Proposed abortion wording?

Curly Judge

Perhaps I'm being simplistic, but I cannot understand why clever, highly educated men and women cannot come up with a legal wording which would both prevent, on one hand :
Abortion on demand.
Abortion for convenience,
Abortion for expediency.
Abortion for birth control.
All of which wouldn't have a hope in hell [sorry ] of getting through the Oireachtus.

And, on the other hand:
Facilitate abortion where necessary to protect the life of the mother even where an embryo or foetus is still alive.
This might, if properly drafted, get the reluctant support of the middle ground.

From my amateurish knowledge of the law, the problem seems to revolve around the meaning of extent and danger.
I.e., to what extent is the woman’s life in danger?
As both are subjective and involve far more than fifty shades of grey, [sorry:o] the decision making process in the hospital would have to be clearly laid out in order to get broad spectrum opinion and lend moral and professional backup to the Doctor who has to make the final call.
The patient herself, and any of her family she cared to nominate, would of course form a vital part of that process.
Doctors with moral reservations would have to declare such at an early stage in the process and be free to withdraw if they so desired provided that withdrawal was done within a time frame which did not expose the mother to dangerous delay. In other words the earlier the better.
All hospitals would be required to publish a charter outlining their moral and religious ethics so that their patients, and prospective patients, would be under no illusion as to the state of play within.
Let us here on Boards give the nation the benefit of our vast experience and colossal intellects to help out the poor numpties in Leinster house.
The best suggestion will win a prize which shall be unveiled at a date to be decided.

A couple of my suggestions:
A creditable danger?
A danger which is more than minimal.
A clear and present danger. [Sorry, sorry ]

Despite my flippancy I am genuinely interested in this subject and do not underestimate the complexities involved

Hob lawyer extraordinaire

Peregrinus

Curly Judge wrote: »

Perhaps I'm being simplistic, but I cannot understand why clever, highly educated men and women cannot come up with a legal wording which would both prevent, on one hand :
Abortion on demand.
Abortion for convenience,
Abortion for expediency.
Abortion for birth control.
All of which wouldn't have a hope in hell [sorry ] of getting through the Oireachtus.

And, on the other hand:
Facilitate abortion where necessary to protect the life of the mother even where an embryo or foetus is still alive.
This might, if properly drafted, get the reluctant support of the middle ground.

To be honest, I think the problem is not the drafting. The problem is people’s confidence that the law would operate as intended.

The context here is the example of our near neighbour. On the face of it, British abortion law is quite restrictive. Two doctors have to certify that the continuation of the pregnancy involves risk to the physical or mental health of the mother, or that termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to her, or that continuing the pregnancy involves risk to her life, or that there is a substantial risk that the child, if born, will be seriously handicapped. This fairly tough test was hammered out after a great deal of negotiation in 1967, and has remained substantially unchanged ever since. It’s clearly not intended to accommodate abortion as a method of family planning, or to avoid inconvenience, or injury to career, or a poorly-timed pregnancy, or whatever.

And yet the reality is that Britain is perceived as an abortion-on-demand jurisdiction. People travel from countries with apparently more liberal abortion laws in order to obtain an abortion in Britain, because it is easier to get one in Britain than in their own country.

Why does this happen? I suggest it’s because Britain (like Ireland) has an extremely polarised debate about abortion, in which the absolute right of the foetus to live is proclaimed by one side, and the absolute right of the mother to choose is proclaimed by the other. There really is no middle ground; anyone moving towards the middle ground (from either extreme) finds themselves in a very lonely position. Anyone suggesting, for example, that British abortion rates are higher than they need to be, or higher than is desirable, is immediately assumed to be either seeking to deny women the right to choose, or to be the unwitting pawn of those who seek to do so. And vice versa on the other side.

In this climate there’s very little chance of a middle-ground law being operated as a middle-ground law. The British law is very liberal in operation because there are doctors who are willing to discern a risk to physical or mental health whenever a pregnancy is unwanted. And we see the opposite happening in Poland, where a somewhat middle ground abortion law is in place, but it is in fact extremely difficult to get an abortion even in cases clearly permitted by law.

In short, I don’t think you can have a middle-ground law until you actually have a middle-ground consensus, or at least a fairly large middle ground. And the extremely polarised, extremely toxic, discourse we have on abortion in this country does not favour that.

seb65

Curly Judge wrote: »

Perhaps I'm being simplistic, but I cannot understand why clever, highly educated men and women cannot come up with a legal wording which would both prevent, on one hand :
Abortion on demand.
Abortion for convenience,
Abortion for expediency.
Abortion for birth control.
All of which wouldn't have a hope in hell [sorry ] of getting through the Oireachtus.

And, on the other hand:
Facilitate abortion where necessary to protect the life of the mother even where an embryo or foetus is still alive.
This might, if properly drafted, get the reluctant support of the middle ground.

From my amateurish knowledge of the law, the problem seems to revolve around the meaning of extent and danger.
I.e., to what extent is the woman’s life in danger?
As both are subjective and involve far more than fifty shades of grey, [sorry:o] the decision making process in the hospital would have to be clearly laid out in order to get broad spectrum opinion and lend moral and professional backup to the Doctor who has to make the final call.
The patient herself, and any of her family she cared to nominate, would of course form a vital part of that process.
Doctors with moral reservations would have to declare such at an early stage in the process and be free to withdraw if they so desired provided that withdrawal was done within a time frame which did not expose the mother to dangerous delay. In other words the earlier the better.
All hospitals would be required to publish a charter outlining their moral and religious ethics so that their patients, and prospective patients, would be under no illusion as to the state of play within.
Let us here on Boards give the nation the benefit of our vast experience and colossal intellects to help out the poor numpties in Leinster house.
The best suggestion will win a prize which shall be unveiled at a date to be decided.

