ECHR rules Irish human rights violated by abortion ban

phantom_lord

matrim wrote: »

Yes there was and the ECHR is going to force the government to apply the result of that democratic vote and bring in a law that the people voted for. That being the right to have an abortion when the mothers life is in danger

Fairly sure the ECHR doesn't have the power to force the government to do anything.

Wolfe Tone

phantom_lord wrote: »

Fairly sure the ECHR doesn't have the power to force the government to do anything.

It doesnt.

ztoical

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes, so how would I be against that abortion then? If there is a very high risk of the mothers death......

But you would view it as killing if a healthy person like say myself had an abortion - correct? So if I legally went to the UK for an abortion it would be killing in your opinion not the states.

Ickle Magoo

ztoical wrote: »

...hundreds if not more of Irish women do get abortions every year by going to other countries.

According to the UK department of health, between 1980 and 2005 more than 123,000 women from Ireland travelled there for abortions.

I could understand the smug revelling in the Irish abortion laws if it weren't patently obvious that the only thing between legalising abortion and political apathy towards stirring that particular emotive wasps nest is the luxury of being able to export the issue to your nearest neighbour - hardly the moral supremacy that some would have you believe.

Wibbs

maple wrote: »

To those women that I know who have suffered a miscarriage and for those I know who have had an abortion, I say the same thing. It was not the time for that baby.

Though I see where you're coming from, I have to admit I share MUSSOLINI take on this. They're fundamentally different things. One is passive one is proactive. It's like comparing a road accident where I lose control of my car and run someone down, versus a situation where I deliberately run someone down. You might well say if you were of the fatalistic god bothering type that it was "their time" in the first instance, but unlikely you would in the second.

It is rarely as black and white a situation as you are making it out to be.

That I agree with 100%.

Aswerty wrote: »

Those who perpetuate the idea that abortion (or more exactly the legalisation of abortion) is solely a female issue are extremely blinkered.

I agree, but I really doubt that will change anytime soon. IMH There is an element of having your cake and eating it on both sides of this. With the pro lifers it's "we don't want this baby murder in our country!!!:mad: but we'll avoid talking about the clear need of the numbers going overseas for it". With the pro choicers it's "It's 100% a woman's body and her decision, it's not a mans!! :mad: but we'll ignore that part when a child is born".

maple wrote: »

Decent human beings? So because a woman/couple choose to have an abortion then they are less than decent? I hope you have a lovely view from up high in your ivory tower.

Agreed.

I would never judge a woman who had a termination. I would think it a terribly sad and in a lot of cases life changing decision for a person/couple to have to make.

Ditto and agreed.

In my opinion, both are tragic. I mean, who really ever wants to find themselves in a position whereby they have to have an abortion?

While I disagree with your comparison on a few levels, I agree 100% on this score. I've seen the effect of it up close. It's certainly not an easy thing. Not by a long shot.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I could understand the smug revelling in the Irish abortion laws if it weren't patently obvious that the only thing between legalising abortion and political apathy towards stirring that particular emotive wasps nest is the luxury of being able to export the issue to your nearest neighbour - hardly the moral supremacy that some would have you believe.

Yep beyond the pro and anti debate, the hypocrisy in all this and in this country really gets my goat. Though I've long been of the opinion that hypocrisy runs through the Irish psyche like words in a stick of rock.

panda100

maple wrote: »

Decent human beings? So because a woman/couple choose to have an abortion then they are less than decent? I hope you have a lovely view from up high in your ivory tower.

You are pro-life, such is your choice. In an ideal world women would get pregnant and the father would be delighted and the future would all be tied up in a lovely bow. The reality is very much different. There are practical considerations, financial considerations, it is rarely as simplistic a decision to have a child (be it accidental or planned) as you perceive it to be. No, it is my logic. I would never judge a woman who had a termination. I would think it a terribly sad and in a lot of cases life changing decision for a person/couple to have to make.

In my opinion, both are tragic. I mean, who really ever wants to find themselves in a position whereby they have to have an abortion?

I agree with everything you say, except that it is a terribly sad decision to have a termination. For many it can be quite a relief to have an abortion.
Though I agree its not an ideal situation to be in.

