Termination of Preganancy Bill

later12

The last few threads on this had to be closed, so hopefully this one will fare better.

As most people know, the Medical Treatment (Termination of Pregnancy in Case of Risk to Life of Pregnant Woman) Bill , which was proposed by the ULA & Mick Wallace, was defeated in the Dail last week.

What some people may have missed, was Mick Wallace's reading of a letter he received from a constituent who found herself in an impossible situation arising out of Ireland's failure to legislate for pregnant women who, for one reason for another, seek to undergo an abortion of their pregnancy.

My colleagues and I have received a large number of e-mails and letters from people caught in this terrible situation. One of these letters tells a story which many may not have heard. I will read it out in full:

Please take time to read this e-mail and consider why abortion should be legalised in Ireland. I am not saying it should be fully legalised, but I also do not think it is enough just to legalise it where the mother’s life is in danger. I will explain as I go. I had always been someone who said I would never have an abortion. Unfortunately, I did not know what lay ahead for me. I was with my husband ten years when we decided it was time to have children. Much to our delight, after ten months, I finally fell pregnant. I did everything right, took perfect care of myself as I was trying to conceive. My bump grew and I began to feel my lovely baby kick me and move about.

I finally received an appointment for my first scan at 22 weeks, on Christmas week in 2010, and here it all changed. When I had my scan I was told that my beautiful daughter had a condition called anencephaly, a neural tube defect which means part of her brain and skull had not formed properly while everything else had grown perfectly normally. The short of it was that our daughter had no hope of surviving and would die without a doubt. If she survived the pregnancy, she would probably die at birth or within a few hours. To say we were heartbroken is an understatement. We were told in Ireland that I had to carry my baby to full term. I was told I would not be brought in early; in fact, I would be left to go two weeks over. I would not be given a Caesarean section and would have to go through the labour. Alternatively, I could travel to the UK to terminate our pregnancy.

How would I cope emotionally? How could I keep going day by day and feel the baby inside me? How would I deal with the questions from well-meaning people: “When is your baby due?” How could I watch my perfect baby struggle and die in my arms? After much deliberation I felt it would be too difficult to continue with the pregnancy knowing our daughter was going to die and opted for a termination in the UK on New Year’s Eve 2010, at 24 weeks. Because of our laws I was not allowed to receive any help from the hospital here. I was given one recommendation of a well known UK clinic and we went with this. I was treated so coldly. They had no understanding that I did not want to terminate this pregnancy. I wanted this baby so much but she was going to die. No medical intervention could prevent this.

To put this into context, the well reported comments of Michelle Mulhern are probably not worth repeating here, but they can be found via the following link.
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/04/19/00006.asp

I know the issue of what is rather unfortunately termed "abortion on demand" is a contentious one, so maybe it might be best for people to leave that issue aside for now and only focus on the issues regarding seriously ill foetuses or cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Can we agree, for example, that a woman carrying a baby with anencephaly such as in the example of Depty Wallace's letter, ought to be given access to abortion in Ireland?

And what threats to the mother's life should the Dail legislate for, if it is to clearly establish the situations whereby women can access abortions as per the European Convention on Human Rights Ruling of 2011? I would suggest that a risk of suicide is a legitimate risk to the mother's life that should permit access to an abortion, would others agree?

johnnyskeleton

Abortions for some, small American flags for everybody else.

There really is no agreement to e reached in the abortion debate, although having to travel to Belfast is about the only impediment to getting an abortion.

later12

Northern Ireland has similar abortion laws to the Republic, except slightly clearer in their denials.

Dubhlinner

Its utter insanity they won't 'teminate' in cases of Anencephaly, the baby is effectively dead by any human standards.

Basically the brain doesn't develop. The foetus that grows is in life terms no different to a miscarriage that for some reason needs to be surgically removed. If you're looking it up for more information be aware you're likely to run into some very disturbing images.

I can see why there's debate about regular abortions, I can see why there's debate for cases such as rape, I can see why there's debate about aborting babies with down syndrome, but with anencephaly there should be no debate at all.

benway

Hard to believe that this is still going on - the constitution is clear:

40 3 3° 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.

The right in principle to an abortion in circumstances where pregnancy endangers the mother has been settled for 20 years:

This conclusion leads inevitably to the recognition that the wording of the Amendment contemplates abortion lawfully taking place within this State.

Hard to believe that our governments have been so terrified of rocking the boat that no action has been taken on this. Utter cowardice.

For me, a credible threat of suicide, based on the totality of the circumstances, such as that in the X case, should be sufficient, but in any event, some action on this is long past due. Whatever you think about Wallace in general, he's right in this instance. This idea that we can just export the problem to the UK ... that as long as pregnant women can travel, even in extreme circumstances such as those contemplated in the bill, sure isn't it grand for them and everybody's happy?

Toby Take a Bow

I'd be for this completely. I understand why you're asking people not to discuss the whole 'abortion on demand' type argument, but I think peoples' opinions will still be formed by whatever their understanding of that concept is. For the people who would deny this woman's right to terminate her pregnancy when the baby has no chance of survival doesn't take away from their understanding of the right to life. I guess similar in some ways to voluntary euthanasia. Because they understand the right of the life of the baby as central here, the right of the mother to choose doesn't come in to the argument. Regardless of the specifics.

RichardAnd

I think that in certain circumstances, abortion is a sound option for an individual to choose. If a woman has been raped, if giving birth would pose a significant risk to her health or if the child would be born with a dilapidating condition then ending the pregnancy is, perhaps, the best decision to be made. This could be said of various other situations too.

On the other hand, abortion on demand is not something I would ever support. I don't take this stance for any religious or chauvinistic reason it's simply a case that I do firmly believe that life begins at conception and not at birth. An infant in the womb may be dependant on its mother to survive but it is alive and it is human. I can not morally bring myself to accept that it is right to terminate that life without a very, very good reason.

