Ireland's abortion laws challenged in Europe

MagicMarker

SarahSassy wrote: »

This is completely foreign to everything I believe. I believe women were entrusted with the ability to produce another human being and we have no rights to choose who lives and who dies because the pregnancy doesnt suit us. There is always the option to give up a child for adoption but I would never, ever choose to abort (which to me is kill) an innocent baby because the timing wasnt good or it was an accident. I know the 'risks' of having sex and one of them is that a pregnancy can ensue each time.

Have you, or would you ever take the MAP?

Khannie

MagicMarker wrote: »

Have you, or would you ever take the MAP?

You keep asking that. My understanding from doing reading is that the MAP does not abort an implanted fetus, only prevents the egg being released OR prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb.

MagicMarker

Khannie wrote: »

You keep asking that. My understanding from doing reading is that the MAP does not abort an implanted fetus, only prevents the egg being released OR prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb.

What's the difference between aborting a fertilized egg and preventing it from reaching the womb in the first place?

Once fertilization occurs (as little as 30 minutes after sex) then surely that's the point of no return?

Ultravid

The morning after pill is an abortifacient drug and as such is objected to by all those who are consistently pro-life. Human life begins at conception, and therefore the destruction of the newly fertilised egg is a very early abortion and an attack on the newly formed human life.

MagicMarker

Ultravid wrote: »

The morning after pill is an abortifacient drug and as such is objected to by all those who are consistently pro-life. Human life begins at conception, and therefore the destruction of the newly fertilised egg is a very early abortion and an attack on the newly formed human life.

And this is where things get a little hypocritical (imo)..

There's the ordinary joe(sephine) soap who thinks it's ''murder'' when it's brought up in a discussion such as this, who, when having sexy time with the significant other this evening, will be horrified to find to find out they forget to take the pill this morning, or the condom broke. :eek:

I find it hard to believe anyone, bar pro-life extremists, would seriously not even consider taking the MAP solely because they think they may be ''murdering'' an innocent baby.

The Corinthian

Ultravid wrote: »

The morning after pill is an abortifacient drug and as such is objected to by all those who are consistently pro-life. Human life begins at conception, and therefore the destruction of the newly fertilised egg is a very early abortion and an attack on the newly formed human life.

As a tangential topic, the method of termination/abortion is an interesting topic in itself. Especially in early pregnancy it is possible to deny implantation or induce 'eviction' of the embryo.

As pregnancy progresses, the methods also begin to involve the killing of the embryo, either to facilitate 'eviction' (such as dismemberment to allow it to be removed) or as an additional procedure that has nothing to do with the removal of the embryo.

Naturally either way the embryo dies outside of an environment where it can survive, however it does raise ethical questions when you actively choose to kill the embryo and it is not simply about its removal from the woman's body.

After all, why bother? If it is not human, no more than an organ, then there is no reason to do this. If we amputate a limb we do not go out of our way to kill it - this will happen soon enough as the cells stop receiving oxygen from the no longer flowing blood. If such an additional procedure is unnecessary for medical reasons, why is it done?

The Corinthian

MagicMarker wrote: »

I find it hard to believe anyone, bar pro-life extremists, would seriously not even consider taking the MAP solely because they think they may be ''murdering'' an innocent baby.

If you place the point at which a human becomes a human at fertilization, then it is logically consistent to consider anything that would cause the demise of a fertilized embryo (even a few hours old) to be killing a person.

Just bare in mind, just because it is a 'person', this does not mean we have to ascribe it the same rights as an infant, child or adult - we actually ascribe different levels of rights (and responsibilities) to all three.

drkpower

Khannie wrote: »

You keep asking that. My understanding from doing reading is that the MAP does not abort an implanted fetus, only prevents the egg being released OR prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb.

What is qualitatievely different about an implanted embryo/foetus as opposed to an unimplanted foetus?

Ultravid wrote:

The morning after pill is an abortifacient drug and as such is objected to by all those who are consistently pro-life. Human life begins at conception, and therefore the destruction of the newly fertilised egg is a very early abortion and an attack on the newly formed human life. .

