Abortion should be legalised in Ireland

DadaKopf

Not really, its an important failsafe in the event of the Oireachtas passing an unconstitutional law. It's nothing short of dangerous to pass a law that isn't open to review by the Supreme Court or changeable by the Oireachteas. I wouldn't see it as moot.

As far as I'm aware, this referendum applies only to Article 40.3.3°; it does not mention nor deal with Article 26, the one relating to the referral of bills or laws to the Supreme Court. That piece of the constitution stays intact so there is a conflict here. It also doesn't mention Artcle 15.2.1° - that the Oireachteas is the only legislative authority.

Yeah, this amendment is pretty lame alright.

Our man in Havana

Would defeat topple the goverment?

Typedef

Would defeat topple the goverment?

Fingers crossed!

SantaHoe

Originally posted by Hobbes
Only reason I can see for having it in Ireland is it will make it cheaper and more convienent, neither of which are good excuses for it.

If people aren't ready for kids prehaps they should actually behave themselves a bit more.

About the only thing going for the yes vote is in the issue of rape.

My thoughts exactly...
However I don't think making it legal is going to make a sodding shat of difference, since if you want one badly enough - you'll get one overseas anyway.
I think more focus should be placed on preventing unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place.
I just hope it doesn't turn into a case of "oh we can't afford another kid, let's get an abortion" ... how many of us would be alive right now if abortion had become just another form of contraception?
But of course I've got absolutely no comprehension of the emotional turmoil couples/women must go through to be considering abortion... so I'll just shut up and go away.

(This reminds me of a recent thread on euthenasia actually.)

Lemming

Originally posted by SantaHoe
About the only thing going for the yes vote is in the issue of rape

My thoughts exactly...

AFAIK a "yes" vote would mean that EVEN those coming from a rape/incest background will NOT be allowed to have abortions since the government (read "Mildred Fox") will be saying "your mental health isn't important so f*ck off like a good little citizen and have that baby"

I think more focus should be placed on preventing unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place.
I just hope it doesn't turn into a case of "oh we can't afford another kid, let's get an abortion" ... how many of us would be alive right now if abortion had become just another form of contraception?

no argeument from me on trying to eliminate the desire for abortions. Prevention is better than cure.

However, I don't think that abortion will ever be considered "another form of contraception" due to the nature of what's involved, no??

bonkey

I checked up on what the legal situation is here in Switzerland, and unsurprisingly found what strikes me as one of the most sensible systems regarding abortion.

Yes, its legal. However, in order to qualify you must :

1) Be a resident in Switzerland (possibly a full citizen)
2) Be less than 2 months pregnant
3) Undergo psychriatric evaluation from a dedidacted "family planning psychiatrist", who will judge your reasons for wanting the abortion.

The last is the key - its not just a case of going in and answering some questions with stock/shock answers - you need to satisfy them that you really need the abortion, and they apparently have the ability to require that you take additional counselling subsequent to the abortion if they feel it appropriate.

While there is a short window for this, it is the governments responsibility to ensure that the abortion deadline is not passed without every effort being made to get you your completed evaluation.

Costly, but effective, IMHO. It rules out the "convenience" cases, sets a pretty early-in-pregnancy timeframe as a reasonable middle-ground, and is policed and controlled appropriately.

While I still am against abortion, I must say that I actually appreciate the effort the Swiss have put into developing a system which appeases me as much as possible while still making abortion available in what are arguably the "needed" or "fringe" cases.

jc

The Corinthian

The issue of abortion is one of these odd black and white issues with a grey answer. At the core of the question is the definition of humanity. Is a foetus a human being or what defines a human being? When does a foetus cross that line of humanity that we have defined?

Should the answer at any stage be no, not human, then no problems. The procedure should be no more unpleasant or amoral than having a gallstone removed. If on the other hand the foetus is a person, then every other argument used for the use of abortion pretty much disintegrates.

Using the example of a newly born child, given that while there is debate on the foetus’ status there is none once it has been born. A destitute teenage mother, overcome by the pressure of caring for the child cannot legally terminate that child, as it now has the same basic rights as an adult, even if it would not survive long without care.

A man accidentally witnesses a rape but is unable to intervene, should that man be given the dealt the death penalty because he was unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? In a similar fashion, if a foetus is a human being, conceived through rape, should they pay the sins of the father?

