ECHR rules on abortion

robindch

Well, this one's going to cause a ruckus.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the Irish laws on abortion breach human rights legislation, where the life of the mother is at risk.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1216/breaking11.html

The full ruling is here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2010/echr/index.pdf

Can't wait to see Alive's "Cut out and Keep" section on this in their next issue.

hotmail.com

Why is this relevant for atheism?

magicbastarder

is there actually a law there banning abortion in all circumstances, or is the ruling that ireland is failing to apply a law allowing it in case of danger to the mother?

antiskeptic

I wonder could claimed suicide ideation (connected to the pregnancy) constitute a "danger to the mothers life"?

Beruthiel

It will be interesting to see what exactly will be done about this.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder could claimed suicide ideation (connected to the pregnancy) constitute a "danger to the mothers life"?

I don't think it should.

If I threatened to blow myself and my child up the idea that the state would kill my child to stop me doing this is frankly ridiculous. The same principle should apply to these cases if one considers the fetus to be a human being with rights, which as far as I know the Irish state still does.

In fact treating to kill yourself while pregnant should be considered a threat of murder if one considers the fetus to be a human being with rights. The mother should be arrested and monitored to ensure she doesn't kill the fetus.

Ireland is going through this quasi-surreal period where people sort of don't think the fetus is of value but sort of don't like the idea of abortion either. Like a lot of people these seems to be more to do with rejecting the idea of consequence free sex and rejecting the idea of a mother not wanting her child, rather than genuine concern for the unborn fetus which I don't see many people holding in that high a regard. Which is why you get the rather inconsistent and contradictory positions, such as abortion is wrong unless you have been raped.

Galvasean

I can taste those fetuses already...

krudler

Athiests are against abortion, no babies being born is cutting off the food supply

28064212

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why is this relevant for atheism?

Probably because of this line:

The Government robustly defended the laws and said Ireland's abortion laws were based on "profound moral values deeply embedded in Irish society"

Dades

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why is this relevant for atheism?

We frequently discuss human interest issues here with a view to hearing the opinions of those outside of a religious moral framework.

sensibleken

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder could claimed suicide ideation (connected to the pregnancy) constitute a "danger to the mothers life"?

It does explicitely. In the wake of the X case the supreme court ruled that Abortion was permisable in ireland if the mothers life was in danger explicitely stating 'including a risk of suicide'

Its just that no government has legislated for it. This ruling is just saying that the irish government needs to legislate in that area. something they were told 18 years ago.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think it should. If I threatened to blow myself and my child up the idea that the state would kill my child to stop me doing this is frankly ridiculous.

Why so? Let's assume the suicide ideation is genuine, the result of intense anguish produced by the prospect of (unplanned) motherhood. The State is faced with a dire situation and must respond in some way or other...

In fact treating to kill yourself while pregnant should be considered a threat of murder if one considers the fetus to be a human being with rights. The mother should be arrested and monitored to ensure she doesn't kill the fetus.

Criminalising suicide wouldn't, I think, be welcomed by the psychological services. Didn't the Roman Church take a similarily dim view at one point - suicide a mortal sin or summit

Ireland is going through this quasi-surreal period where people sort of don't think the fetus is of value but sort of don't like the idea of abortion either.

I would have thought the anti-abortion sentiment would stem from the many who are parents and who couldn't concieve of interupting what appears to them to be a miraculous and blessed thing (and I mean those words in the non-theistic sense)

Like a lot of people these seems to be more to do with rejecting the idea of consequence free sex and rejecting the idea of a mother not wanting her child, rather than genuine concern for the unborn fetus which I don't see many people holding in that high a regard. Which is why you get the rather inconsistent and contradictory positions, such as abortion is wrong unless you have been raped.

It need not be so either/or. Whilst upholding the value of a fetus, there is also the need to uphold the value of the person who carries it. Where no choice for is exercised on their part, it's not difficult to accept that the choice to carry on is down to the person. Where an effective choice for is exercised (in the case of voluntary sex) then responsiblities shift.

antiskeptic

sensibleken wrote: »

It does explicitely. In the wake of the X case the supreme court ruled that Abortion was permisable in ireland if the mothers life was in danger explicitely stating 'including a risk of suicide'

Its just that no government has legislated for it. This ruling is just saying that the irish government needs to legislate in that area. something they were told 18 years ago.

Okay. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with this wedge.

sensibleken

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with this wedge.

It fairly predictable i think. They'll have to train doctors or consultants in terminations and set up the services that they have in britain over here. I would doubt its going to be dedicated clinics as these are only going to be done as medical decissions rather than personal choice

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why so?