A couple of my suggestions:
A creditable danger?
A danger which is more than minimal.
A clear and present danger. [Sorry, sorry ]

Despite my flippancy I am genuinely interested in this subject and do not underestimate the complexities involved

Hob lawyer extraordinaire

Because, hopefully, highly educated, intelligent people would know that the amount of women will nilly seeking abortion is negligible and restricting it would seriously demoralize women?

For example,

"Abortion is allowed in the cases of rape or incest"

Can a woman attend the clinic and say, I am utilizing my right to an abortion because I was raped? Or does she have to prove she was raped first. Can she simply tell this to a female nurse? Or does she have to explain the incident to a panel of (generally male) doctors? Does the rape have to be one that was reported to the gardai? Most are not, so now we'll force women to go through more suffering, to then go through the suffering of having an abortion.

"Abortion is allowed in cases where the health of the mother is compromised"

A woman's health is endangered simply by the fact of being pregnant. Gestational diabetes, organs shrinking and shifting to make room for the baby, etc.

The only way is to have unrestricted abortion. It could be limited up to a certain number of weeks though.

Curly Judge

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be honest, I think the problem is not the drafting. The problem is people’s confidence that the law would operate as intended.

The context here is the example of our near neighbour. On the face of it, British abortion law is quite restrictive. Two doctors have to certify that the continuation of the pregnancy involves risk to the physical or mental health of the mother, or that termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to her, or that continuing the pregnancy involves risk to her life, or that there is a substantial risk that the child, if born, will be seriously handicapped. This fairly tough test was hammered out after a great deal of negotiation in 1967, and has remained substantially unchanged ever since. It’s clearly not intended to accommodate abortion as a method of family planning, or to avoid inconvenience, or injury to career, or a poorly-timed pregnancy, or whatever.

And yet the reality is that Britain is perceived as an abortion-on-demand jurisdiction. People travel from countries with apparently more liberal abortion laws in order to obtain an abortion in Britain, because it is easier to get one in Britain than in their own country.

Why does this happen? I suggest it’s because Britain (like Ireland) has an extremely polarised debate about abortion, in which the absolute right of the foetus to live is proclaimed by one side, and the absolute right of the mother to choose is proclaimed by the other. There really is no middle ground; anyone moving towards the middle ground (from either extreme) finds themselves in a very lonely position. Anyone suggesting, for example, that British abortion rates are higher than they need to be, or higher than is desirable, is immediately assumed to be either seeking to deny women the right to choose, or to be the unwitting pawn of those who seek to do so. And vice versa on the other side.

In this climate there’s very little chance of a middle-ground law being operated as a middle-ground law. The British law is very liberal in operation because there are doctors who are willing to discern a risk to physical or mental health whenever a pregnancy is unwanted. And we see the opposite happening in Poland, where a somewhat middle ground abortion law is in place, but it is in fact extremely difficult to get an abortion even in cases clearly permitted by law.

In short, I don’t think you can have a middle-ground law until you actually have a middle-ground consensus, or at least a fairly large middle ground. And the extremely polarised, extremely toxic, discourse we have on abortion in this country does not favour that.

I see your point!
However, daunting odds shouldn't give way to resignation to leave things as they are.
To appease the pro life side, we could propose a wording to outlaw abortion on the grounds of:
Threatened suicide.
Non life threatening health reasons
All other "social" issues,[poverty, age ,that sort of thing].

On the permissive side we could try a wording which allowed a termination on the grounds of:
Threat to life of the mother.
Rape.
An unviable embryo or foetus.
Miscarriage, where the embryo or foetus is retained and still alive, but clearly unviable.
No doubt hell would come to breakfast from both sides but if the middle ground was secured it might win a grudging acceptance.
Who knows, perhaps during the process we could discover a lawgiver with the talents of Lincoln, Jefferson and Machiavelli, all rolled into one.:rolleyes:

Your post raises another interesting point. The current cause celebre might compel both extremes to get down and hammer out an agreement to avoid the English outcome.
That might better serve their medium term interests than the Mutually Assured Destruction now prevalent.

Curly Judge

seb65 wrote: »

Because, hopefully, highly educated, intelligent people would know that the amount of women will nilly seeking abortion is negligible and restricting it would seriously demoralize women?

For example,

"Abortion is allowed in the cases of rape or incest"

Can a woman attend the clinic and say, I am utilizing my right to an abortion because I was raped? Or does she have to prove she was raped first. Can she simply tell this to a female nurse? Or does she have to explain the incident to a panel of (generally male) doctors? Does the rape have to be one that was reported to the gardai? Most are not, so now we'll force women to go through more suffering, to then go through the suffering of having an abortion.

"Abortion is allowed in cases where the health of the mother is compromised"

A woman's health is endangered simply by the fact of being pregnant. Gestational diabetes, organs shrinking and shifting to make room for the baby, etc.

The only way is to have unrestricted abortion. It could be limited up to a certain number of weeks though.

No politician in Ireland, as things stand now, is going to lose very many votes if they reject your above proposal.
They won't lose very many either if they stay silent when the pro life people march.
They stand to lose a lot of votes if a reasonable [for want of a better word] proposal is put before them and they vote against it.
The knack is to give them something they can vote for and still get elected next time around.
Its usually messy and maddening and its sometimes dishonourable but its called democracy.

seb65

Curly Judge wrote: »

No politician in Ireland, as things stand now, is going to lose very many votes if they reject your above proposal.
They won't lose very many either if they stay silent when the pro life people march.
They stand to lose a lot of votes if a reasonable [for want of a better word] proposal is put before them and they vote against it.
The knack is to give them something they can vote for and still get elected next time around.
Its usually messy and maddening and its sometimes dishonourable but its called democracy.

I don't think you have enough faith in the Irish people. I'd be willing to bet that the majority is not going to hold a grudge against this government if they allowed for abortion without restriction up to a certain number of weeks.

Even if not, doubt this government could get anymore unpopular. If labour did introduce it, it may actually save their tarnished rep for all the ideals they've stomped on since they came to power.