I have often suspicious of official definitions of humanity. That a foetus can be a ball of cells after x weeks and a day later is a person always caused me to raise an eyebrow. As loathed as I am to bring up a Nazi analogy, they did consider abortion illegal for Germans, but not for many other races as they were not (in the words of Amon Gothe in Shindler’s List) ”human in the strictest sense of the word”.

On the other hand, after centuries of genocide, holy wars, slavery and tyranny, perhaps we have it right now. Perhaps we can define, scientifically and hence morally, who is a human being. And that is why I would be against abortion.

The only absolute argument I’ve ever found for abortion is utilitarian and places a rank on mother and child and on economics. Pro-choice has always held a consumerist ring for me. I don’t mind that as an argument. I actually respect it and don’t entirely disagree with it. But I’d prefer not to hear it dressed up as moral in any modern sense of the word.

JustHalf

Lemming:

1
Assuming the foetus is a person, since when does someone's mental health supercede someone's right to life?

According to a reliable source of mine studies have been done that show that taking the route of adoption has a far less negative effect on the mental health of a woman than the route of abortion. I'll see if I can dig up references on this, but, if it turns out true, it pretty much throws that whole "mental health" argument out the window.

2
Assuming the foetus is not a person, hey, no problem, you can have it removed.

The thing is, you have to prove it's not a person -- which can't be done -- before you can be certain you have not taken a life. And it's not within the rights of anyone to take a life without sufficient justification. I have heard no argument (that makes any sense) which shows that having an abortion (other than in the "kill one or both die" situation) is justified, if the foetus is a person.

In other news, Fine Gael want to allow women to have abortions if they claim to be suicidal (and satisify certain other conditions, which I don't think they have come up with yet). I don't know about you, but if I was really going to kill myself, I wouldn't go and tell anyone I was going to.

mike65

I'm posting this from todays Evening Herald, just to lighten to tone a little

Punches Are Thrown As Fine Gael Meeting On Abortion
Stormed By Youth Defence

Punches were thrown when member of Youth Defence
tried to storm a FG meeting on the abortion referendum.

At least five people were said to have been struck as around 20 members of the group who are vehermently opposed to abortion and advocating a NO vote charged through the entrance to the Tara Hotel, Dublin.

Last nights public information meeting was addressed by FG leader Michae Noonan, who is also backing a NO vote.

---

Dontcha just love it when a farce comes together...:rolleyes:

Mike.

Victor

Did it actually say who threw the punches?

mike65

It does'nt say but the way the article reads (I did'nt quote it all)
suggests it was Youth Defence throwing fists.

I thought YD had changed thier name or am I wrong?.

Mike.

PHB

I would agree with pro-life to an extent.
To me I vote vote againist the current referendum simply due to the addition of "suicidal" in it.
I, no matter how much I personally disagree with it, can understand the choice of abortion in cases of rape.

I dont think anyone can understand the full emotional consequences of rape, unless it has happened to you. I would personally allow abortions in these cases, but only after a hell of a lot of education and discussion with the mother. The only other case that I can think of when abortion should be allowed is that of a choice between a mother and a childs life. And i'm not sure who that choice should be made by.

Typedef

Currently I am of two schools of thought.

1. I am loathe to vote for any amendment that the current government proposes, simply because when I learned that the government was planning to force a revote on Nice in my eyes it lost all credibility as an entity enunciated by sufferage and representation, however, in theory I agree with the No camp, a doctor should be allowed to decide if a girl is 'at risk' from death because of pregnancy (or whatever reason) and treat appropiately.

2. The counter argument is that 'even the canines in the street are aware' that if 'self termination' is grounds for abortion then said grounds will invariably be abused, somewhere at sometime, that is the nature of human society.

However I do believe that once an egg and sperm combine and split into the first two cells of a human that at that stage the zygote is a human life. It is human life because it lives, it grows, it is genetically human, but as this referendum does not seek to protect this stage of development of human life, I would be aprehensive of voting in favor of it.

Therefore my dilema is, how much do I allow the notion and utopian theory of the situation to influence my decision? Even if I were to vote for this amendement (against my better judgement vis-a-vis supporting thing one associated with the current government), the notion that fertilised, but unimplanted human zygotes are not afforded the same human rights as their implanted couterparts, puts me in the ackward positon of 'possibly' voting in favor of the proposal and simply 'hoping' that the same camp of rabid independant TDs that have forced this referendum will manage to force 'yet another refernedum on abortion' to secure zygotes from 'stem cell research'.