Because I'm threatening his life, so I'm in effect forfeiting my rights to protection. To protect my child's life others should be able do what is necessary.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's assume the suicide ideation is genuine, the result of intense anguish produced by the prospect of (unplanned) motherhood.

That is some what irrelevant. I'm going to kill you doesn't become acceptable because you are really really upset about it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The State is faced with a dire situation and must respond in some way or other...

If we accept the premise that the fetus is a human being with rights then the only way the State can act is to protect the fetus from the mother.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Criminalising suicide wouldn't, I think, be welcomed by the psychological services.

It isn't criminalizing suicide, it is criminalizing abortion which is already a crime. The suicide bit is rather immaterial.

Think of how you would deal with a suicide bomber. The principle is the same. Just become someone believes someone has the right to kill themselves doesn't imply that they have the right to take others with them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would have thought the anti-abortion sentiment would stem from the many who are parents and who couldn't concieve of interupting what appears to them to be a miraculous and blessed thing (and I mean those words in the non-theistic sense)
...
It need not be so either/or. Whilst upholding the value of a fetus, there is also the need to uphold the value of the person who carries it. Where no choice for is exercised on their part, it's not difficult to accept that the choice to carry on is down to the person.

Thank you for demonstrate my point

Abortion in this country seems to have a lot more to do with making women suffer the consequences of sex than anything to do with the legal rights of the fetus or whether it is a human being or not.

So it is ok to toss the fetus away if the mother didn't choose to have sex, but it is not ok if the woman did. Then she must continue to have the baby.

That position is, frankly, ridiculous.

It is ignores completely what the fetus is and whether it does or doesn't have rights. It becomes just a question of society being uncomfortable with what they view as consequence free sex. Which is why we end up with this rather surreal arguments coming from those who oppose abortion but only in the instances where the woman decided to have sex.

The fetus either has value in of itself or it doesn't. If it does then it doesn't matter what circumstances the woman ended up having the fetus. If it doesn't then it doesn't matter what circumstances the woman wishes to get rid of it.

The idea that abortion is wrong because women should be made to suffer the consequences of their actions is insulting and nonsensical. Unfortunately it is a very Catholic-Ireland-circa-1950s idea when sex was seen as something dirty and shameful, and that still over shadows any serious debate about abortion in Ireland.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

[...]a miraculous and blessed thing (and I mean those words in the non-theistic sense)

What exactly is the "non-theistic" meaning of the words "miraculous" and "blessed"?

sensibleken

Wicknight wrote: »

The fetus either has value in of itself or it doesn't. .

I need to take up this point as arguements tend to hinge on it. Its not that black and white. There are stages in development. Can we say a blastocyst or embyo is the same as a foetus, is the same as a toddler or an adult. No, we cant assign the same value. Hence why few places perform full term abortions

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

What exactly is the "non-theistic" meaning of the words "miraculous" and "blessed"?

Zombrex

sensibleken wrote: »

I need to take up this point as arguements tend to hinge on it. Its not that black and white. There are stages in development. Can we say a blastocyst or embyo is the same as a foetus, is the same as a toddler or an adult. No, we cant assign the same value. Hence why few places perform full term abortions

Oh of course, I didn't mean the fetus as a stage of development.

I mean the growing organism, and assessment of value must be taken at the different stages of development, as you say a blastocyst is profoundly different to a 8 month old unborn baby.

I meant it more in terms of considering these external questions, such as was the mother raped, was she have consensual sex, was the baby planned or not.

I would see these questions as quite immaterial. If the fetus at the stage of development when the abortion is to be performed has value in of itself then it doesn't matter how the woman ended up with it. If it doesn't then equally it doesn't matter how the woman ended up with it.

This idea of anti-abortion being used as a way to teach women a lessen about sex and learning the consequences of their actions is insult and ridiculous.

Europe? Abortion?

Oh my god....
COIR were right!

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea that abortion is wrong because women should be made to suffer the consequences of their actions is insulting and nonsensical. Unfortunately it is a very Catholic-Ireland-circa-1950s idea when sex was seen as something dirty and shameful, and that still over shadows any serious debate about abortion in Ireland.

So conjugal rights > right to life? Leaving aside pop-psychology that is.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

So conjugal rights > right to life? Leaving aside pop-psychology that is.

Why not? A person should be able to have control over their own body. If a woman wants to have unprotected sex with dozens of men and have an annual abortion to get rid of the unwanted pregnancies that results, then however distasteful we might find it, she should be able to do that.

Thankfully, that kind of scenario, irrespective of the opinion of the RCC and the contributors to Alive!, is likely to remain rare.