I'm aware that some might disagree with me and I request that if anyone wishes to argue with me on my opinion, they do so in a respectful manner.

Redz1

I truly can't understand how so many ignore the obvious right to life of an innocent baby. Of course the situation of a baby born with Anencephaly is heartbreaking. I am pregnant myself and also have another young baby and I would be devastated if I was given this news. However, that would never give me the right to decide that my little baby would have to die because I couldn't face watching my beautiful baby die. How could I choose to abort my child to protect myself from the further misery of watching my baby die? How is that protecting my child? It would instead be protecting myself. I would see it as my responsibility as my child's mother to ensure that he or she was as comfortable as possible and given the best care possible for the time that he / she had. That is the job of a mother, no matter how difficult, not to decide to end your child's life.

Sadly, life is not easy and we are sometimes faced with very difficult situations. No matter how our society changes, the responsibility of a mother and the right to life of an innocent baby will never change. Of course, the right to life of a mother is always essential, but let's be honest and not kid ourselves anymore - it is a very rare situation that a Mother's health is in danger.

I hope that someone will renew my faith in humanity and show that there are people out there who recognize that an innocent, dependent baby needs society to protect them.

RandolphEsq

Redz1 wrote: »

I truly can't understand how so many ignore the obvious right to life of an innocent baby. Of course the situation of a baby born with Anencephaly is heartbreaking. I am pregnant myself and also have another young baby and I would be devastated if I was given this news. However, that would never give me the right to decide that my little baby would have to die because I couldn't face watching my beautiful baby die. How could I choose to abort my child to protect myself from the further misery of watching my baby die? How is that protecting my child? It would instead be protecting myself. I would see it as my responsibility as my child's mother to ensure that he or she was as comfortable as possible and given the best care possible for the time that he / she had. That is the job of a mother, no matter how difficult, not to decide to end your child's life.

Sadly, life is not easy and we are sometimes faced with very difficult situations. No matter how our society changes, the responsibility of a mother and the right to life of an innocent baby will never change. Of course, the right to life of a mother is always essential, but let's be honest and not kid ourselves anymore - it is a very rare situation that a Mother's health is in danger.

I hope that someone will renew my faith in humanity and show that there are people out there who recognize that an innocent, dependent baby needs society to protect them.

I feel that women unfortunately get maternal and equate a smiling baby with what is developing inside themselves. Case point example in the post above where the word 'baby' is used used in the context of killing a baby when getting an abortion. That terminology betrays a blinkered view on abortion.

RichardAnd

RandolphEsq wrote: »

I feel that women unfortunately get maternal and equate a smiling baby with what is developing inside themselves. Case point example in the post above where the word 'baby' is used used in the context of killing a baby when getting an abortion. That terminology betrays a blinkered view on abortion.

So what then would you call an unborn infant?

Redz1

RandolphEsq, I would suggest that your post is the blinkered one on two fronts.

1. Surely a baby deserves that their mother would be maternal - what is that we are debating here only pregnancy and motherhood.
2. I refer to the child in question as a baby. What else are we referring to but a baby???? What does a pregnant woman say to her family and friends..... "I am expecting a......" can you enlighten me???? Not using the term "baby" is simply trying to blinker the facts of the matter.

Of course every potential mother imagines their child smiling but sadly life often takes over and a baby may not have the health that we would all wish for. My exact point is that it is then that a baby needs his / her Mother more.

RandolphEsq

Redz1 wrote: »

RandolphEsq, I would suggest that your post is the blinkered one on two fronts.

1. Surely a baby deserves that their mother would be maternal - what is that we are debating here only pregnancy and motherhood.
2. I refer to the child in question as a baby. What else are we referring to but a baby???? What does a pregnant woman say to her family and friends..... "I am expecting a......" can you enlighten me???? Not using the term "baby" is simply trying to blinker the facts of the matter.

Of course every potential mother imagines their child smiling but sadly life often takes over and a baby may not have the health that we would all wish for. My exact point is that it is then that a baby needs his / her Mother more.

Yeah, the mother is expecting a baby, but what she has in her is not actually a baby yet.

RichardAnd wrote: »

So what then would you call an unborn infant?

An embryo or a fetus I think.

But for the purposes of the current abortion debate, the issue is not a black or white, abortion is right or wrong debate, the life of the mother needs to be taken into account. For this reason, we need to discuss the balancing of the rights of the mother and the unborn. Since I would be in favour of abortion in general, I would obviously be in favour of abortions in this specific situation too.

Nodin

Redz1 wrote: »

I truly can't understand how so many ignore the obvious right to life of an innocent baby. Of course the situation of a baby born with Anencephaly is heartbreaking. I am pregnant myself and also have another young baby and I would be devastated if I was given this news. However, that would never give me the right to decide that my little baby would have to die because I couldn't face watching my beautiful baby die. ............

Yes, but either way its going to die, which is the brutal truth of it. And, as you may well be aware of, it's not like pregnancy takes place over a long weekend. Not everyone is going to take those months well, to put it mildly.

bmaxi

Given that any expectant mother who wishes can travel to the UK for an abortion, what exactly does the ban on abortion in Ireland achieve? At best the salving of the consciences of a few and pandering to the desires of the church. Ultimately, those women who are intent on abortion will have them, circumstances permitting, the ban only affects those who can't afford to do it, it doesn't actually prevent abortions taking place.
I find the "not on my patch" attitude a bit hypocritical.

Stark

Redz1 wrote: »

I truly can't understand how so many ignore the obvious right to life of an innocent baby. Of course the situation of a baby born with Anencephaly is heartbreaking. I am pregnant myself and also have another young baby and I would be devastated if I was given this news. However, that would never give me the right to decide that my little baby would have to die because I couldn't face watching my beautiful baby die. How could I choose to abort my child to protect myself from the further misery of watching my baby die?