In this respect stem cell research is amoral and simply makes the human zygote a vehicle of organ harvesting, a slave, a subhuman, who is human enough to be 'useful'. I am in favor of scientific advancement on just about any front you might care to mention, but for example the nazi scientists of the 30s and 40s used humans for experiments because the people being used were deemed to be 'sub-human', so I ask you, what's the difference?

JustHalf

PHB, I don't remember anyone saying that rape wasn't that much of an emotional hell, so rape-victims shouldn't be allowed have abortions. It's much more along the lines of "yeah, they're terrible, but why should we kill someone?"

In the case of rape, those who believe the mother has a right to choose to have a baby yanked out of her and disposed of are being terribly irresponsible if they haven't asked themselves the following questions:
*A* What option is least likely to cause the victim further emotional distress?
*B* Is the rape-victim capable of making a rational decision on this matter? (or is she in so much distress that she can't?)

Victor

Originally posted by PHB
I would agree with pro-life to an extent. To me I vote vote againist the current referendum simply due to the addition of "suicidal" in it. I, no matter how much I personally disagree with it, can understand the choice of abortion in cases of rape. I dont think anyone can understand the full emotional consequences of rape, unless it has happened to you. I would personally allow abortions in these cases, but only after a hell of a lot of education and discussion with the mother.

The argument goes along the lines of two wrongs don't make a right. Psychological trauma is common to both rape victims and women who ahve had abortions.

There is another risk that rape, or rather the accusation of rape would end up as an excuse (I'm uncomfortable with that word) for an abortion in other circumstances.

Originally posted by PHB
The only other case that I can think of when abortion should be allowed is that of a choice between a mother and a childs life.

This is being protected by the proposal, suicide excepted. Medical Council rules considered abortion in the case of threat of suicide as unethical as there is no clear ability to predict threat of suicide (a psychiatrist is to judge say "this person is at risk of suicide", but not "this person will commit suicide" nor "this person will commit suicide unless given an abortion").

androphobic

I wish I had the time and stamina to read all 12 pages of this thread so far, but I'm going to post anyway after reading 3.

I can't vote in the referendum as I am registered to vote in my home town but live in Dublin during the week as I go to university there. As the referendum is on a week day and I have not made arrangements to vote in Dublin, I won't be voting at all. However, if I could, I'd vote no.

I don't want to label myself as anything, but if forced to do so I would call myself pro-choice, and if pushed on it, maybe pro-abortion too. However, I feel that abortion is an issue which you really can't truly make your mind up on unless you are affected by it in some way or another.

I realise the psychological trauma that many women all over the world go through following an abortion. I realise that we can't know for sure that the baby isn't "just a bunch of cells" and I realise that, to some people, abortion is murder, plain and simple.

Me, I don't see it like that. I am a nineteen yr old female, and if I was told tomorrow that I was pregnant, I would most likely have an abortion. Of course, maybe tomorrow circumstances would dictate that I would decide to keep the child or give it up for adoption, like I said, each situation is different.
But the bottom line is that a child is not what I, and so many other women in this country, both in my age group and younger and older, would want.

I am an ambitious student, and a child is not part of my plans, not now. I'm sure people might think I am selfish.. and you know what, I probably am.. but at the end of the day it should be my choice to have a baby or not. I'm not irresponsible, in that I always use contraception and am in a long-term relationship, but I feel that I should have the right to have an abortion in this country if needs be.

Maybe I have it wrong, maybe my outlook on the situation is completely twisted.. but I believe that the rights of the mother should be put before the rights of the unborn child.
How many guys would put the rights of their unborn baby before that of their girlfriend, partner or wife? How many guys would really insist on their partner having this child if she really didn't want it or if she was depressed or suicidal as a result? I would hope the answer would be very few.

Here's another scenario. Sarah is pregnant - not through rape but because of her own stupidity and naivety. She's 15, about to do her Junior Cert, lives in a council flat with her parents and siblings. Do you think this child should go through with her pregnancy?

Yes, she could have the baby and give it up for adoption. The chances are though, that if she had a baby, she'd keep it. Girls like this have children every day in Dublin, and in so many other places in Ireland. Look around you, it's obvious. Drive through a council area like Ballymun and count the young girls at the bus stops with children in buggies or on their hips.
Girls like this are only children themselves.