Very true; if by consistent, you mean zealous, dogmatic and inhumane;).
Of course, if you are similarly consistent, then:

1. You are also against couples who are infertile going through the process of IVF.

2. You are also against (embryonic) stem cell research with all the hopes that that has for all of us.

3. You would criminalise women who take the MAP or hae an abortion.

4. You are also in favour of preventing a woman who has a risk to her life haing a termination if that risk is anywhere less than a certain risk of death (because otherwise, you would be valuing the foetus as less than the mother). As an example, if the woman had a 40% risk of death from pre-eclampsia, you would refuse a termination (until that risk increased to 99-100%). If the woman had a 60% risk of death from endometrial cancer if she didnt have a termination, you would refuse a termination

5. You are also in favour of preventing a woman who has a serious risk of her health from a pregnancy-related complication (ie. stroke, kidney failure etc etc) from haing a termination.

That is the kind of 'consistent' position which makes your self appointed title 'pro-life' look entirely laughable.

panda100

Was anyone just listening to the Newstalk discussion on this with Sinead Ahern from Choice Ireland?
It was very interesting.The pro choice side really did have the more convincing arguments

Was quite funny when Ronan Mullen kept on stating that we have a world class healthy service for pregnant women in this country,yet the government consistently refuse to regulate crisis pregnancy agencies??

whatdoicare

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.

So, if you had to choose between the life of your wife/partner and that of the unborn child you would choose the child? If my husband wrote that I'd knock him out, I'm not a walking incubator, if he had to choose, I'd be rooting for me! :eek:

Khannie

MagicMarker wrote: »

Once fertilization occurs (as little as 30 minutes after sex) then surely that's the point of no return?

I think it's weird that you would ask that, since it's definitely NOT the point of no return according to you. You would say that it's at 24 weeks or some other arbitrary point well after pregnancy has occured when you consider the "clump of cells" (horrible phrase that) has magically transformed into a human that shouldn't be killed.

I had considered the fertilisation the key moment, but having participated in this debate for some time now I'm not sure whether I'd consider implantation a significant point in the development cycle. It is certainly a point which can be quantified (though not necessarily measured). This is very different from the difference between 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds versus 24 weeks where no real difference has occured, yet abortion would be legal in one instance and illegal in the other (if most of people who would like to legalise abortion had their way....we'll discount those who would allow it 'til birth for the sake of the discussion).

Would i consider an ectopic pregnancy a pregnancy? Eh, not really. Do I think that we should expend considerable time and money making sure every fertilised egg reaches the womb? Not really, but once it has made it there I'd say that we should invest both time and money in making sure the health of both mother and baby are looked after.

whatdoicare

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Exactly, you can't speak for everybody, there will of course be fellas who insist on it and like I said, you can't have it both ways IE: If I have to ask the father permission to abort then he also has the right, after proven paternity, to put his case forward for the right to abort my 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.

Well, let's face it, the woman has the majority of the work and painful birthing to do and is the only one 100% the biological parent without question (unless dodgy ivf is involved but we'll keep away from that minefield for the while)- no man can 100% say he is the father until a paternity test proves so. It's very easy for a man to walk away at any stage of the pregnancy- we've seen this time and time again, Jordan and Dwight/Eddie Murphy and that scary spice would be famous examples right there.
Women have to go through all of the pregnancy, she is the major stake holder in the pregnancy and can't distance herself from it at any stage, she has the most to risk by continuing with it. So, I'd say from that, that the point is very valid.

Khannie

whatdoicare wrote: »

So, if you had to choose between the life of your wife/partner and that of the unborn child you would choose the child? If my husband wrote that I'd knock him out, I'm not a walking incubator, if he had to choose, I'd be rooting for me! :eek:

I don't even want to think about that choice to be honest. I think my wife would probably rather sacrifice herself if it meant her child could survive.

It is a totally separate discussion though. I never said that that life of the mother was worth more than the life of the child and never even ventured down that path. What I said was that although I disliked the that a woman wouldn't have complete control over her body, it was more important to me not to kill a child than for her to have that control over her body.