That's your choice. You have no right to impose it on other mothers. In the case you cited, the child is already dead, you want to force mothers to grow the body to term just so they can suffer.

golfball37

Personally I'm against abortion but I'd rather have people choose for themselves without state interference.

It would be in the country's best interests too if half of the single mothers breeding to avail of the hand out culture were to terminate their pregnancy.

Controversial I know but thats how I feel on it.

squonk

I have never understood why people become so squemish around this subject. Even as some of the comments here have shown, the issue becomes very emotive very quickly. Human nature I suppose.

From my own point of view, I'd see the issue in very simple terms. Legalise abortion full-stop. We've already got something like 4500 women traveling for abortions each year, or certainly last year if I remember where I got that figure from. It's highly hypocritical of us as a nation to maintain this situation so that we can be happy to say that abortion on demand isn't here. We're simply exporting the problem. We're good at exporting our problems as those currently heading to Aus etc. to find work will attest to.

It takes leadership and courage to finally stand up and call things as they are and move to change the situation. Even if abortion became legal and available in the morning, it's doubtful there'd be a rush in the takeup greater than that we see already, nor a sudden explosion in unwanted pregnancies due to a correlated sudden catastrophic abandonment of personal responsibility. In the end, those who genuinely needed the option would have it, and the level of support and advice available would be far more balanced and useful.

For each of us as individuals, it's easy to say that we wouldn't do something but I believe you have to walk a mile in somebody's shoes before you can judge them. What any of us believe can suddenly change when we're challenged by circumstances we did not foresee. If I found myself in a similar situation, I'd rather deal with it with the help of my own contacts than be treated like a lepper and have to rely on incomplete information. It's time that things moved on in this country.

wes

In the case of the mothers life being in danger. I think it rather silly that this has not been legislated for already. The various governments over the years have really dropped the ball on that one. Also, in a case like the one highlighted by the OP, I think should be legal as well.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Stark wrote: »

That's your choice. You have no right to impose it on other mothers. In the case you cited, the child is already dead, you want to force mothers to grow the body to term just so they can suffer.

This basically sums it up for me. Let the individual and potentially their other half/parents etc. decide. Don't have the government tell people want to do, and don't have other peoples views imposed on people.

If you are against abortion, don't have one.
If you aren't and feel it's your last option, well that's your choice.

goose2005

RichardAnd wrote: »

So what then would you call an unborn infant?

A human organism, yes, but a human being - uncertain.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

This basically sums it up for me. Let the individual and potentially their other half/parents etc. decide. Don't have the government tell people want to do, and don't have other peoples views imposed on people.

If you are against abortion, don't have one.
If you aren't and feel it's your last option, well that's your choice.

But that argument makes no sense; people who are anti-abortion believe that unborn foetuses are human beings and are thus entitled to the same protection under law as any other human beings; one may as well say "if you are against murder, don't kill anyone, but don't question other people's right to kill those who bother them." I don't believe an unborn foetus can be considered a proper human, at least not in the early months, but if I did, of course I would see abortion as murder.

Given that any expectant mother who wishes can travel to the UK for an abortion, what exactly does the ban on abortion in Ireland achieve? At best the salving of the consciences of a few and pandering to the desires of the church. Ultimately, those women who are intent on abortion will have them, circumstances permitting, the ban only affects those who can't afford to do it, it doesn't actually prevent abortions taking place.
I find the "not on my patch" attitude a bit hypocritical.

But again that doesn't make sense. Irish men travel abroad and have sex with child prostitutes; is that an argument that it should be permitted here? Again, I'm not opposed to abortion, but it's quite illogical that Irish law gives legal protection to a foetus once it's in the state, but permits the foetus being taken out of the state for the express purpose of murdering* it and then allows the killer* return to the state with impunity.

*I'm using these terms because that is the Irish law's point of view re. abortion.

Atomicjuicer

Giving suicidal women the right to kill the unborn doesn't solve anything because every Jacintah will just say "aw yeah, I'm totally suicidal like!!!!"

Think of the medical staff who have to perform the operation when they've taken vows to protect life.

Say what you want but life starts at conception. Ending life is murder.

Stark

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Think of the medical staff who have to perform the operation when they've taken vows to protect life.

Doctors who work in abortion clinics are happy to do so because they know they're protecting vulnerable women from botched home abortions.

Manach

My understanding based on recent reports in the British press is that a significant proportion of Abortion clinics are willing to cut corners in their willingness to accept "clients". The abortion debate shows how far the chattering classes are divorced from the Catholic heritage of the country by seeking to declassify as human that which does not fit into a known mold - a fact reflected in the judicial decisions in cases such as Roche v Roche, the frozen embryos case.

RDM_83 again

On the issue off freely available abortion I've mixed and quite hypocritical feelings.

The situation in relation to non-viable fetus's and other extreme cases certainly needs to be improved.

I think the UK is not a good a example to follow, no matter what ones opinions on abortion is I would be surprised if any one considered a termination rate of around 20% of pregnancies a good thing, especially considering the fact that the abortion bill was originally introduced and worded in a way that it is most definitely not being applied at present.

A more philosophical/theoretical issue is in relation to the you can't tell a woman what do with her body is that in our current society our freedoms in relation to our own bodies are constantly being restricted through legislation, to extrapolate this argument out to some extreme examples, its a womans right to be allowed to consume massive amounts of alcohol while pregnant.
More interestingly (because it makes people think about the unintended consequences of their views) is in utero influencing of fetal development, for example it may be possible in the future for the likely hood of homosexuality to be reduced by hormonal adjustment, this could be easily justified in that the future development of the fetus/person is not harmed in anyway and there is legitimate reasons due to religious beliefs or even from a strictly rationalist desire to increase the likelihood of their genetic material to be passed onto future generations.