I firmly believe that a woman should have the right to have an abortion if she feels she needs it. I personally think the rights of the mother should take precedence over the rights of the unborn foetus. I am not pro-abortion. I do not advocate abortions for all, in the sense that I think everyone should try it. I am pro-choice as I believe the option should be there, though I would prefer if there were no abortions.

MrP

bnt

Wicknight wrote: »

Ireland is going through this quasi-surreal period where people sort of don't think the fetus is of value but sort of don't like the idea of abortion either.

Um ... does anyone actually like the idea of abortion? I think it should be legal without restriction, because it's sometimes necessary and withholding it can lead to real hardship. I trust people to know when it is or isn't the right thing to do - which is not the same as liking it. You don't make laws based on the opinions of some people.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

What exactly is the "non-theistic" meaning of the words "miraculous" and "blessed"?

Something 'great' and 'wonderful' perhaps?

Choochtown

MrPudding wrote: »

Why not? A person should be able to have control over their own body. If a woman wants to have unprotected sex with dozens of men and have an annual abortion to get rid of the unwanted pregnancies that results, then however distasteful we might find it, she should be able to do that.

But should us tax-payers pay for it? I'd prefer my money to be spent on better education or family planning advice or psychiatric help for the woman.


I firmly believe that a woman should have the right to have an abortion if she feels she needs it. I personally think the rights of the mother should take precedence over the rights of the unborn foetus.

I don't have clearcut views on this. Is a woman under a lot of stress (due to unwanted pregnancy) able to decide this on her own? If she's in a relationship, what about the views of the father (largely forgotten in any discussion). The Uk system as it is written in law as I understand it states that at least 2 signatures are needed from Drs/social workers to proceed. (In practice this has developed into abortion on demand). I'd be happy with the UK system as written rather than as practised being introduced here ... I think!

geespot

i definetly think women should have the right to choose while she is pregnant and the father should have the next nine months to choose if he decides he dont want it in that time he should be allowed to drown, slice up, poison whatever fair is fair

strobe

geespot wrote: »

i definetly think women should have the right to choose while she is pregnant and the father should have the next nine months to choose if he decides he dont want it in that time he should be allowed to drown, slice up, poison whatever fair is fair

Back in my day this all used to be fields and trolls use to be clever and try hard to earn their keep......Alas, nothing's been the same since Roy Orbison died...

geespot

strobe wrote: »

Back in my day this all used to be fields and trolls use to be clever and try hard to earn their keep......Alas, nothing's been the same since Roy Orbison died...

you had your day ......... although doubt if anybodys old enough to remember it

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

So conjugal rights > right to life?

If we define it as ok to kill the fetus if the woman has been raped or is suicidal then the fetus doesn't have a right to life, so it is moot point.

It becomes

conjugal rights > being made to have a baby to learn your lesson.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh of course, I didn't mean the fetus as a stage of development.

I mean the growing organism, and assessment of value must be taken at the different stages of development, as you say a blastocyst is profoundly different to a 8 month old unborn baby.

I meant it more in terms of considering these external questions, such as was the mother raped, was she have consensual sex, was the baby planned or not.

I would see these questions as quite immaterial.

At what stage of development do you think that abortion becomes unacceptable? Self-aware/sentient, capable of feeling pain?

I think this is the most important distinction. It's way over-simplified to just say Yes/No to abortion.

Also if you look at the assessment of value as a grey-scale, one could argue that the external questions (rape etc.) could weight the decision.

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

At what stage of development do you think that abortion becomes unacceptable? Self-aware/sentient, capable of feeling pain?

That is a very difficult question, but as you say probably the most important one. I tend to air on the side of caution, believing that it is a "better wrong" to stop a woman aborting a fetus that doesn't yet have these characteristics than to allow the abortion of a fetus that does.

I've read that after the 5th month the baby's body starts a rapid expansion of the brain and that a lot of the higher brain functions come "online", to borrow a computer.

I would be quite concerned about abortion after this stage, though I am always open to more information about fetal brain development.

liamw wrote: »

Also if you look at the assessment of value as a grey-scale, one could argue that the external questions (rape etc.) could weight the decision.

I don't see how really. A good test is apply any principle to a new born. Can you destroy a 6 month old baby because they were produced by a rape? Most I hope would say no. So why would that be any different with an unborn baby if you decide that in normal circumstances the unborn baby has a right to life and protection of life?

Beruthiel

liamw wrote: »

At what stage of development do you think that abortion becomes unacceptable? Self-aware/sentient, capable of feeling pain?