Khannie

whatdoicare wrote: »

you can't have it both ways IE: If I have to ask the father permission to abort then he also has the right, after proven paternity, to put his case forward for the right to abort my child.

One does not flow logically from the other. The right to prevent abortion is entirely different from the right to force one.

The Corinthian

whatdoicare wrote: »

Exactly, you can't speak for everybody, there will of course be fellas who insist on it and like I said, you can't have it both ways IE: If I have to ask the father permission to abort then he also has the right, after proven paternity, to put his case forward for the right to abort my child.

You misunderstood what I meant - I simply said that I cannot speak for anyone else's opinions in this thread.

Well, let's face it, the woman has the majority of the work and painful birthing to do

Even if she has the majority of the work and painful birthing to do, that does not mean that she should have all of the choice. It might mean that she has the majority of the choice, but as others are affected, then all of the choice cannot be left to her.

This does not mean that a man, for example, should be able to block or force an abortion, but it does mean that neither should he simply have to share the cost of another's choice (be it to keep or not keep the pregnancy/child).

It's very easy for a man to walk away at any stage of the pregnancy- we've seen this time and time again, Jordan and Dwight/Eddie Murphy and that scary spice would be famous examples right there.

Yet the law holds them accountable. They actually cannot walk away - only temporarily at best.

The only people who can legally 'walk away' are women.

The Corinthian

Khannie wrote: »

I don't even want to think about that choice to be honest. I think my wife would probably rather sacrifice herself if it meant her child could survive.

Ignoring it does not mean it does not happen. Neither is it just to force someone to sacrifice themselves.

Cases where the mother's health is in genuine danger if she does not abort, are not a bad example where even if the embryo is a person, society carries out a moral triage.

MagicMarker

Khannie wrote: »

I had considered the fertilisation the key moment, but having participated in this debate for some time now I'm not sure whether I'd consider implantation a significant point in the development cycle. It is certainly a point which can be quantified (though not necessarily measured). This is very different from the difference between 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds versus 24 weeks where no real difference has occured, yet abortion would be legal in one instance and illegal in the other (if most of people who would like to legalise abortion had their way....we'll discount those who would allow it 'til birth for the sake of the discussion).

Would i consider an ectopic pregnancy a pregnancy? Eh, not really. Do I think that we should expend considerable time and money making sure every fertilised egg reaches the womb? Not really, but once it has made it there I'd say that we should invest both time and money in making sure the health of both mother and baby are looked after.

We're not talking about an ectopic pregnancy, we're talking about the difference between aborting an implanted fertilized egg from the womb, and preventing it from getting there in the first place. I fail to see the difference myself.

But since you bring it up, would it have been okay to abort this baby, seeing as it wasn't a 'real' pregnancy? (assuming the mother wanted to)

Ultravid

drkpower wrote: »

Very true; if by consistent, you mean zealous, dogmatic and inhumane;).
Of course, if you are similarly consistent, then:

1. You are also against couples who are infertile going through the process of IVF.

2. You are also against (embryonic) stem cell research with all the hopes that that has for all of us.

3. You would criminalise women who take the MAP or hae an abortion.

That is the kind of 'consistent' position which makes your self appointed title 'pro-life' look entirely laughable.

I am opposed to IVF.

I am against embryonic stem cell research. Interestingly, no cures have come from this research whereas 73 cures have been obtained through adult stem cell research so far. This is fact.

MAP and abortion should not be available in any civilised country.

4. and 5. are rabbit holes I'm not going down for I do not have the medical knowledge (nor do you, I'm guessing) nor expertise and such scenarios are used to muddy the waters in these threads.