Tragedy

Redz1 wrote: »

I truly can't understand how so many ignore the obvious right to life of an innocent baby. Of course the situation of a baby born with Anencephaly is heartbreaking. I am pregnant myself and also have another young baby and I would be devastated if I was given this news. However, that would never give me the right to decide that my little baby would have to die because I couldn't face watching my beautiful baby die. How could I choose to abort my child to protect myself from the further misery of watching my baby die? How is that protecting my child? It would instead be protecting myself. I would see it as my responsibility as my child's mother to ensure that he or she was as comfortable as possible and given the best care possible for the time that he / she had. That is the job of a mother, no matter how difficult, not to decide to end your child's life.

Sadly, life is not easy and we are sometimes faced with very difficult situations. No matter how our society changes, the responsibility of a mother and the right to life of an innocent baby will never change. Of course, the right to life of a mother is always essential, but let's be honest and not kid ourselves anymore - it is a very rare situation that a Mother's health is in danger.

I hope that someone will renew my faith in humanity and show that there are people out there who recognize that an innocent, dependent baby needs society to protect them.

Ya see. Legalising abortion means that you can still choose to not abort.
You, personally, have a moral problem with abortion. Great! If abortion was legalised, no-one would suddenly force you to abort your baby.
However, your position is that because it offends your morality, your opinion is more important than everyone else's so no-one in the whole state should be allowed to abort.

Essentially, you're forcing your views on everyone else in a moralistic "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN ARGUMENT".

I find that kind of closed-minded viewpoint incredibly offensive. What gives you the right to decide who gets to abort and why, just because you personally find it distasteful?

efb

RDM_83 again wrote: »

On the issue off freely available abortion I've mixed and quite hypocritical feelings.

The situation in relation to non-viable fetus's and other extreme cases certainly needs to be improved.

I think the UK is not a good a example to follow, no matter what ones opinions on abortion is I would be surprised if any one considered a termination rate of around 20% of pregnancies a good thing, especially considering the fact that the abortion bill was originally introduced and worded in a way that it is most definitely not being applied at present.

A more philosophical/theoretical issue is in relation to the you can't tell a woman what do with her body is that in our current society our freedoms in relation to our own bodies are constantly being restricted through legislation, to extrapolate this argument out to some extreme examples, its a womans right to be allowed to consume massive amounts of alcohol while pregnant.
More interestingly (because it makes people think about the unintended consequences of their views) is in utero influencing of fetal development, for example it may be possible in the future for the likely hood of homosexuality to be reduced by hormonal adjustment, this could be easily justified in that the future development of the fetus/person is not harmed in anyway and there is legitimate reasons due to religious beliefs or even from a strictly rationalist desire to increase the likelihood of their genetic material to be passed onto future generations.

what about gender? If gender could be changed by hormonal adjustment, wouldn't that be the same argument as sexuality?

Terminating a terminal foetus, should be allowed.

RDM_83 again

Tragedy wrote: »

Ya see. Legalising abortion means that you can still choose to not abort.
You, personally, have a moral problem with abortion. Great! If abortion was legalised, no-one would suddenly force you to abort your baby.
However, your position is that because it offends your morality, your opinion is more important than everyone else's so no-one in the whole state should be allowed to abort.

Essentially, you're forcing your views on everyone else in a moralistic "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN ARGUMENT".

I find that kind of closed-minded viewpoint incredibly offensive. What gives you the right to decide who gets to abort and why, just because you personally find it distasteful?

Hmmmm it may be in need of an update but in Ireland we get to vote on changes on our constitution so the 8th amendment means its hardly just her forcing her opinion on you.
One of the problem with living in a democracy is there is always an issue with the tyranny of the majority but your aggressive and combative post style means that you probably haven't thought of it in those terms.

Tragedy

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Hmmmm it may be in need of an update but in Ireland we get to vote on changes on our constitution so the 8th amendment means its hardly just her forcing her opinion on you.
One of the problem with living in a democracy is there is always an issue with the tyranny of the majority but your aggressive and combative post style means that you probably haven't thought of it in those terms.

I haven't been given the opportunity to vote on either the constitution or changes to the constitution?

There's likely to only be a few tens of thousands left alive who were asked to vote on the original constitution(and that vote itself was hardly a roaring success was it?)?

The 12th and 25th amendment's failing would also indicate it isn't tyranny of the majority, as would the many opinion polls on the issue.

It isn't tyranny of the majority, it's tyranny of the elected.

As for Redz' post, please do point out what is logically incorrect with my assertion that legalising abortion would have no impact on her right to not abort whereas her finding it distasteful and insisting no-one should be allowed to abort under any circumstances - would have an impact on other individuals right to abort?
Oh, you can't so you're going to waffle about the constitution and tyranny of the majority(which you showed you don't really understand)? Right.

RDM_83 again

efb wrote: »

what about gender? If gender could be changed by hormonal adjustment, wouldn't that be the same argument as sexuality?

Terminating a terminal foetus, should be allowed.

I actually not quite sure what my opinions are on this matter myself , I use it as an example of how the argument 'its a womans body, she can do what she wants with it' are a lot more complex than they first appear (or will be in the future), I lean towards the view that if abortion is freely available there is no logical reason to have a problem with in utero modification that is not directly harmful.

RDM_83 again

Tragedy wrote: »

I haven't been given the opportunity to vote on either the constitution or changes to the constitution?

There's likely to only be a few tens of thousands left alive who were asked to vote on the original constitution(and that vote itself was hardly a roaring success was it?)?

The 12th and 25th amendment's failing would also indicate it isn't tyranny of the majority, as would the many opinion polls on the issue.

It isn't tyranny of the majority, it's tyranny of the elected.

As for Redz' post, please do point out what is logically incorrect with my assertion that legalising abortion would have no impact on her right to not abort whereas her finding it distasteful and insisting no-one should be allowed to abort under any circumstances - would have an impact on other individuals right to abort?
Oh, you can't so you're going to waffle about the constitution and tyranny of the majority(which you showed you don't really understand)? Right.