As I said before, there's no way to allow for abortion in the cases of rape without imposing degradation upon a woman. If it was simply - abortion is allowed in cases of rape....you know what you'd have? Instead of women giving lip service to suicide threats, there'd be a whole lot more "rapes" occurring. A perfect legal fiction and pro-choice doctors more than willing to sign off. So why not just cut out the middle man.

And sometimes it's about doing what's right....if it was always about not losing a few votes, women wouldn't even have the right to vote today.

MagicSean

seb65 wrote: »

Because, hopefully, highly educated, intelligent people would know that the amount of women will nilly seeking abortion is negligible and restricting it would seriously demoralize women?

For example,

"Abortion is allowed in the cases of rape or incest"

Can a woman attend the clinic and say, I am utilizing my right to an abortion because I was raped? Or does she have to prove she was raped first. Can she simply tell this to a female nurse? Or does she have to explain the incident to a panel of (generally male) doctors? Does the rape have to be one that was reported to the gardai? Most are not, so now we'll force women to go through more suffering, to then go through the suffering of having an abortion.

"Abortion is allowed in cases where the health of the mother is compromised"

A woman's health is endangered simply by the fact of being pregnant. Gestational diabetes, organs shrinking and shifting to make room for the baby, etc.

The only way is to have unrestricted abortion. It could be limited up to a certain number of weeks though.

How many weeks? Anything over 8 and you're pretty much killing a human who has the capacity to think and feel. What if it develops early and it is able to do this at 7 weeks yet its life can still be extinguished for no reason? I know that may not bother you but it does me.

seb65

MagicSean wrote: »

How many weeks? Anything over 8 and you're pretty much killing a human who has the capacity to think and feel. What if it develops early and it is able to do this at 7 weeks yet its life can still be extinguished for no reason? I know that may not bother you but it does me.

Well, don't have an abortion.

Sorry, who said it doesn't bother me? I don't think anyone likes the idea of abortion.

The OP just asked about a way to put a law in place and I am pointing out why it's hard to allow abortion, but restrict it to certain cases. If you're going to have it, it needs to be unrestricted. Otherwise, just don't have it.

By the way, just because you seem to feel supreme that your country does not allow for it, that doesn't mean Irish babies are not being aborted. Women travel. If no place in the world allowed for abortion, women would die trying to give themselves one (as has been shown in the past).

Here's a point about your pain theory. How much pain do you think that baby was in while it was dying for three days in Galway? How much pain do you think babies that are born with half their heads missing, or other horrific abnormalities feel for the short time they live?

MagicSean

seb65 wrote: »

Well, don't have an abortion.

Sorry, who said it doesn't bother me? I don't think anyone likes the idea of abortion.

The OP just asked about a way to put a law in place and I am pointing out why it's hard to allow abortion, but restrict it to certain cases. If you're going to have it, it needs to be unrestricted. Otherwise, just don't have it.

By the way, just because you seem to feel supreme that your country does not allow for it, that doesn't mean Irish babies are not being aborted. Women travel. If no place in the world allowed for abortion, women would die trying to give themselves one (as has been shown in the past).

Here's a point about your pain theory. How much pain do you think that baby was in while it was dying for three days in Galway? How much pain do you think babies that are born with half their heads missing, or other horrific abnormalities feel for the short time they live?

I'm referring to abortions were having a child is simply inconvenient. I believe that it is our duty to protect the life under threat in the same way I think it's our duty to protect all children. I don't believe in allowing abortion freely just in case one child happens to live that could have been aborted.

seb65

MagicSean wrote: »

I'm referring to abortions were having a child is simply inconvenient. I believe that it is our duty to protect the life under threat in the same way I think it's our duty to protect all children. I don't believe in allowing abortion freely just in case one child happens to live that could have been aborted.

Well then, put forward your legislative proposal so. Let's see it.

Curly Judge

seb65 wrote: »

I don't think you have enough faith in the Irish people. I'd be willing to bet that the majority is not going to hold a grudge against this government if they allowed for abortion without restriction up to a certain number of weeks.

Even if not, doubt this government could get anymore unpopular. If labour did introduce it, it may actually save their tarnished rep for all the ideals they've stomped on since they came to power.

As I said before, there's no way to allow for abortion in the cases of rape without imposing degradation upon a woman. If it was simply - abortion is allowed in cases of rape....you know what you'd have? Instead of women giving lip service to suicide threats, there'd be a whole lot more "rapes" occurring. A perfect legal fiction and pro-choice doctors more than willing to sign off. So why not just cut out the middle man.

And sometimes it's about doing what's right....if it was always about not losing a few votes, women wouldn't even have the right to vote today.

I think you are on very dodgy ground with this unchallenged rape scenario.
The first objection I can hear is that you are giving fewer rights to the foetus than you are to the alleged rapist.
The worst rapist in the world is entitled to a defence but the unborn innocent gets no day in court?
An unchallengeable assertion [for any malady] is merely a back door to abortion on foot of a lie and therefore abortion on demand.
I can't see it getting past the first fence.
Sorry!

seb65

Curly Judge wrote: »

I think you are on very dodgy ground with this unchallenged rape scenario.
The first objection I can hear is that you are giving fewer rights to the foetus than you are to the alleged rapist.
The worst rapist in the world is entitled to a defence but the unborn innocent gets no day in court?
An unchallengeable assertion [for any malady] is merely a back door to abortion on foot of a lie and therefore abortion on demand.
I can't see it getting past the first fence.
Sorry!

So, you don't think women who have been raped should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy with her rapist's baby?

Unchallenged rape....hmmmmm. So, should a woman who wants to terminate pregnancy due to rape be interrogated by the gardai? Perhaps, put her up on the witness stand and let a couple barristers at her and then have a judge decide?

Seems you may be one of those legitimate rape never results in pregnancy kind of people.

ps - what about the innocent woman who is a victim of rape/incest?

MagicSean

seb65 wrote: »

So, you don't think women who have been raped should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy with her rapist's baby?