The_Minister

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

According to the UK department of health, between 1980 and 2005 more than 123,000 women from Ireland travelled there for abortions.

123,000 people missing from the population :eek:

I never realised that the numbers were so high.

danielmoran

Personally I believe it should be legal. Irelands catholic values have diminished and our politics should not be run by our religion. It should at least be put to a referendum.

Kazuma

The_Minister wrote: »

123,000 people missing from the population :eek:

I never realised that the numbers were so high.

They're not "missing" - if you want to play at that game lets just say that every time protection inhibits conception that someone goes "missing" - we know exactly where they are(n't)

caramolly

Wibbs wrote: »

Can we please ease back on the emotive stuff? I get it's an emotive subject but let's try to steer a more objective line if we can. Thanks

By its very nature it is emotive. Its not possible to be objective on this issue. You are either pro-life or pro-abortion. You can't sit on the fence on the issue. That said this thread is about the ECHR judgment itself.

caramolly

Jules wrote: »

Like i said it all comes down to belief as to when "life" begins. PERSONALLY i dont see cells dividing as being a "life" with self awareness and feeling etc. But still to say abortion is not for me, but i would never take away someone elses right to choose.

And as i said who are we to questions a persons beliefs and rights to choose.

Beruthiel wrote: »

Yup. Sometimes this country can be frustratingly backwards and the Government is more reactive than proactive in it's legislation.




Who are we to tell someone else how to run their lives?
What I do with my body is nobody elses business.

The 'who are we to question some else's right ' line doesn't work and if that's the only line you can come up with to support your views on abortion, it is very weak. 'We' as a society questions peoples' rights to do a lot of things. It's part of every society. Somethings are allowable, some things are not.
So the question is do we think it should be allowable to take unborn life? Not do we think we should let people 'make choices'.

Wibbs

caramolly wrote: »

By its very nature it is emotive. Its not possible to be objective on this issue.

I disagree or at least there's a difference between a natural emotional response and ranting. I was more referring to the latter.

You are either pro-life or pro-abortion. You can't sit on the fence on the issue.

Again I would disagree and suggest that this over polarisation is where people tend toward the ranty on both sides. People who think in black and white find a world of grey too much for them and there are quite a few grey areas in this.

IE There are people who would be anti abortion, but who would not have much issue with the morning after pill. I know enough of them. The contraceptive pill itself could in some instances be classed as abortifacient, because one of the ways it can act is by preventing implantation of a fertilised ovum. And there are a huge number of women who would happily use the pill, but would class themselves as quite strongly "pro life", though technically speaking they're "pro choice". On the other side there are people who would not be pro abortion themselves on a visceral and personal level, but would see others choices as their own. Then among the pro choice group there is the timing question. Some out there would even be in favour of abortions late enough that the foetus could possibly survive with medical care outside the womb. They're rare but they exist, while others as I said would stop the pro abortion clock at the MAP and others at the "abortion pill"(that would be close enough to my personal take). Outside the extreme types there are huge areas of grey.

That said this thread is about the ECHR judgment itself.

True enough, though as these subjects will, some broader discussion is likely(particularly with this subject)

So the question is do we think it should be allowable to take unborn life? Not do we think we should let people 'make choices'.

I still think it comes down to ownership. Who "owns" or shares in ownership of the foetus in the womb? The woman? The man" The society? The pro choice side seem to suggest(some beyond seem) that the foetus is the woman's 100% and as such it's progress is entirely up to her. The Pro life side seem to suggest it's societies, with some of the woman and some of the man thrown in. TBH while I am 100% pro choice as far as availability of abortion for women, the pro lifers do seem to share this ownership more, even though I disagree with the majority of their stances. I would even go so far as to suggest that more on the fence pro lifers would get behind the pro choice camp if that angle was looked at.

phantom_lord

The_Minister wrote: »

123,000 people missing from the population :eek:

I never realised that the numbers were so high.

Think of the reduction in crime!

amacachi

The_Minister wrote: »

123,000 people missing from the population :eek:

I never realised that the numbers were so high.

only works out at 5000 a year or a hundred a week, Have a look at people boarding the early Ryanair flights to Liverpool, Manchester and London and tell me it's as little as that.

phantom_lord wrote: »

Think of the reduction in crime!