I was saying that it was not just her opinion that restricts the right to abort rather the historic position of the majority of the citizens of this state, also you do know the content of the 12th and 25th ammendments, their rejection is in no way a defacto acceptance of abortion in all but the most extreme circumstances (which I actually agree urgently needs to legislated on), also what redz actually said was

Redz1 wrote: »

I
Of course, the right to life of a mother is always essential, but let's be honest and not kid ourselves anymore - it is a very rare situation that a Mother's health is in danger.

In your post you use the word choose to abort, even in the UK you don't have a free choice to abort as it technically relies on the approval of two doctors.

From wiki "The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression" I thought my use of the phrase was pretty correct, could you tell me how it was flawed?

Tragedy

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I was saying that it was not just her opinion that restricts the right to abort rather the historic position of the majority of the citizens of this state

And? I was quoting her opinion not the constitution, with her opinion being because she finds it morally unacceptable, no-one else should be able to do it. You still have yet to point out the logical error in what I posted and are still maundering on about the constitution when I never argued constitutionality.

also you do know the content of the 12th and 25th ammendments, their rejection is in no way a defacto acceptance of abortion in all but the most extreme circumstances (which I actually agree urgently needs to legislated on), also what redz actually said was

And? You essentially claimed that there was a majority against Abortion in any sense and argued 'tyranny of the masses' when there is zero evidence of what the masses actually currently want/believe.

In your post you use the word choose to abort, even in the UK you don't have a free choice to abort as it technically relies on the approval of two doctors.

Who chooses to go to the doctors to get their approval? Technically, that's a choice isn't it? Who chooses to go the abortion clinic on the day? Technically, I believe that is also a choice? Should i technically go on about more technical choices?

From wiki "The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression" I thought my use of the phrase was pretty correct, could you tell me how it was flawed?

You have yet to support the idea that the masses have a uniform opinion on this while even a cursory google shows the exact opposite.

Now, can we drop this sideline that was started by you trying to be superior by posting

One of the problem with living in a democracy is there is always an issue with the tyranny of the majority but your aggressive and combative post style means that you probably haven't thought of it in those terms.

and move on? Unfortunately I was forced to study political theory in first year of University, so your attempt was sadly misplaced - I'm sadly well aware of what it is. If you want to argue tyranny of the masses, libertarianism and whatnot, maybe do it in another thread and without being condescending?

BluntGuy

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Say what you want but life starts at conception. Ending life is murder.

In your opinion.

And this is essentially exactly what Tragedy is saying, everyone has their own view on this. There isn't a standard accepted scientific view as to when human life begins, everyone has their own subjective view on it. Is it right that one can force their own subjective view on others?

Atomicjuicer

BluntGuy wrote: »

In your opinion.

And this is essentially exactly what Tragedy is saying, everyone has their own view on this. There isn't a standard accepted scientific view as to when human life begins, everyone has their own subjective view on it. Is it right that one can force their own subjective view on others?

Sorry but my opinion has science behind it. Deciding when you think life has developed far enough for you to decide that it is life is subjective.

Any scientist worth their salt knows that conception is the most logical definition of the start of life.

spank_inferno

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Sorry but my opinion has science behind it. Deciding when you think life has developed far enough for you to decide that it is life is subjective.

Any scientist worth their salt knows that conception is the most logical definition of the start of life.

Hmmm..... again that is your opinion.

A conceived cluster of cells will not become a living being if it does not implant within the womb.

Is it not more logical to say that life starts at implantation??

There is many a fertilised egg that does not implant and is just passed at the women’s next period.

seamus

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Any scientist worth their salt knows that conception is the most logical definition of the start of life.

[Citation Needed]

Depends on your definition of "life". If we were define it in terms of how we usually look at life - an autonomous biological organism capable of feeding & reproducing - then I think you'll find that there's nothing "logical" at all about using conception since the organism at that stage is entirely parasitic on its mother. It's not until 30-ish weeks that the organism could survive on its on without the mother's biological processes.

Even then of course, the child is utterly dependent on another for food and care for at least a year.

So I think you'll find that there's no logical definition for the "start of life", because that's what the entire bloody debate is about. If it was as simple and set as you say, why are we discussing anything?

I would strongly doubt the credibility and expertise of any scientist who "declared" conception to be the start of life.

Tragedy

BluntGuy wrote: »

In your opinion.

And this is essentially exactly what Tragedy is saying, everyone has their own view on this. There isn't a standard accepted scientific view as to when human life begins, everyone has their own subjective view on it. Is it right that one can force their own subjective view on others?

Exactly. For example, drink driving laws. There is plenty of scientific/statistical proof that banning drink driving, despite the negative effect it would potentially have on Pubs, rural communities etc, would provide a measurable benefit to society at large.
While morally, one can argue drink driving is wrong, it was outlawed for logical and verifiable reasons and not for purely moral ones.
Abortion however, seems to usually comes down to moralistic arguments for restraint of other individuals freedoms.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

t's not until 30-ish weeks that the organism could survive on its on without the mother's biological processes.

The limit of viability is considered 24 weeks these days, due to advances in neonatal intensive care.

I do agree with you that the beginning of life is not an instantaneous, black and white affair.

When you consider what it is that makes the fundamental difference between a collection of cells (which we could all be described as), and life possesing human consciousness, it comes down to the central nervous system. I would consider a defining event in the formation of the CNS to be the closing of the anterior neuropore, thus forming the primordial brain.

This is just my own opinion obviously, but it strikes me as a reasonable definition as it would exclude the anencephalic foetus.

BluntGuy

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Sorry but my opinion has science behind it.

A lot of people could claim this about their opinions. But please explain.

Deciding when you think life has developed far enough for you to decide that it is life is subjective.

Well if you want to re-phrase it like that to fit your moral view, fair enough.

Any scientist worth their salt knows that conception is the most logical definition of the start of life.