Unchallenged rape....hmmmmm. So, should a woman who wants to terminate pregnancy due to rape be interrogated by the gardai? Perhaps, put her up on the witness stand and let a couple barristers at her and then have a judge decide?

Seems you may be one of those legitimate rape never results in pregnancy kind of people.

Seems you're just looking for a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with your simplistic view.

seb65

MagicSean wrote: »

Seems you're just looking for a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with your simplistic view.

cop.......................out

Curly Judge

cj

seb65 wrote: »

So, you don't think women who have been raped should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy with her rapist's baby?

Without even a DNA test? Come on now, that's never going to fly!

seb65 wrote: »

Unchallenged rape....hmmmmm. So, should a woman who wants to terminate pregnancy due to rape be interrogated by the gardai? Perhaps, put her up on the witness stand and let a couple barristers at her and then have a judge decide??

I'm sure it is not beyond the wit of man [or woman:o ] to devise some kind of grand jury system where the woman’s evidence could be presented, in camera, in a caring and dignified manner and which would not be prejudicial to the accused's future trial.
By the way there is a thing out there now called the morning after pill. You may have heard of it.?

seb65 wrote: »

Seems you may be one of those legitimate rape never results in pregnancy kind of people.?

I am still trying to work out how you made that leap of logic?

seb65 wrote: »

ps - what about the innocent woman who is a victim of rape/incest?

“The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

MagicSean

I wonder could a stronger government use this legislation to define what constitutes a life. For example could they legislate that a pregnancy under 7weeks does not constitute a life or in a case where there would be no viability outside the womb? Would their be any restriction on this from past supreme court decisions?

seb65

MagicSean wrote: »

I wonder could a stronger government use this legislation to define what constitutes a life.

And they could then legislate for what happens to us when we die.

I can see it now, legislative agenda 2013: answering life's pesky questions.

Peregrinus

MagicSean wrote: »

I wonder could a stronger government use this legislation to define what constitutes a life. For example could they legislate that a pregnancy under 7weeks does not constitute a life or in a case where there would be no viability outside the womb? Would their be any restriction on this from past supreme court decisions?

I don’t think they could, no. Or, at least, not in the way that you may be thinking.

The constitutional guarantee, assuming it’s not amended, recognises “the right to life of the unborn”. Passing a law saying that a foetus below 7 weeks (or whenever) is deemed not to be “a life”, apart from flying in the face of easily-verified scientific fact, wouldn’t really address this. If you’re trying to get out of the constitutional guarantee, you’d have to determine that the foetus below seven weeks is not included in “the unborn”.

I think if any government tried that, the Supreme Court would go through them for a short cut. It’s too obviously an attempt to legislate away the effect of the constitutional guarantee. If the Oireachtas could decree that a particular class of foetuses were not “unborn”, then it could decree that a particular class of people were not “human persons” and so did not benefit from the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law, or it could effect other similar carve-outs by ignoring the clear meaning of common words. I can’t see the courts tolerating that. If the Oireachtas doesn’t like what the Constitution says, they need to propose a referendum for the approval of the people.

Curly Judge

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t think they could, no. Or, at least, not in the way that you may be thinking.

The constitutional guarantee, assuming it’s not amended, recognises “the right to life of the unborn”. Passing a law saying that a foetus below 7 weeks (or whenever) is deemed not to be “a life”, apart from flying in the face of easily-verified scientific fact, wouldn’t really address this. If you’re trying to get out of the constitutional guarantee, you’d have to determine that the foetus below seven weeks is not included in “the unborn”.

I think if any government tried that, the Supreme Court would go through them for a short cut. It’s too obviously an attempt to legislate away the effect of the constitutional guarantee. If the Oireachtas could decree that a particular class of foetuses were not “unborn”, then it could decree that a particular class of people were not “human persons” and so did not benefit from the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law, or it could effect other similar carve-outs by ignoring the clear meaning of common words. I can’t see the courts tolerating that. If the Oireachtas doesn’t like what the Constitution says, they need to propose a referendum for the approval of the people.

I agree with that analysis but in reality I can't see the government, [and I'm including Labour of course] agreeing to the sort of Cannonball Run that constitutes a referendum campaign in this country.
While difficult, legislating for implementation of the existing SC rulings might be the least worst option.
The big problem then of course is the SC's upholding of the mental health clause. Because the SC has refused to exclude mental health reasons and they have been backed up with not one but two referenda it will take a very sophisticated body swerve to get around or ignore that fact.
Presuming the mental health option is unavoidable, can a panel of experts make, or be expected to make a decision on whether an applicant will or will not take their own life if their application for a termination is refused?
And in cases where they get it wrong who picks up the tab?

We are living in interesting times!

Peregrinus

Curly Judge wrote: »

Presuming the mental health option is unavoidable, can a panel of experts make, or be expected to make a decision on whether an applicant will or will not take their own life if their application for a termination is refused?

Isn’t this question – whether someone is likely to attempt to take their own life – one which already arises in some areas of medical or medico-legal practice?

For instance, part of the test for involuntary committal as a psychiatric patient is whether the individual is a danger to themselves or others. Presumably at least some of the time this involves an assessment of whether the patient presents a suicide risk. And this probably arises in areas other than involuntary committal.

And, I agree, it’s a difficult judgment to make. People sometimes get it wrong, with tragic consequences. But it doesn’t appear to be an impossible judgment to attempt because, in fact, psychiatrists do attempt it.

But it would be different here, because in the committal cases and in related areas of mental health practice, the question psychiatrists are asking is whether somebody presents a risk to themselves (or others) by reason of a mental disease, “mental disease” being something psychiatrists know a good deal about. But pregnancy is not a mental disease, and I don’t know that psychiatrists would have any particular expertise in judging whether somebody’s reaction to an unwanted pregnancy did or did not involve a real risk of self-destruction.

Curly Judge

Peregrinus wrote: »

Isn’t this question – whether someone is likely to attempt to take their own life – one which already arises in some areas of medical or medico-legal practice?