If I had unprotected sex tomorrow and became pregnant as a result, people could call me irresponsible and they'd be right. Young teenage girls around the country don't know any better. There's no need to get into the reasons why they do this but in so many disadvantaged areas, kids are having kids. Kids are bringing up kids before they've grown up themselves.

To me, this is so wrong. Women and girls all over the country should have the choice to terminate their pregnancies, the right to choose. Their lives should always come first, no matter how stupid, irresponsible or naive they are. No matter what.

Typedef

But the bottom line is that a child is not what I, and so many other women in this country, both in my age group and younger and older, would want.
Let me ask you something in all seriousness, do you think being aborted is what that child, citizen, zygote call it what you will would want? Ok so it might not be 'self-aware', but then again most children are not self aware for quite some time after they are born, so is it ok to kill them if they are an inconvienance?

I'm sure people might think I am selfish.. and you know what, I probably am.. but at the end of the day it should be my choice to have a baby or not.
That is your opinion, I happen to subscribe to the theory that at the end of the day a small person/unborn child should have the opportunity to live as 'one of us' a human on this earth, going about their lives.

Maybe I have it wrong, maybe my outlook on the situation is completely twisted.. but I believe that the rights of the mother should be put before the rights of the unborn child.
So to paraphrase you believe that the right of the mother to have her life the way she wants supercedes the unborn baby's right to have a life.
Therfore you would argue that your mother had the right to abort you and that if she had done so, that would be fine by you, in theory of course.

How many guys would put the rights of their unborn baby before that of their girlfriend, partner or wife?
I'm counting one as it stands.

Here's another scenario. Sarah is pregnant - not through rape but because of her own stupidity and naivety. She's 15, about to do her Junior Cert, lives in a council flat with her parents and siblings. Do you think this child should go through with her pregnancy?
Why would it matter where the mother comes from? Every single child has a right to life no matter what age the mother is sorry. Also stereotyping people from council flats like that simply shows your own jaundiced and closed minded view on the world, just because someone is from a poor background does not make he or she any less of a person of free will and it in no way absolves them of their duty, moral remit and endemnification to manage to put themselves out long enough to gestate the unborn child to term. I'm sorry if that sounds extreme, but I would suggest that your own objectivity is so clouded in self interest that you are prepared to placate fairly obvious evidence that abortion is the killing of human life, by force and without consent and thus is murder.

I really find it unbelievable that women, who have been suppressed for centuries by men can turn right around and be just as vicious and crass as their accused male oppressors, as you have so adeptly put it, knowing that abortion is wrong, but not caring. That makes you akin to all the 'strong' people throughout the ages who have simply oppressed the weak because they could and they really didn't care what the consequences of their actions were, like many strong civilisations throughout the history of human civilisation, women now can take pride of place they have for so long sought in the epoch of human existance, now women too can oppress the weak, it's a brave new world.

Look around you, it's obvious. Drive through a council area like Ballymun and count the young girls at the bus stops with children in buggies or on their hips.
Girls like this are only children themselves.
Bus stops, what are you talking about, your argument is based on a snobbish cultrual stereotype that can hold 'no weight' in a reasoned arugment.

I'm not trying to be rude to you here, but get down off of your high horse, from the way you speak of these supposed teaming masses of council dwelling people typecast into your jaundiced one dimensional world of aloof disdain you would think that somehow the supposed proliferation of unplanned pregnancy in the ubiquitous council flats is a plague of locusts to be impinged and fractured. I mean seriously have you been keeping count of girls in 'the wrong area' that you deem to be single or 'underage' mothers?

Young teenage girls around the country don't know any better. There's no need to get into the reasons why they do this but in so many disadvantaged areas, kids are having kids. Kids are bringing up kids before they've grown up themselves.
I'm sure you mean well, but young or old, rich or poor the unborn has a right to be alive end of story.

To me, this is so wrong. Women and girls all over the country should have the choice to terminate their pregnancies
This is the fundamental difference here, it is not 'their' pregnancy, it is that child's life, you don't own that child, that child is a person in it's 'own' right, a right that has nothing to do with anyone else but itself as a human being.

Their lives should always come first, no matter how stupid, irresponsible or naive they are. No matter what.
I agree, but supplant the unborn in the context here.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by androphobic
Here's another scenario. Sarah is pregnant - not through rape but because of her own stupidity and naivety. She's 15, about to do her Junior Cert, lives in a council flat with her parents and siblings. Do you think this child should go through with her pregnancy?