Explain this.

seamus

It's also worth pointing out (heading it off at the pass, so to speak) that abortion is nothing new. Although it's considered a purely medical process now and "new", abortion being specifically illegal is a fairly new social construct (in the grand scheme). For most of human history, its status has been changed, at some points being considered a legitimate form of birth control, at others being considered an offence against the man, or an offence against God.
In many cultures, a child may not have even been considered "human" for months. In ancient Greece for example, postnatal "abortions" were acceptable if the father wa sunhappy with the newborn child. Newborns would also often be "exposed" (left outside) overnight as a form of ensuring that children were strong - if a child dies, it is the will of the Gods.

My main point being that although we can take the abortion argument at a much more scientific level now, it's a long-long-long-running debate which has never had any definitive declaration made.

RDM_83 again

Tragedy wrote: »

And? I was quoting her opinion not the constitution, with her opinion being because she finds it morally unacceptable, no-one else should be able to do it. You still have yet to point out the logical error in what I posted and are still maundering on about the constitution when I never argued constitutionality.

I referenced the constitution as it was voted on by the people of Ireland at that time* and appears to be broadly in line with her opinion, we have our choices restriced by peoples opinions all the time but it only seems to be in the abortion debate that it draws such ire, an example, the age of consent in Ireland is 17 in spain is 13, is it valid for me to aggressively attack posters that support Irelands age of consent as

Tragedy wrote: »

I find that kind of closed-minded viewpoint incredibly offensive.

* if you read my posts you will see I say "it may need an update" and "the historic position of the majority of citizens"

Tragedy wrote: »

And? You essentially claimed that there was a majority against Abortion in any sense and argued 'tyranny of the masses' when there is zero evidence of what the masses actually currently want/believe.

Show me where I state their is a majority opposed in any sense, that is why I quoted Redz in my previous post as she seems to consider abortion may be justified in certain cases.

If we look at the opinion polls we that the majority opinion is still that access to abortion should be extremely limited (the last poll i see only polled 18-35 year olds so it isn't useful), also these opinion polls don't really matter, what matters is that amendment 8 is still in force and amendments 12 and 25 were rejected

Tragedy wrote: »

Who chooses to go to the doctors to get their approval? Technically, that's a choice isn't it? Who chooses to go the abortion clinic on the day? Technically, I believe that is also a choice? Should i technically go on about more technical choices?

Yes you have a choice to try and access an abortion, however your ability to obtain an abortion still relies on the opinion of two MD's

Tragedy wrote: »

Now, can we drop this sideline that was started by you trying to be superior by posting and move on? Unfortunately I was forced to study political theory in first year of University, so your attempt was sadly misplaced - I'm sadly well aware of what it is. If you want to argue tyranny of the masses, libertarianism and whatnot, maybe do it in another thread and without being condescending?

I'm the one who is trying to be superior in my posting? read your post in reply to Redz, shouty caps, deeply offensive etc not exactly to notch politics posting!. See my above points about the opinion polls and historic voting too why the tyranny of the majority point is still applicable.

Tragedy wrote: »

Exactly. For example, drink driving laws. There is plenty of scientific/statistical proof that banning drink driving, despite the negative effect it would potentially have on Pubs, rural communities etc, would provide a measurable benefit to society at large.
While morally, one can argue drink driving is wrong, it was outlawed for logical and verifiable reasons and not for purely moral ones.
Abortion however, seems to usually comes down to moralistic arguments for restraint of other individuals freedoms.

The reason there is a debate is because neither side has a completely scientific basis to it, its your opinion that a fetus is less of an individual than a new born child, it could be my opinion following the arguments set out in this interesting paper here, that post birth abortion is justifiable, is there a non-moral argument against this or would you simply restrain my individual freedom

Tragedy

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I referenced the constitution as it was voted on by the people of Ireland at that time* and appears to be broadly in line with her opinion,

So you brought it up for no reason? I don't believe the fact that it was voted in by a tiny majority 80 years ago particularly relevant, especially when no-one else has mentioned it.

we have our choices restriced by peoples opinions all the time but it only seems to be in the abortion debate that it draws such ire, an example, the age of consent in Ireland is 17 in spain is 13, is it valid for me to aggressively attack posters that support Irelands age of consent as

Mayhap because there is a clear society wide consensus on the age of consent? Just as there is a clear society wide consensus on it being unjust that boys can be prosecuted for having sex with a girl under 17 but not vice versa?
A completely irrelevant example that doesn't in any way back up your point? Excellent!

Show me where I state their is a majority opposed in any sense, that is why I quoted Redz in my previous post as she seems to consider abortion may be justified in certain cases.

"I was saying that it was not just her opinion that restricts the right to abort rather the historic position of the majority of the citizens of this state"
And the whole tyranny of the masses angle kinda presupposes that the masses is agreed on it...

If we look at the opinion polls we that the majority opinion is still that access to abortion should be extremely limited (the last poll i see only polled 18-35 year olds so it isn't useful), also these opinion polls don't really matter, what matters is that amendment 8 is still in force and amendments 12 and 25 were rejected

I don't recall stating otherwise, so why are you talking to me as if I did?

Yes you have a choice to try and access an abortion, however your ability to obtain an abortion still relies on the opinion of two MD's

So why are you waffling about choice?

I'm the one who is trying to be superior in my posting?

I'm sorry, I might have mistaken your "Oh you obviously couldn't think of it in those terms while being aggressive and combative" as being helpful and positive :rolleyes:

read your post in reply to Redz, shouty caps, deeply offensive etc not exactly to notch politics posting!.

The only shouty caps is a simpsons quote. Would you like to apologise now? What was deeply offensive about my post? I stated that I found her closed minded viewpoint offensive. Is that deeply offensive?

See my above points about the opinion polls and historic voting too why the tyranny of the majority point is still applicable.

Except it isn't in any way as I've already shown. Do keep stating it is though.