For instance, part of the test for involuntary committal as a psychiatric patient is whether the individual is a danger to themselves or others. Presumably at least some of the time this involves an assessment of whether the patient presents a suicide risk. And this probably arises in areas other than involuntary committal.

And, I agree, it’s a difficult judgment to make. People sometimes get it wrong, with tragic consequences. But it doesn’t appear to be an impossible judgment to attempt because, in fact, psychiatrists do attempt it.

But it would be different here, because in the committal cases and in related areas of mental health practice, the question psychiatrists are asking is whether somebody presents a risk to themselves (or others) by reason of a mental disease, “mental disease” being something psychiatrists know a good deal about. But pregnancy is not a mental disease, and I don’t know that psychiatrists would have any particular expertise in judging whether somebody’s reaction to an unwanted pregnancy did or did not involve a real risk of self-destruction.

The mental health section of the proposed legislation would throw up another "Appalling Vista" unique to pregnancy:
You could commit the mother to be to a secure psychiatric ward with full suicide watch for the whole nine months of her confinement.
While a grotesque decision to have to make, it might be tolerable when weighed against the life of the child and mother.

On a slightly less controversial tack, do you see any merit or salvation in a good, well worded preamble designed to give support and succour to the main text.

Esel

@Curly Judge: Black text is very difficult to read for users using the old Cloud skin, or the new Dark Theme, both of which have a black background. Are you composing your posts in Word then pasting them in by any chance? If so, you could consider using Notepad instead. Just a friendly suggestion.

Peregrinus

Curly Judge wrote: »

The mental health section of the proposed legislation would throw up another "Appalling Vista" unique to pregnancy:
You could commit the mother to be to a secure psychiatric ward with full suicide watch for the whole nine months of her confinement.
While a grotesque decision to have to make, it might be tolerable when weighed against the life of the child and mother.

But nobody, on any side of the debate, is suggesting that.

To be committed under the mental health legislation it’s not enough that you are a threat to yourself or others; you have to suffering from a mental disorder. (So, threat or no threat, you can’t be committed if you are suffering from a personality disorder, drug or alchohol addition, etc.) And there is no way in hell that any psychiatrist is going to agree that pregnancy is a mental disorder - even unwanted pregnancy.

So when people raise the issue of risk of suicide in this context, they are not suggesting, or implying, that women who are so distressed about their pregnancy that they threaten self-harm should be involuntarily committed to psychiatric hospitals; they are discussing whether they should have access to abortion. And if some would answer that question with “no”, it does not follow that they favour, or would favour, the involuntary committal of those women instead. To suggest that this was the implication would be hysterical scaremongering of the most irresponsible kind.

Curly Judge wrote: »

On a slightly less controversial tack, do you see any merit or salvation in a good, well worded preamble designed to give support and succour to the main text.

I’m not optimistic about the prospects, to be honest. If we draft a law which treats the assessment of suicide risk as a medical/psychiatric question, then it really is up to the medics to make that assessment. And while the assessment could in principle be challenged in court, the courts are not doctors and would be very, very slow to substitute their judgments for the doctors’ judgments. I don’t think a preamble, however carefully-worded, is going to greatly affect doctors’ medical judgments.

If you’re not prepared to trust doctors on this, then you have to take the decision away from doctors. You could, I suppose, establish tribunals with appropriate medical, legal, social work, etc, expertise and require case-by-case assessments about whether suicide risk justifies abortion to be made by them. But I think most people would recoil from that prospect.

If you’re not happy about suicide risk being a ground for access to abortion, you really need a constitutional amendment - for which there is, of course, no appetite. The next best thing you can do is to establish a tough statutory criterion for assessing suicide risk (e.g., off the top of my head, a doctor must certify that they think it “more likely than not” that the woman will attempt suicide if her pregnancy continues) and leave it up to the medics. But if there isn’t a broad social and, I think, professional consensus that this is an appropriate, practical and meaningful test, I wouldn’t be confident that it would operate the way you would like.

Esel

Curly Judge wrote: »

The mental health section of the proposed legislation would throw up another "Appalling Vista" unique to pregnancy:
You could commit the mother to be to a secure psychiatric ward with full suicide watch for the whole nine months of her confinement.
While a grotesque decision to have to make, it might be tolerable when weighed against the life of the child and mother.

This could not happen under the current committal regulations, imo. There are a lot of conditions in place, which include regular mandatory reviews before continued detention is allowed. Not to mention the fact that people under suicide watch often manage to kill themselves....

Can you imagine the public outrage that would occur if pregnant women were committed in the scenario which you describe, or if one such woman managed to commit suicide?

Dandelion6

Curly Judge wrote: »

I'm sure it is not beyond the wit of man [or woman:o ] to devise some kind of grand jury system where the woman’s evidence could be presented, in camera, in a caring and dignified manner and which would not be prejudicial to the accused's future trial.

I can hardly think of anything less dignified than forcing a woman to go before a panel of strangers and reveal traumatic intimate details to them so that they can make a decision about whether she should be forced to carry and give birth to her rapist's child.

Curly Judge

Esel wrote: »

@Curly Judge: Black text is very difficult to read for users using the old Cloud skin, or the new Dark Theme, both of which have a black background. Are you composing your posts in Word then pasting them in by any chance? If so, you could consider using Notepad instead. Just a friendly suggestion.

Thanks Esel.
Good detective work!:o
I have decided on a firm purpose of amendment

Curly Judge

Dandelion6 wrote: »

I can hardly think of anything less dignified than forcing a woman to go before a panel of strangers and reveal traumatic intimate details to them so that they can make a decision about whether she should be forced to carry and give birth to her rapist's child.

They would not be making a decision on whether she had to carry a rapists child.
They would be trying to reach a conclusion as to whether she had been raped or not.
These sort of decisions are - unfortunatly - having to be made every week
all over the world in courtroom trials.