I would hope that when most women become sexually active, they have actually thought, in advance, about what they would do should they become pregnant.
Under those circumstances, the first 12 weeks is more than enough time to get yourself sorted.

PDN

Beruthiel wrote: »

I would hope that when most women become sexually active, they have actually thought, in advance, about what they would do should they become pregnant.

I admire your optimism.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't see how really. A good test is apply any principle to a new born. Can you destroy a 6 month old baby because they were produced by a rape? Most I hope would say no. So why would that be any different with an unborn baby if you decide that in normal circumstances the unborn baby has a right to life and protection of life?

I think you're missing my point. If we take development as a scale (as it is), then nomatter what point you deem it acceptable to abort, there will always be a grey period. During that grey period, external factors could come into play.But this is a very very specific period I'm talking about and perhaps one we shouldn't concern with.

Of course, if the decision was aired on the side of caution, the external factors have no bearing, and I would agree with you.

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

I think you're missing my point. If we take development as a scale (as it is), then nomatter what point you deem it acceptable to abort, there will always be a grey period.

I'm not denying the existence of a grey period, which is why I said I air on the side of caution. When dealing with something like sentience or consciousness or personality I'm not sure there ever won't be a grey period where we just don't know exactly what state the fetus is in.

I'm still not sure what external factors though would have relevance to this, certainly not things like the mental state of the mother or the origin of the pregnancy.

Perhaps I have a different idea of what external factors you are talking about?

keppler

Wicknight wrote: »

I would be quite concerned about abortion after this stage, though I am always open to more information about fetal brain development.



I don't see how really. A good test is apply any principle to a new born. Can you destroy a 6 month old baby because they were produced by a rape? Most I hope would say no. So why would that be any different with an unborn baby if you decide that in normal circumstances the unborn baby has a right to life and protection of life?

In fairness if safe legal abortion was available in ireland nobody would have to worry about aborting after a 22 week period.

Also, I really think your test is fundamentally flawed from the point of view that a new born baby is not caried inside the womb of its mother....If you apply the principles to a new born then you may as well apply them to a 10yr old child

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not denying the existence of a grey period, which is why I said I air on the side of caution. When dealing with something like sentience or consciousness or personality I'm not sure there ever won't be a grey period where we just don't know exactly what state the fetus is in.

I'm still not sure what external factors though would have relevance to this, certainly not things like the mental state of the mother or the origin of the pregnancy.

Perhaps I have a different idea of what external factors you are talking about?

If you air on the side of caution, then my point is moot.

cavedave

Beruthiel
Under those circumstances, the first 12 weeks is more than enough time to get yourself sorted.

from wikipedia

In 2004, there were 185,415 abortions in England and Wales. 87% of abortions were performed at 12 weeks or less and 1.6% (or 2,914 abortions) occurred after 20 weeks. 82% of abortions were carried out by the National Health Service.

The overwhelming majority of abortions (95% in 2004 for England and Wales) were certified under the statutory ground of risk of injury to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

If we define it as ok to kill the fetus if the woman has been raped or is suicidal then the fetus doesn't have a right to life, so it is moot point.

As far as I'm aware, Irish law only takes into account cases where the mothers life is at risk.

The logic being it is better to save one life than to lose two.

Wicknight wrote: »

conjugal rights > being made to have a baby to learn your lesson.

Again, it appears that you are intentionally skewing what is being said.

The point behind the question is whether or not the right to life is inferior to the right of the foetus. Leaving aside your pop-psychology, your answer seems to be yes, it is. Don't you find this scary?

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, Irish law only takes into account cases where the mothers life is at risk.

That is true. The problem being, and the issue that ECtHR addressed, is that there is no guidance - legislative, judicial or other - as to what level of risk is sufficient to warrant an abortion. Thus the decision is left in the hand of a doctor who, unless he wants to risk his career/liberty, will only offer an abortion when the risk is truly grave.

pH

liamw wrote: »

If you air on the side of caution, then my point is moot.

- if it was worth fixing mute then it's worth fixing air!

Anyway, anyone on the "pro life" side wanting to make an issue of this is in for a kicking.

LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT, THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT ABORTION ON DEMAND, IT'S THE MORE NARROWLY DEFINED ONE OF ABORTION WHEN THE MOTHER'S LIFE IS AT RISK.

From the opening paragraph in the IT article linked by the OP:

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Ireland has failed to properly implement the constitutional right to abortion where a woman is entitled to one where her life is at risk.