The reason there is a debate is because neither side has a completely scientific basis to it, its your opinion that a fetus is less of an individual than a new born child, it could be my opinion following the arguments set out in this interesting paper here, that post birth abortion is justifiable, is there a non-moral argument against this or would you simply restrain my individual freedom

I don't recall stating that a fetus is less of an individual than a new born child.

RDM_83 again

hmmmm 1983 isn't 80 years ago.

Show me how you refuted my tyranny of the majority point? oh right you're not able to find an opinion poll that states that the majority of people are not opposed to abortion apart from in limited circumstances are you? therefore the majority opinion is being imposed on a minority opinion.

I consider it poor form to accuse another poster of being close minded if they have a different opinion to me.

Tragedy wrote: »

I don't recall stating that a fetus is less of an individual than a new born child.

No but you are stating that "comes down to moralistic arguments for restraint of other individuals freedoms", if you do believe that a fetus is an individual isn't an abortion a most severe impact on that individual (the fetus).
If you don't believe a fetus is an individual tell me how you would refute the arguments laid out in the paper quoted without using a moral argument?

Tragedy

RDM_83 again wrote: »

hmmmm 1983 isn't 80 years ago.

Eight Amendment doesn't preclude abortions for medical reasons. Redz argues that abortions for medical reasons shouldn't be allowed. You're using the Eight Amendment to back up Redz point of view. What?
I was referring to the original constitution.

Show me how you refuted my tyranny of the majority point? oh right you're not able to find an opinion poll that states that the majority of people are not opposed to abortion apart from in limited circumstances are you? therefore the majority opinion is being imposed on a minority opinion.

Yet again you're arguing against something I never posted. Redz post was largely about aborting fetuses for medical reasons (e.g. anencephaly). I never talked about abortion in any other cases, even though you've now posted replies to me several times as if I had. Please cop on and stop making things up.

Opinion polls suggest that a majority supports abortion where
A)The mother's life is in danger
or
B)Where the baby cannot survive outside the womb
or
C)The baby is a result of rape.

Redz is against abortion in B and C and will no doubt downplay A as much as possible (as she downplayed anencephaly).

So your tyranny of the majority is now tyranny of the minority, but instead of accepting it you make up arguments by me?

I consider it poor form to accuse another poster of being close minded if they have a different opinion to me.

Where have I posted an opinion on abortion?

No but you are stating that "comes down to moralistic arguments for restraint of other individuals freedoms", if you do believe that a fetus is an individual isn't an abortion a most severe impact on that individual (the fetus).
If you don't believe a fetus is an individual tell me how you would refute the arguments laid out in the paper quoted without using a moral argument?

Why are you trying to put further words into my mouth?

The most important part of that quote is moralistic arguments. I have no problem with logical and scientific arguments.

carveone

I'd be of the opinion that the maternity hospitals would have more experience than any of us would have and it was their opinion (in 2002) that abortion would be acceptable in certain cases, including encephalopathy.

However, one could argue this topic for the next 20 years, we could have another referendum on the issue, nicely sidetracking the entire population from the topic of banks/charges/tax/economy/corruption (it's just like 1983!), and it would make absolutely no difference. What's the point in having bans
on abortion in certain circumstances and allowances in others when the Dail refuses to legislate for any of them anyway, even in the face of an ECHR decison to do so.

It's not much to ask is it? To do what the people asked you to do? Even just to clarify the situation. But, no, instead Fianna Fail have to have another referendum (2002) to have another go at the 12th amendment (suicide not adequate threat to woman's life). WTF was the point of that when they hadn't done anything since 1992? I wasn't in the country at the time but I believe Ahern said a No vote would introduce "abortion on demand". There was a No vote. Where's the abortion on demand. They did the same thing last week - a vote on the private member's bill would introduce "abortion on demand"...

In 1992 the people decided that the apparant ability of the government to ignore basic human rights and European law and actually intern children (this is as seperate from the substantive issue - it was a seperate referendum) would not stand. I grimly imagine telling youngsters that I voted in a referendum to say "I'm allowed leave the country". The right to travel and the right to information referendums were passed and the restrictions on abortion were not (ie: the people wished for the Supreme Court decision to stand).

But still the government essentially ignored those wishes. The Supreme Court decision was never legislated for and the information amendment was legislated for in an underhanded manner. (In my opinion) This essentially means that doctors are risking imprisonment if they bring up the subject
of abortion first, even in cases like encephalopathy where that doctor is fullfilling his medical duty by stating the options available.

I firmly believe that if given a free hand, the "Official Free lifers" would wind us back to the 1950s. To avoid getting flamed I hurry to state what I mean by "Official Free life" movement - in Ireland I mean primarily that of
Spuc/Youth defence/Coir. Their position only appears to be Pro Life but they are way way more than that. They have always had the ultra Catholic point of view that abortion should be illegal no matter what, also contraception should be illegal, women should have a duty to bear children, you shall not be allowed leave the country if pregnant etc etc. Don't forget that Spuc sued the Irish Family Planning association. And won! These are the guys shouting "it'll be abortion on demand".

Whew. Too much ranting for one day...

Ellis Dee

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Abortions for some, small American flags for everybody else.

There really is no agreement to e reached in the abortion debate, although having to travel to Belfast is about the only impediment to getting an abortion.

Agreed, but unless they've changed things up there lately, I think it's still not easy to get an abortion, so most women travel to England.:)

Some older Boardsies may recall the 1970s, when contraceptives were still banned in the Republic. Then, with AIDS and the gradual dawning of awareness even here that we were living in the 20th century, the Government finally gave in to growing pressure and changed the law to make contraception available to married couples on prescription. :rolleyes: Charles J. Haughey famously described it as "an Irish solution to an Irish problem".

Fortunately for Irish women who believe an abortion is their preferred option, there is also "an Irish solution to the Irish problem of abortion". The name of that solution is England, and both geography and inexpensive air fares mean that almost all women can avail themselves of it if they need to.