To recap on recent posts:
Abortion on the grounds of uncontested allegations of rape would be abortion on demand and will not pass
Abortion on the grounds of uncontested mental health would be abortion on demand and will not pass.
Abortion on the grounds that you have an undiagnosed pain in your tummy would be abortion on demand and will not pass.
Lest people misunderstand my position, I am of the liberal middle ground persuasion and put forward these ideas to avoid the the balance tipping to either extreme.

Curly Judge

By way of nothing in particular and just for your whimsical delectation I came across this quote from a very clever man and it seems to have been specially forecast to display the whole mess since our first abortion rerferendum.

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
-- Albert Einstein

Sala

I was thinking about this in light of the Savita case and I don't think there is a way to legislate that permits terminations in the likes of Savitas situation but not in others. The risk to a woman's life includes the risk of suicide which is presumably subjectively reported?

Agree with previous posts, there are loads of issues if you try to say woman pregnant as a result of rape can have an abortion (as opposed to other women that still can't) - does the rape have to be reported, how do you prove it, what if a woman secured an abortion and her attacker was found innocent in a court of law, is she guilty of an offence??

I don't believe that people use abortion as an easy way out. Certainly not the 1000s of women who have have travelled to the UK, maybe alone, paid over large amounts of money, went through an operation, and most likely went through a lot of emotional turmoil to reach their decision (I say this as a woman, how I think I would feel, I am sure it is not an easy choice for any woman).

The way to restrict it is not to say rape victims, underage girls, women with XYZ etc can have abortions, no one else can. Rather, it will be restricted by the process: having to go to consultations, to see a counsellor, perhaps to meet someone to talk through all the options, maybe to set a minimum time limit between finding out you are pregnant to getting an abortion to reduce the risk of panicked decisions etc. Never mind the expense. It is a serious decision and should be treated as such, and women need not only access to abortion services but also support systems to help them come to their own decision.

littlemac1980

Sala wrote: »

I was thinking about this in light of the Savita case and I don't think there is a way to legislate that permits terminations in the likes of Savitas situation but not in others. The risk to a woman's life includes the risk of suicide which is presumably subjectively reported?

Agree with previous posts, there are loads of issues if you try to say woman pregnant as a result of rape can have an abortion (as opposed to other women that still can't) - does the rape have to be reported, how do you prove it, what if a woman secured an abortion and her attacker was found innocent in a court of law, is she guilty of an offence??

I don't believe that people use abortion as an easy way out. Certainly not the 1000s of women who have have travelled to the UK, maybe alone, paid over large amounts of money, went through an operation, and most likely went through a lot of emotional turmoil to reach their decision (I say this as a woman, how I think I would feel, I am sure it is not an easy choice for any woman).

The way to restrict it is not to say rape victims, underage girls, women with XYZ etc can have abortions, no one else can. Rather, it will be restricted by the process: having to go to consultations, to see a counsellor, perhaps to meet someone to talk through all the options, maybe to set a minimum time limit between finding out you are pregnant to getting an abortion to reduce the risk of panicked decisions etc. Never mind the expense. It is a serious decision and should be treated as such, and women need not only access to abortion services but also support systems to help them come to their own decision.

The difficulty is that it is one of those decisions in life that has a direct impact on another human being, and in the case of abortion it has the most serious of consequences on that human being.

The fact is that abortion terminates the life of another human being.

In my opinion the core issue goes far beyond freedom of choice, and much further than could adequately be protected by offering counselling services, or trusting a general sense of human nature and morality (to expect distressed pregnant women to always do the right thing, or to have the type of moral and social support to understand in every case what is the right thing to do), or economic considerations for that matter.

Despite recent events, I think the current Irish position on Abortion is the correct one. Abortion is not the way to deal with the Horrors of Rape, or Social Stigma, or Inequality, its a cop out - that's my view. Social problems and consequences of crime should be dealt with socially, and not by covering up their consequences, most definitely not where such results in the termination of an innocent life.

Where it is clear that there is no possibility of a fetus surviving in the immediate future I think merciful medical intervention should be permitted but I wouldn't call that a termination.

I think the reason there hasn't been legislation to implement the X-Case is (for the reason that has already been suggested) is it may well not stand up to Constitutional Challenge as the Constitution currently exists.

I think that if legislation were possible to introduce then it would need to ensure that :

1. Abortion is not a choice, except that a woman may refuse to have it carried out.

2. The procedure of removing a fetus from the Womb is only permissable where it is clear that it will not survive in the immediate future (e.g. 5-7 days) and it is in the interests of the mothers health to do so.

3. A threat of suicide is not sufficient to meet the threshold of limb 2 above.

Sala

littlemac1980: To say "The fact is that abortion terminates the life of another human being" is to say that a foetus is objectively a human being and there is no question about. Many people would disagree with this and there is no general consensus on when a human being becomes a human being, therefore it is not a fact, it's your opinion, or what you choose to believe.

littlemac1980

Sala wrote: »

littlemac1980: To say "The fact is that abortion terminates the life of another human being" is to say that a foetus is objectively a human being and there is no question about. Many people would disagree with this and there is no general consensus on when a human being becomes a human being, therefore it is not a fact, it's your opinion, or what you choose to believe.

big trees from little acorns

Sala

I accept an acorn is not a tree.

My point was that there is no point talking about such ''facts'' when, regardless of how you feel about abortion personally, you can at least recognise that the point at which an egg / sperm / foetus becomes a human being cannot be pinpointed or discussed as fact given the conflicting views on this.

littlemac1980

Ok the fact is a fetus - unless interrupted, or incompatible with life - develops into a full human being. Is that clear?

The fact is some people argue that a fetus has no self consciousness up to a certain point, that fact doesn't negate the truth of the above fact.

What I suggested as an appropriate basis for adopting legislation to deal with situations like that which have arisen recently respects the above fact while permitting for medical intervention in very limited circumstances where the fetus is incompatible with life in the immediate future and in the interests of the woman's health it is necessary to remove the fetus from the womb, rather than wait for a natural discharge of the miscarried fetus.