No woman in Ireland who is pregnant is denied medical treatment for life-threatening illnesses, simply because she is pregnant. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and misleading. The law exists to protect mother's and their unborn children. Directly procured abortion is illegal in Ireland. Essential medical treatment to save a woman's life which may result in the death of the baby may be permitted. In this case, the aim was not to kill the child, but to treat the woman. An example would be uterine cancer. Remove the cancerous tissue, the baby may well die, depending on how old it it. This is not a direct abortion. You could refer to it as an indirect abortion. They are in no ways the same thing, for the intention is very different.

drkpower

Ultravid wrote: »

4. and 5. are rabbit holes I'm not going down for I do not have the medical knowledge (nor do you, I'm guessing) nor expertise and such scenarios are used to muddy the waters in these threads..

You dont want to go down them because they illustrate the inconsistency and absurdity of your position. And you guess wrong; I do have the medical knowledge. And I can assure you that these areas are real and are not just theoretical areas that 'muddy the waters'. I am prepared to discuss all areas in this debate. You seem to be afraid to discuss your view on the areas you perceive as uncomfortable. If you cant face those, get out of the debate and come back when you have had a chance to consider them.

Ultravid wrote: »

No woman in Ireland who is pregnant is denied medical treatment for life-threatening illnesses, simply because she is pregnant. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and misleading. The law exists to protect mother's and their unborn children. Directly procured abortion is illegal in Ireland. Essential medical treatment to save a woman's life which may result in the death of the baby may be permitted. In this case, the aim was not to kill the child, but to treat the woman. An example would be uterine cancer. Remove the cancerous tissue, the baby may well die, depending on how old it it. This is not a direct abortion. You could refer to it as an indirect abortion. They are in no ways the same thing, for the intention is very different.

I am afraid it is not misleading. The only right to treatment that exists currrently is where there is a substantial risk of death. Do you know what that means? Does the health profession?

Consider these scenarios:
1. Uterine cancer is at an early stage; there is an estimated 1% risk of death if a termination is allowed now; there is a 5% risk if the mother takes the foetus to term. Is this substantial enough? - is an abortion permitted under Irish law (or in your moral code)?

2. Mother has pre-eclampsia; right now, there is a significant risk to her health (issues such as kidney damage and stroke); there is a small risk to her life at present; if the condition worsens that risk invreases; if the condition worsens and her life is at significant risk, a termination would be allowed; but the condition develops quickly, thus it is not guaranteed that the termination would be effected in time. Is this woman entitled to a termination now as there is a substantial risk to her health and a small risk to her life?

You seem to be fully prepared to support legislation preventing women from having certain choices and certain medical treatments; in that context, at least have the moral courage to address these diffficult issues rather than running away from them because you claim they 'muddy the waters', when patently, they do not.

Khannie

Ultravid wrote: »

I am opposed to IVF.

On what grounds?

Khannie

MagicMarker wrote: »

But since you bring it up, would it have been okay to abort this baby, seeing as it wasn't a 'real' pregnancy? (assuming the mother wanted to)

I'm trying to take a non-hardline stance and you're trying to force me to take one. I don't have all the answers to all the unusual circumstances. No I wouldn't have aborted that baby, though I don't understand how it surived / got where it was / etc.. It seems they didn't discover it 'til 27 weeks anyway, at which point survival rates outside the womb are well over 90% and abortion not an option legally anyway.

The Corinthian

Khannie wrote: »

On what grounds?

I think it might be on the basis that in IVF multiple harvested eggs are typically fertilized and only a fraction of those end up being used. The rest are frozen or discarded.

Other than cost, I'm not sure why eggs might not be fertilized on a need by basis in IVF, thus eliminating the need to discard any surplus.

MagicMarker

Khannie wrote: »

I'm trying to take a non-hardline stance and you're trying to force me to take one. I don't have all the answers to all the unusual circumstances. No I wouldn't have aborted that baby, though I don't understand how it surived / got where it was / etc.. It seems they didn't discover it 'til 27 weeks anyway, at which point survival rates outside the womb are well over 90% and abortion not an option legally anyway.

I'm just trying to highlight inconsistencies in general with people who are apposed to abortion, including yourself, you mentioned earlier that you didn't have a problem with it. *edit* The MAP that is.