A few years ago I financed a trip to London for a young woman of my acquaintance, a student coming up to her final exams, who found herself pregnant and broke. She didn't dare ask her ultra-Catholic parents for help and some of her friends eventually came to me because I was the only one anywhere near those circles who had money.

When she went to London, she was told it was too soon for the abortion and that she would have to return in three weeks' time. Out with the chequebook again! A simple test, unavailable in the Republic, would have revealed that and she would not have had to make the first trip to London.:(

The lack of legislation, which should have been enacted nearly 20 years ago, does not and can not prevent women having terminations abroad, but it gives the anti-choice crowd a consolation prize by placing unnecessary and pointless impediments in the way of women who want to exercise their right to travel abroad for a service that is legal in their country of destination. It's no more than a bit of harassment, the equivalent of mischief like well-poisoning actually, but does mean hardship for some women and it is time to end it.:D

seamus

carveone wrote: »

But, no, instead Fianna Fail have to have another referendum (2002) to have another go at the 12th amendment (suicide not adequate threat to woman's life). WTF was the point of that when they hadn't done anything since 1992?

The 2002 referendum was cynical move by FF at the time to galvanise their support base for the general election that was to be held two months later.
Bertie astutely recognised that by proposing additional restrictions on abortion, he could secure the support of the more hardline and religious groups within Irish society, but without massively displacing the less hardline.

The opposition parties would take the opposite stance, opposing the restrictions on abortion and damaging their ratings within the hardline groups. His argument being that, "If you vote these guys in, they'll legalise abortions for all". FG were annihilated in that election.

The effect on FF's rating for those people who aren't hardline on abortion would be far less because they don't see abortion as a major election issue.

It was win/win for Bertie at the time, and after FF were re-elected, the issue was promptly dropped and there was no attempt to legislate despite the electorate having made themselves pretty clear.

(Sorry, I know that's a bit off-topic, just trying to explain in the context of the Bill in the thread title as to how this issue has been used politically in the past)

RDM_83 again

Perhaps I miss read your point original point and Redz one, I read your post as being outraged by the viewpoint of another allowing restricting ones reproductive rights due to moral opinion in any case? if you did write this post at being outraged by views such as Redz restricting the right to abortion in cases B and C n your previous post as would be expected to be from various opinion polls and amendment referendums i I apologize. If however you wrote the spirit of the former I believe my points still stand.

I get your point about moralistic arguments, however the fact that you couldn't be bothered to attempt to reply to the paper I linked and also ignored my question on how if you consider a fetus an individual it has its individual rights impacted by abortion leads me to consider that you have not considered the impact of removing the ability to make moral judgements would have. If you have please give your opinion on it using a logical and scientific argument (its an interesting read anyway that challenges our preconceptions)

p1akuw47h5r3it

goose2005 wrote: »

But that argument makes no sense; people who are anti-abortion believe that unborn foetuses are human beings and are thus entitled to the same protection under law as any other human beings; one may as well say "if you are against murder, don't kill anyone, but don't question other people's right to kill those who bother them." I don't believe an unborn foetus can be considered a proper human, at least not in the early months, but if I did, of course I would see abortion as murder.

.

And some people don't. The best way to accommodate both sides is to legalize abortion so those who want/need abortions can have them and those who don't need/want don't have too.

With regards the murder comment. I'm pretty sure the vast, vast majority of people believe murder of other humans is wrong. This isn't the case with regards to abortion as not everyone regards a fetus as a human being yet, therefore this point doesn't really stand.

carveone

seamus wrote: »

The 2002 referendum was cynical move by FF at the time to galvanise their support base for the general election that was to be held two months later.

I figured as much but as soon as I mentioned the X Case I always get indignant and sidetrack my own postings. Plus I went off topic too! I was 21 at the time so I remember it pretty poignantly.

the Government finally gave in to growing pressure and changed the law to make contraception available to married couples on prescription.

That was by 1980 I believe and promptly resulted in a disinformation campaign by Spuc and others to "prove" that condoms would not prevent HIV transmission. Which perhaps was likely more effective in the country.

Still, contraception was effectively illegal because of the difficulty of getting a prescription from mostly Catholic doctors. It was (in my opinion) Virgin Megastore who really pushed the whole thing over the edge and what with the X Case and the start of the Church scandals and Brendan Smyth etc etc, people were just in no mood for the nonsense anymore. It all just sounds ridiculous now but I bet in corners of the country women are still being denied the pill because their doctor says so.

And I'm way off topic again...

unnecessary and pointless impediments in the way of women who want to exercise their right to travel abroad for a service

That's the bit I have a problem with and evidently the ECHR too. The whole thing seems set up to cause harrassment. And for what purpose given that the country has decided on this twice? The government know that they cannot stop people leaving the country, they know that even to try would result in a catastrophic PR nightmare. So they want to sit on the status quo and hope the whole thing goes away?

I was slightly surprised at the lack of hysteria that has marked previous abortion discussions. In previous years the loons from both sides would crawl out of the woodwork and start shouting hysterically. I guess they didn't dare try that this time - is that a sign of a society that has grown to recognise the world is one of colour instead of black and white? I'm even more surprised at being on Clare Daly's side for once

goose2005

DanDan6592 wrote: »

And some people don't. The best way to accommodate both sides is to legalize abortion so those who want/need abortions can have them and those who don't need/want don't have too.

With regards the murder comment. I'm pretty sure the vast, vast majority of people believe murder of other humans is wrong. This isn't the case with regards to abortion as not everyone regards a fetus as a human being yet, therefore this point doesn't really stand.

But if you were one of the people who regarded fetuses as human beings, you couldn't surely just allow them to be killed?

p1akuw47h5r3it

goose2005 wrote: »

But if you were one of the people who regarded fetuses as human beings, you couldn't surely just allow them to be killed?

I'd respect other peoples beliefs that they have a different views to me and except the compromise that if they want to have abortions they should be able to, but that I personally will not.