You appear to be suggesting that a woman in every instance should be allowed choose if she wants to allow the fetus to continue its natural development, or end its life. That's fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.

Curly Judge

littlemac1980 wrote: »

The difficulty is that it is one of those decisions in life that has a direct impact on another human being, and in the case of abortion it has the most serious of consequences on that human being.

The fact is that abortion terminates the life of another human being.

In my opinion the core issue goes far beyond freedom of choice, and much further than could adequately be protected by offering counselling services, or trusting a general sense of human nature and morality (to expect distressed pregnant women to always do the right thing, or to have the type of moral and social support to understand in every case what is the right thing to do), or economic considerations for that matter.

Despite recent events, I think the current Irish position on Abortion is the correct one. Abortion is not the way to deal with the Horrors of Rape, or Social Stigma, or Inequality, its a cop out - that's my view. Social problems and consequences of crime should be dealt with socially, and not by covering up their consequences, most definitely not where such results in the termination of an innocent life.

Where it is clear that there is no possibility of a fetus surviving in the immediate future I think merciful medical intervention should be permitted but I wouldn't call that a termination.

I think the reason there hasn't been legislation to implement the X-Case is (for the reason that has already been suggested) is it may well not stand up to Constitutional Challenge as the Constitution currently exists.

I think that if legislation were possible to introduce then it would need to ensure that :

1. Abortion is not a choice, except that a woman may refuse to have it carried out.

2. The procedure of removing a fetus from the Womb is only permissable where it is clear that it will not survive in the immediate future (e.g. 5-7 days) and it is in the interests of the mothers health to do so.

3. A threat of suicide is not sufficient to meet the threshold of limb 2 above.[/QUOTE]
Trouble is, the Supreme Court has ruled in the X case that the threat of suicide is grounds for an abortion and two subsequent referenda have failed or refused to remove it.
You cannot drive around it like some big stone in a field and say, " I'll ignore you for now. You're more trouble than you're worth".
Either you deal with all the bumpy rocks or you have to let the hare sit.
And we are being told that letting the hare sit any longer is not an option?

Sala

It is my opinion that a woman can choose, as you are entitled to your own opinion too, but my point was that the terminology from any side often gets in the way of proper dialogue, when two or more very different ideas or opinions are argued as fact.
I totally agree with you on the need for medical intervention; I believe we should try to distinguish between "medical terminations" and "elective abortion" in the short term, regardless of the overall abortion debate, so in cases where a foetus is not viable, there are medical risks and if the woman agrees to go ahead a termination should be forthcoming. I was under the impression that this was the case here (i.e ectopic pregnancies) but it the lack of clarity is a huge issue regardless of what your opinion on abortion is

gozunda

Question: In what other area would the idea of state directed bodily intervention be suggested for under similar circumstances against the wishes of the person?

Answer: None

Savita Halappananaver died because a non viable foetus was given preeminence over her health and ultimately her life.

Here is an idea - how about women take full control of their personal reproductive health. There shocking idea is it not?

Is this really such a radical idea in the 21st century?

There are many many reasons why a woman nay seek a termination of a pregnancy.

Presuming that terminations are done in a safe manner who will deny women the right to make the final decisions on their own reproductive health?

The alternative is that we go back to a barbaric past where women are victims of circumstance and are held to be reproductive machines whose rights to bodily integrity are subjugated by an undeveloped foetus no matter the viability of that foetus or how the woman became pregnant. By denying this issue of unwanted pregnancies for what ever reason instead we export the issue of unwanted pregnancies abroad and bury our head in the sand.

I especially like the discussion to restrain / strap pregnant woman to beds in psychiatric facilities for 9 months to ensure they give birth - Yup that sure will work ...

Where exactly are we in this country on relation to the rights of women of their own bodies and reproductive health? Why is there an insistence that women must die before they have inalienable rights to their own body?

It would appear that we are still in the dark ages in many respects...

seb65

gozunda wrote: »

Question: In what other area would the idea of state directed bodily intervention be suggested for under similar circumstances against the wishes of the person?

Answer: None

Savita Halappananaver died because a non viable foetus was given preeminence over her health and ultimately her life.

Here is an idea - how about women take full control of their personal reproductive health. There shocking idea is it not?

Is this really such a radical idea in the 21st century?

There are many many reasons why a woman nay seek a termination of a pregnancy.

Presuming that terminations are done in a safe manner who will deny women the right to make the final decisions on their own reproductive health?

The alternative is that we go back to a barbaric past where women are victims of circumstance and are held to be reproductive machines whose rights to bodily integrity are subjugated by an undeveloped foetus no matter the viability of that foetus or how the woman became pregnant. By denying this issue of unwanted pregnancies for what ever reason instead we export the issue of unwanted pregnancies abroad and bury our head in the sand.

I especially like the discussion to restrain / strap pregnant woman to beds in psychiatric facilities for 9 months to ensure they give birth - Yup that sure will work ...

Where exactly are we in this country on relation to the rights of women of their own bodies and reproductive health? Why is there an insistence that women must die before they have inalienable rights to their own body?

It would appear that we are still in the dark ages in many respects...

It was the commit women to mental hospitals that made me think yer ones up there are either: 1) trolls or 2) vile women haters.

I do hope they aren't actually practicing in the legal profession.

I think the state already tried the committal of pregnant woman.......they washed a lot of laundry I hear.

MagicSean

Seems a couple of people have gotten lost and wandered into legal discussion forum. They don't appear to realise the difference between discussing hypothetical legal scenarios and expressing outright opinions.

seb65

MagicSean wrote: »

Seems a couple of people have gotten lost and wandered into legal discussion forum. They don't appear to realise the difference between discussing hypothetical legal scenarios and expressing outright opinions.

It's the hypothetical discussions of locking pregnant women up that scares the s*** out of people. It borders on hate speech IMO.

But hey, y'all have fun discussing your hypothetical legal situations and playing make believe with women's lives.

gozunda

seb65 wrote: »

...