Many disagree with abortion because of their own personal ideologies, but when faced with the scenario I mentioned earlier they wouldn't have a problem with it, because their own personal freedom and happiness usually trumps the potential happiness of the microscopic egg inside them. There wouldn't be an ounce of guilt when swallowing that pill.

The Corinthian

MagicMarker wrote: »

Many disagree with abortion because of their own personal ideologies, but when faced with the scenario I mentioned earlier they wouldn't have a problem with it, because their own personal freedom and happiness usually trumps the potential happiness of the microscopic egg inside them. There wouldn't be an ounce of guilt when swallowing that pill.

I think that works both ways though, in that many who favour the availability of abortion do so for their own personal ideologies. Some have even built political careers on it.

I think both sides have a habit of avoiding inconvenient discrepancies, or adding multiple caveats to hold together dubious logic so that they may justify their preconceived truth. No pun intended.

sparkling sea

drkpower wrote: »

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.

Where did 14 weeks come from ?

You must be a man, if your a woman I'd be more the surprised given your answer. Although some women may show before the 12th week, most don't and even those who do would have little difficulty disguising it.

MagicMarker

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think that works both ways though, in that many who favour the availability of abortion do so for their own personal ideologies. Some have even built political careers on it.

I think both sides have a habit of avoiding inconvenient discrepancies, or adding multiple caveats to hold together dubious logic so that they may justify their preconceived truth. No pun intended.

True, but there are discrepancies, and there are direct contradictions.

The Corinthian

MagicMarker wrote: »

True, but there are discrepancies, and there are direct contradictions.

And you seriously think either side in this debate has a monopoly on that type of idiocy?

When the pursuit for an expected truth becomes more important that the pursuit for an actual truth, then all sort of BS will ensue, and you'll find that type of blind faith in both pro-choicers and pro-lifers.

drkpower

sparkling sea wrote: »

Where did 14 weeks come from ?

You must be a man, if your a woman I'd be more the surprised given your answer. Although some women may show before the 12th week, most don't and even those who do would have little difficulty disguising it.

Im not fussed over 14 weeks; its not an exact science and some may be showing signs (ie. increased weight, breast size increase, etc etc) at 12 weeks, some at 14, some at 16; and others might not or can succesfully hide it for longer. My point was that, when a decision is made to have an abortion, a very significant factor in deciding to terminate early is to avoid the possibility that people may realise/suspect that they are pregnant, thus obviating the possibility of suspicion or alegation that they have had an abortion.

sparkling sea

I am an advocate of early abortions by this I mean up to the 12th week, except in exceptional cases.
I really wish the abortion pill was available in Ireland - but that is my personal opinion and I know that not everyone agrees with that.

Given that I have children myself when I was very young and cannot have children now because of medication I must take, I know this gives me some understanding of how both sides feel. Before someone asks why, I know what its like to have an unwanted pregnancy and I also know how it feels to want a child and not be able to have one.

Another aspect to this debate can be seen in an interesting article in this weeks Sunday Times on frozen embryos. Due to lack of legislation some clinics will no longer store embroyos indefinitely and it would appear are not legally obliged to do so.

I find this sad if there is a possibility that a couple may want to have a child in the future and the embryo is destroyed.

I would also think that this will add credance to the current case in Europe as the embryos right to life does not appear to be legislated for and so can be deemed not to exist.

sparkling sea

drkpower wrote: »

Im not fussed over 14 weeks; its not an exact science and some may be showing signs (ie. increased weight, breast size increase, etc etc) at 12 weeks, some at 14, some at 16; and others might not or can succesfully hide it for longer. My point was that, when a decision is made to have an abortion, a very significant factor in deciding to terminate early is to avoid the possibility that people may realise/suspect that they are pregnant, thus obviating the possibility of suspicion or alegation that they have had an abortion.

The highest number of abortions take place between the 7th to 9th week and although I would agree that people do not want people to know that they have had an abortion, its too simplistic to say that the fact that someone may show is the overriding factor for this, although it si probably one of the main factors. You are ignoring other factors that may be equally important.

As I said early in and around 90% of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks but this ranges from 6 to 12 weeks and the majority taking place in the 7th to 9th week.