So some history:

The 8th amendment in 1983

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

A lot of people weren't happy with that wording at the time, and along came the "X case" in 1992 which asked is under that wording a suicidal mother could have an abortion

As a result of the x-case the powers that be tried to close off the "suicide" option in the 12th amendment:

It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction.
Result : Defeated

And again with the 25th amendment a much more complex amendment which was narrowly defeated.

At the same time as the 12th amendment was being defeated, 13 and 14 guaranteeing our "export the problem to the UK" solution were accepted.

The current situation is disgusting, the constitution currently allows for abortions where the mother is at risk, 2 attempts to change this to exclude suicide have been rejected by the Irish people, and yet the government has refused to legislate on this basis, pregnant women in Ireland whose life's are at risk still cannot have an abortion in this state, despite the constitution saying they can, and 2 attempts to change it having been rejected.

liamw

pH wrote: »

- if it was worth fixing mute then it's worth fixing air!

I did not know it was 'err on the side of caution'. Thanks, I've learned more from this thread than I could have ever anticipated.

keppler

thought you guys/gals would be interested in this article

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/12/15/catholic-bishop-arizona-hospital-stop-providing-lifesaving-abortions

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, it appears that you are intentionally skewing what is being said.

Well I said it Jakkass, so that probably isn't the case.

You tried to sum up what I said as

conjugal rights > right to life?

and I clarified that no, if one first establishes the fetus has no right to life, but then continues to require that abortion is illegal, it isn't due to concern for the fetus. Moves to say that abortion is acceptable if the mother has been raped or is suicidal etc diminish the right to life of the fetus. Proponents of such moves continue to argue that if the woman consented to sex and got pregnant she shouldn't be allowed have an abortion. That idea doesn't seem to have much to do about concern for the right to life of the fetus, as such a right is disregarded if the woman didn't consent to sex.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

and I clarified that no, if one first establishes the fetus has no right to life, but then continues to require that abortion is illegal, it isn't due to concern for the fetus.

From this point in I'll be referring to the foetus as "unborn child" as I feel this is a more accurate description of what it is.

I guess the distinguishing point is that many of us (myself included) do believe that every child, irrespective of whether it is born or unborn has the right to life. Therefore the "punish the woman" argument is lacking to say the least. It's about lives being saved.

cavedave

Jakkass

From this point in I'll be referring to the foetus as "unborn child" as I feel this is a more accurate description of what it is.

Do you have any evidence that this is a more accurate description? Is the phrase "unborn child" used by Obstetricians for example? Obstetricians presumably would find it useful to use accurate descriptions of what they work on.

According to dictionary.com

Child: a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

From this point in I'll be referring to the foetus as "unborn child" as I feel this is a more accurate description of what it is.

I guess the distinguishing point is that many of us (myself included) do believe that every child, irrespective of whether it is born or unborn has the right to life. Therefore the "punish the woman" argument is lacking to say the least. It's about lives being saved.

Not if you are happy to abort a baby if the conception was a result of rape or incest or if the mother is threatening to kill herself.

I've no idea if that is your position or not, but it is the position of a lot of Irish people, which is why I am querying the motivation for continuing to view abortion as wrong if someone has already concluded that the fetus does not have right to life. Then it seems simply to require women to have children if they have sex.

philologos

I've already addressed this, so please read above.

mohawk

I heard this story on Matt Cooper yesterday. Its very relavent to this thread http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/cuh-ethics-forum-did-not-halt-abortion-trip-140088.html

It is disgusting that we sent a very ill woman to England for an abortion. When she was on the radio yesterday she said she has lung cancer.

The article highlights that there is very real need for something to be done.

Shenshen

mohawk wrote: »

I heard this story on Matt Cooper yesterday. Its very relavent to this thread http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/cuh-ethics-forum-did-not-halt-abortion-trip-140088.html

It is disgusting that we sent a very ill woman to England for an abortion. When she was on the radio yesterday she said she has lung cancer.

The article highlights that there is very real need for something to be done.

To be honest, I think it's utterly disgusting that anybody should be forced to leave the country to seek vital medical treatment, not just cancer patients.

Shenshen

Jakkass wrote: »

From this point in I'll be referring to the foetus as "unborn child" as I feel this is a more accurate description of what it is.

Good for you.
I shall start referring to it as "parasite", as I feel this closest describes its behaviour towards the body of its host.

I guess the distinguishing point is that many of us (myself included) do believe that every child, irrespective of whether it is born or unborn has the right to life. Therefore the "punish the woman" argument is lacking to say the least. It's about lives being saved.

I'm glad to hear you're campaigning for obligatory organ donation and forced regular blood-harvesting of all citizens. Or are you just interested in preserving the lives of children as long as they're inside other people's bodies?