Someone's been paying a little too much attention to Freakonomics. :pac:

christina_x

But... if she was forced to continue with the pregnancy and died as a result.. isnt that murder? I am against abortion for the most part... but i do believe that it is better to abort the child that to make the mother suffer, die and then leave the child without a mother - with her death possibly on its conscience?

Ickle Magoo

caramolly wrote: »

So the question is do we think it should be allowable to take unborn life? Not do we think we should let people 'make choices'.

That would be a logical question if it wasn't already perfectly legal to take an unborn life by using contraceptives that prevent implantation and the morning after pill. What is this huge perceived difference between the MAP and an abortfacient at 3 wks?

I don't think the issue is as black and white as either side of the fence would like to portray it - it's perfectly possible to be pro-choice within specific circumstances or time-frames yet not be pro-choice in it's entirety just as it's possible to see nothing wrong with certain contraceptives or the MAP and not support abortion.

Stheno

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That would be a logical question if it wasn't already perfectly legal to take an unborn life by using contraceptives that prevent implantation and the morning after pill. What is this huge perceived difference between the MAP and an abortfacient at 3 wks?

I don't think the issue is as black and white as either side of the fence would like to portray it - it's perfectly possible to be pro-choice within specific circumstances or time-frames yet not be pro-choice in it's entirety just as it's possible to see nothing wrong with certain contraceptives or the MAP and not support abortion.

Agreed I am pro choice but only up to a certain time frame as Wibbs alluded to, to me late term abortions, and particularly those above 22 weeks (which appears to be the current viability term) are abhorrent. Whilst I post that and believe that, I can see why in certain circumstances (discovery of severe illness/lack of viability to full term) a late term abortion is reasonable. I'd a friend who had a child who died in utero, yet was forced to go full term to deliver, horrific in my opinion, I'd certainly support an "abortion" that allowed her to move on more quickly than she did with no risk to the unborn child.

Personally I'd have a 16 week limit, gives a woman four (ish) months to realise they are pregnant and make a decision, anything above that makes me feel that a real possibility of life exists within a few weeks and it changes the entire scenario for me.

Hypocritical I know, but that's how I believe.

Ickle Magoo

The_Minister wrote: »

123,000 people missing from the population :eek:

I never realised that the numbers were so high.

123,000 unwanted children that could have been subjected to the widespread and systemic abuse from the now renowned irish care-systems...hardly the ideal alternative.

caramolly

Jules wrote: »

Like i said it all comes down to belief as to when "life" begins. PERSONALLY i dont see cells dividing as being a "life" with self awareness and feeling etc. But still to say abortion is not for me, but i would never take away someone elses right to choose.

And as i said who are we to questions a persons beliefs and rights to choose.

Okay so what development happened inside your mothers womb from the moment you were conceived apart from nutrition and the passage of time? And ask yourself this question then....when does the baby become a baby rather than a clump of cells. When does the child become 'self-aware' as appears to be your test? Were you self aware as a newborn? If you are going to use this argument ( which science disagrees with) then state clearly when you believe the child should be protected (or rather when the right to life should trump the right to 'choose') Then look at Britain where in 2008 66 babies were born and left to die and thats just the reported figure! Now I expect to hear you cry 'scaremongering' but those figures come from the NHS and were reported on 4.2.2008 in the Daily Mail. About half were alive for an hour, while one survived ten hours!

Is that a 'progressive' society? Is this the sort of culture we want in Ireland?

Jules

I would prefer a society where a person has a right to choose what happens to their own body.

For my self.. i am against abortion, it is not something i would do. But It's not a black and white issue. I have no set rules as to when a mass of cells becomes a baby. Maybe its then the heart is formed or when nerves work or pain is felt or when you first feel movement. I don't know. And i'm not sitting here protesting to know. I am just speaking about personal opinion.

Wolfe Tone

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

123,000 unwanted children that could have been subjected to the widespread and systemic abuse from the now renowned irish care-systems...hardly the ideal alternative.

123,000 children who could have been adopted by loving parents desperate for children.