I think the state already tried the committal of pregnant woman.......they washed a lot of laundry I hear.

Article 40 of the Irish Constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann) sets down that you have a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the State may not do anything to harm your life or health.


As i said above It is an interesting fact that a persons rights to actual bodily integrity is under question in this instance.

This is the area that I believe needs most to be legislated / clarrified and not the imposition of at best dubius restrictions based on individual moral assumptions that at best are nihalistic and at worst may deprive an individual of their basic rights

Curly Judge

seb65 wrote: »

It's the hypothetical discussions of locking pregnant women up that scares the s*** out of people. It borders on hate speech IMO.

But hey, y'all have fun discussing your hypothetical legal situations and playing make believe with women's lives.

Perhaps you would like to put forward a draft that would stand a snowball in hells chance of getting through the Oireachtas having due regard for its current mores.
It might be slightly more helpfull than threshing and lashing around in a froth of righteous indignation and accusing people of motives they never posessed.

FreudianSlippers

seb65 wrote: »

It's the hypothetical discussions of locking pregnant women up that scares the s*** out of people. It borders on hate speech IMO.

But hey, y'all have fun discussing your hypothetical legal situations and playing make believe with women's lives.

If you have a problem with a post, report it. Otherwise it looks like you're just trolling a thread and talking rubbish which belongs in After Hours.

Dandelion6

Curly Judge wrote: »

They would not be making a decision on whether she had to carry a rapists child.
They would be trying to reach a conclusion as to whether she had been raped or not.

:rolleyes:

You know and they would know that the outcome of that decision would determine whether or not she would be forced to bear the rapist's child (or travel to England to terminate the pregnancy, as I suspect many would simply to continue to do anyway).

These sort of decisions are - unfortunatly - having to be made every week all over the world in courtroom trials.

And ask any rape victim who's ever been through it how "dignified" it was for her.

Lest people misunderstand my position, I am of the liberal middle ground persuasion and put forward these ideas to avoid the the balance tipping to either extreme.

Only in Ireland would that be considered a "liberal middle ground" position!

Curly Judge

Dandelion6 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You know and they would know that the outcome of that decision would determine whether or not she would be forced to bear the rapist's child (or travel to England to terminate the pregnancy, as I suspect many would simply to continue to do anyway).



And ask any rape victim who's ever been through it how "dignified" it was for her.



Only in Ireland would that be considered a "liberal middle ground" position!

Well... we do actually live in Ireland, last time I looked.
We certainly don't live in some imaginary fairyland where wishing turns difficult problems into Tinker Bell solutions.

MagicSean

Curly Judge wrote: »

Well... we do actually live in Ireland, last time I looked.
We certainly don't live in some imaginary fairyland where wishing turns difficult problems into Tinker Bell solutions.

It's really amazing the amount of people who don't actually understand how difficult it is to pass legislation on this topic with regard to the current constitution. People shouting "Legalise abortion" without and knowledge on hoe complicated any legislation will be. Even Young FG called for legalisation up to 10 weeks seemingly oblivious to the constitution

gozunda

Regarding the issue of legalising 'abortion' (sic). It's quite simple - many other countries have done so succesfully and there are many working examples of legislation that allow women affirmative control over their reproductive health. Why do we seek an Irish solution to what is clearly not an Irish problem?

The main problem in this is not the difficulty of putting in place or even wording such legislation rather it is the problem of such proposals being reduced to meaningless wrangles using arguments based on personal bias as opposed to best practice or even a majority view point.

In logic it is essential to look at the validity of a question posed. If that question lacks validity or is biased against a logical solution then any answer to such a question becomes null and void by that reason. A proposition for framing legislation concerning repoductive health by means of a statement of what must be denied without suffrage amounts a reductio ad absurdum argument.

There should be no difficulty in framing legislation that confirms a persons right to bodily integrity as given in the existing constitution - the real problem begins when we deny these existing rights.n

Curly Judge

gozunda wrote: »

Regarding the issue of legalising 'abortion' (sic). It's quite simple - many other countries have done so succesfully and there are many working examples of legislation that allow women affirmative control over their reproductive health. Why do we seek an Irish solution to what is clearly not an Irish problem?

The main problem in this is not the difficulty of putting in place or even wording such legislation rather it is the problem of such proposals being reduced to meaningless wrangles using arguments based on personal bias as opposed to best practice or even a majority view point.

In logic it is essential to look at the validity of a question posed. If that question lacks validity or is biased against a logical solution then any answer to such a question becomes null and void by that reason. A proposition for framing legislation concerning repoductive health by means of a statement of what must be denied without suffrage amounts a reductio ad absurdum argument.

There should be no difficulty in framing legislation that confirms a persons right to bodily integrity as given in the existing constitution - the real problem begins when we deny these existing rights.n

All very high minded and laudable no doubt.
But... But... But... How do you get it through Parliament?
There's the rub!

Nermal

Curly Judge wrote: »

All very high minded and laudable no doubt.
But... But... But... How do you get it through Parliament?
There's the rub!

Copy the British one, but pretend you will actually enforce it?

Peregrinus

gozunda wrote: »

There should be no difficulty in framing legislation that confirms a persons right to bodily integrity as given in the existing constitution - the real problem begins when we deny these existing rights.n

Unless you're going to start with a constitutional amendment, the legislation has to respect the constitutional provisions dealing specifically with abortion, as interpeted and applied in the X case. That means the legislation - if it is to survive the constitutional challenge to which it will certainly be subjected - cannot simply affirm the mother's right to bodily integrity; it must negotiate the tension between the right to life of the unborn and the mother's right to life.

Curly Judge

Nermal wrote: »

Copy the British one, but pretend you will actually enforce it?

Hmmnnn!
The English law, but administered under Irish mores?
Not a bad stab at it at all...
How does Scotland interpret English law? Anybody?

Edit. In post number 2, Peregrinus gives a very good synopsis of the history of this law.