Right up to the last second.

So a woman has absolute responsibility up to the point at which it is born, but the second it is born that is when men and the State have to take responsibility?

Philosophically, if you were to say that women have complete control over child birth then I'd say fine. But you don't go that far, you say that you exercise that complete control for as long as it suits you. I think that if a woman was entitled to complete control over whether to have an abortion or not, surely fathers and the State should get some control over whether they take responsibility for the child/pay maintenance on the one hand, or on the other grant citizenship, pay CB and provide free health care to the child.

Clearly it is ridiculous that a father or the State should be allowed to shirk their responsibilities leaving a woman to be soely responsible for the child once its born. Why is that? The only rational conclusion I can come to is that fathers and the state have similar duties towards children as their mothers do.

So really the question is when does a foetus become a child and that is open to great debate. However, I don't think it is right to say that up to the point at which it leaves the woman's body it is part of her body.

beautyqueen

just reading this post and with all respect i think its actully ridiculous how technical ye are getting. if a woman wants to go and have an abortion she should its her body and its up to her. it doesnt matter what any of you think because its not you. if you have an opinion that its wrong after x amount of weeks thats fine but dont flatter yr self to think that any 1 who was to get an abortion would care what you think. its a bit pointless ranting and raving on the internet about whats morally and ethically right or wrong in your opinion when it doesnt effect you, its just a controversial subject every one has an opinion but i wouldn waste my time arguing with some 1 over it.

Ultravid

beautyqueen wrote: »

just reading this post and with all respect i think its actully ridiculous how technical ye are getting. if a woman wants to go and have an abortion she should its her body and its up to her.

The body of the baby is not the mother's body. This is very basic stuff. Facts are important here, and you've got yours very wrong.

drkpower

beautyqueen wrote: »

just reading this post and with all respect i think its actully ridiculous how technical ye are getting. if a woman wants to go and have an abortion she should its her body and its up to her. it doesnt matter what any of you think because its not you. if you have an opinion that its wrong after x amount of weeks thats fine but dont flatter yr self to think that any 1 who was to get an abortion would care what you think. its a bit pointless ranting and raving on the internet about whats morally and ethically right or wrong in your opinion when it doesnt effect you, its just a controversial subject every one has an opinion but i wouldn waste my time arguing with some 1 over it.

Its remarkable how often this argument is trotted out without the proponent realising how utterly non-sensical it is. It betrays a lack of understanding of the whole issue.

It suffers from 2 fundamental flaws:
1. The logical conclusion to this argument is that a woman should be legalley entitled to have the foetus terminated up until the point of delivery. Now, some people actually hold thos view, but to most people with any intact sense of morality, it is inumane.
2. If you believe that the foetus has any rights, any at all, the argument that abortion 'does not affect you' is ludicrous. Domestic violence against women has 'nothing to do with me'; infanticide 'has nothing to do with me'; sexual abuse 'has nothing to do with me'; the gratuitous abuse of animals 'has nothing to do with me'. Does that me I am not entitled, and indeed obliged, to argue for the rights of the entity that sufffers in any of these situations (even if I believe, as I do, that the foetus has far lesser rights than its mother or other born humans)?.

Im sure many good people said 'it has nothing to do with me' during all those years when the clergy were engaged in sexual abuse; were they right to keep their iews to themselves or would you hae preferred if they had spoken up?

whatdoicare

I'm a bit worried about the points some have made about their wish for fathers to have more rights over a womans choice for abortion - wouldn't that also equate to a woman being forced to abort if the father doesn't agree with the pregnancy? I mean, we can't have it oe way and not the other, right?

Wouldn't that also lead to the need for prenatal paternity tests as obviously the matter would have to be taken to court when the paternity is put in question?

I have a strange feeling some people here are a bit oblivious to what a woman has to go through to carry and give birth to a child- it's not easy mentally or physically and it shouldn't be treated as a punishment. I really would have thought in this day and age we would all have progressed beyond that kind of mentality.

Giving up a child for adoption is not at all easy and just as damaging mentally as an abortion and I know of women who did do that who are terrified waiting for the day the child tries to contact them. It's is in no way an easier "cop-out" decision.

To finish, I'll give the solution that Family guy in it's infinite wisdom has come up with:
"Abortions for some, tiny national flags for others!"

The Corinthian

beautyqueen wrote: »

if you have an opinion that its wrong after x amount of weeks thats fine but dont flatter yr self to think that any 1 who was to get an abortion would care what you think.

Society does not work that way though. None of us are free to 'do as we want' and will often have our own rights curtailed for others, as society has deemed fit. This entire debate - where abortion is banned in Ireland - is about such a curtailment.

Otherwise you are inviting others to 'do as they want' - you can't have it both ways.

whatdoicare wrote: »

I'm a bit worried about the points some have made about their wish for fathers to have more rights over a womans choice for abortion - wouldn't that also equate to a woman being forced to abort if the father doesn't agree with the pregnancy? I mean, we can't have it oe way and not the other, right?

Not necessarily. I cannot speak for others here, but I ultimately have never said that abortion is wrong. I have said that it does not exclusively concern the mother, but the natural conclusion of that is not the man forcing (or blocking) an abortion - there are potentially numerous other solutions.

I have a strange feeling some people here are a bit oblivious to what a woman has to go through to carry and give birth to a child

No one denies this, however it is repeated like a mantra by some so as to dismiss that anyone else may be a stakeholder in a pregnancy, and that too is wrong.

Khannie

whatdoicare wrote: »

I have a strange feeling some people here are a bit oblivious to what a woman has to go through to carry and give birth to a child- it's not easy mentally or physically and it shouldn't be treated as a punishment. I really would have thought in this day and age we would all have progressed beyond that kind of mentality.

I've a some idea what a woman goes though during pregnancy (i.e. I'm not oblivious). I'm living with a heavily pregnant woman right now (and it's not my first time, this is our 4th pregnancy together). It's not easy mentally or physically as you said. I said it earlier in the thread but I think it's worth repeating: I very strongly dislike the idea of telling a woman that she has to carry a child in her womb that she doesn't want. *very* strongly dislike it. I've put a lot of thought into it over the years. The problem for me is that I even more strongly dislike the idea of killing a child. So I've weighed it up and the life of the child is more important to me.