Of course, killing them is better.

flinders

Sometimes democracy is a terrible, terrible thing.

If you held a referendum in the morning to legalise abortion in Ireland (either restricted or unrestricted), would that referendum pass? Would the Irish people vote it through? I think the answer is no. In fact, i think it would lose by quite a majority. Am i wrong?

Whether this is correct, incorrect, sad, ridiculous, simplistic, stupid or fantastically forward thinking is for the individual to decide. I have my own opinions.

Imagine how future generations will view abortion.....will they see it as legalised murder or sensible population control. Will it be more or less in existence as humans evolve?

But democracy is the will of the people, as manipulated by the Fianna Fail machine, Declan Ganley (yea, remember him) and all of the other self interested groups who fund campaigns to get what they want.

If the people of Ireland, in a free democracy, decide by a majority to live with the ridiculous/enlightened situation as it currently exists (no abortion, but abortion in England, which is really abortion, but just not abortion in ireland, for Irish Citizens, who have abortions, just not it Ireland ect.....) then that is Democracy in action.

And that, i think, is the hardest thing for either side of this debate to accept.

Am i wrong?

Ickle Magoo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

123,000 children who could have been adopted by loving parents desperate for children.

So those kids who were abused in the care homes were just on the cusp of their beautiful adoptions, huh?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Of course, killing them is better.

You are eagerly campaigning against most contraceptives and the MAP & consider them murder, then? I presume you would also never consider having sexual relations using anything other than the barrier methods? Would hate to think there was any hypocrisy going on.

phantom_lord

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

123,000 children who could have been adopted by loving parents desperate for children.


Of course, killing them is better.

It's kind of funny reading anti-abortion posts coming from a republican supporter! all those poor innocent babies :rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone

phantom_lord wrote: »

It's kind of funny reading anti-abortion posts coming from a republican supporter! all those poor innocent babies :rolleyes:

Thats completely irrelevant to the debate tbh.

Wolfe Tone

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So those kids who were abused in the care homes were just on the cusp of their beautiful adoptions, huh?

Sure we should take all the kids in care and execute them eh? Im sure everyone who was or is in care would rather be dead.

You are eagerly campaigning against most contraceptives and the MAP & consider them murder, then? I presume you would also never consider having sexual relations using anything other than the barrier methods? Would hate to think there was any hypocrisy going on.

I consider any destruction of a fetus after implantation as murder, with the exception that the death is a result of medical treatment the mother is having(chemo and the like) or there is a very very high risk of the woman dying as a result of the pregnancy due to a preexisting medical condition.

Ickle Magoo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Sure we should take all the kids in care and execute them eh? Im sure everyone who was or is in care would rather be dead.

That wasn't my point and you know it. There isn't the adoption utopia you seem to be attempting to peddle.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I consider any destruction of a fetus after implantation as murder, with the exception that the death is a result of medical treatment the mother is having(chemo and the like) or there is a very very high risk of the woman dying as a result of the pregnancy due to a preexisting medical condition.

So a child that has been conceived is not given the right to live? Only one that has implanted? Murderer!!

The_Morrigan

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Sure we should take all the kids in care and execute them eh? Im sure everyone who was or is in care would rather be dead.



I consider any destruction of a fetus after implantation as murder, with the exception that the death is a result of medical treatment the mother is having(chemo and the like) or there is a very very high risk of the woman dying as a result of the pregnancy due to a preexisting medical condition.

Personally I find both those statements to be quite extreme, and the latter void of any hint of the emotional torment that any parent has to endure to make this decision.

It's a very tough situation to be in and noone should be faced with the extra pressure of being called a murderer - that is absolutely horrendous.

Wolfe Tone

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Personally I find both those statements to be quite extreme, and the latter void of any hint of the emotional torment that any parent has to endure to make this decision.

It's a very tough situation to be in and noone should be faced with the extra pressure of being called a murderer - that is absolutely horrendous.

Extra pressure of being called a murderer? I will call it what it is.

Ickle Magoo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Extra pressure of being called a murderer? I will call it what it is.

But you don't call it what it is - you call it where you perceive it to be. Others would consider your own view that life doesn't begin at the exact point of conception to be abhorrent and murderous.