In many respects all of your arguments are valid. However, they assume that the foetus is not human. If that is the case (a case argued for and against for the last twelve pages) then you are advocating a sliding scale of human rights based upon the utility of the individual and economic expediency. On that basis, I might argue that your fifteen-year-old example with child probably should have an abortion. As a matter of fact, be sterilized – such a eugenics program would eliminate a large track of the untermenchen in modern society. Think of the long-term effects on crime and unemployment...

I can’t help feeling that if we feel the right to exercise choice in our actions, we should also accept responsibility for them. Regardless of age, circumstances and stupidity.

Another point, from your examples, is that it appears that it is also always the woman’s right. Regardless of the foetus’ status, I would object, as a man, to this. It would be easy for me to abdicate my responsibility, but ultimately it does take two to tango, as it were. An as much of a penis wielding oppressor as I may be, I would consider it my right be included in any decision making process as the father.

Sand

Right I gave up on this abortion thing on page 2 or something but Ive got to say my curiosity was raised when I saw how long this thread had gone on without being closed.

Id generally (never seen anyone i agree with 100%) agree with the viewpoint of androphobic- to help out Typedef and corinthian who siezed on the economic conditions of "Sarah" to say she she should still have the child, I *believe* that what Androphobic was saying was that "Sarah" is only a child herself and thus cannot be held responsible for her actions (no matter how stupid or naive), certainly not to the degree of adults. One of the problems law enforcement has when it comes to dealing with knacker brats and joyriders etc etc.

swiss

Originally posted by Sand
I *believe* that what Androphobic was saying was that "Sarah" is only a child herself and thus cannot be held responsible for her actions (no matter how stupid or naive), certainly not to the degree of adults

I believe so too. However, I cannot agree with your logic. We, as a society cannot abdicate societal responsibilites due to incompetence, stupidity or naivity. In a legal context, there are very well defined reasons why a minor is not allowed to have the same rights as an adult. This is obviously because they have not reached the level of responsibility society deems necessary for them to possess in order to responsibly exercise those rights.

Foremost among these restrictions is the illegality of sexual relations (not Bill Clinton's definition either) with minors. Every action in life is consequenced. If those actions result in the conception of an unborn child then I do not believe that diminished responsibility or the fact that they are minors are good enough reasons to essentially destroy a human life.

I don't mean to sound emotive, and if anyone read my response a few pages ago (if anyone is that patient) you will see that I advocated a two week period after conception where an unborn foetus can be aborted without (IMO) abrogating moral responsibility as I do not believe that an unborn foetus has achieved the required level of sentience to be called a human 'being' in that time window. Others may disagree, and I accept and understand that - however...

Originally posted by androphobic
To me, this is so wrong. Women and girls all over the country should have the choice to terminate their pregnancies, the right to choose. Their lives should always come first, no matter how stupid, irresponsible or naive they are. No matter what.
This I cannot agree with. As another 'penis wielding oppressor' I know that the issue of abortion/adoption touches a woman's psyche far more than it would trouble us, yet the bottom line remains that I believe that the trouble, discomfort - and yes emotional trauma of the mother - even if she is but a child herself is worth less than the life of the unborn child they carry within them

androphobic

Okay hold on a second. The fact that I said this child is from a council area is moot - her economic conditions are irrelevant.. I don't think any fifteen-year-old anywhere, should have a child. It was a hypothetical situation and I don't see your need to pick on it. No, of course my post was not objective - I had no intention for it to be so... it was based on my biased opinions, just as most other peoples are.

Asking me if I would like to have been aborted, over 19 years into my life ... well this isn't a realistic question. I doubt anyone would like to have been aborted. However, I would not like to think that my mother had me because she had no other choice.
The bottom line is that I believe that the mother's life comes first.
I realise that you might not agree with me, Typedef, but just as I will never change your mind, you will never, ever change mind. There is no point telling me that it is murder. I don't look at it like that. I don't believe that it is so utterly wrong.

In my eyes, it's all about choice.

Re: your argument on the suppression of women, I don't think there's any point on replying to it - like I said, you have a completely different viewpoint to me... you think its murder, suppression of the weak.. I believe that it is a girl or woman making a conscious decision that she does not want a baby (for whatever reasons) and consequently having an abortion.

Like you said, the fundamental difference here is that I believe that it is the woman's pregnancy, and you believe that it is the child's life.

P.S. I'm not on a high horse. I could easily have made similar comments to you if I had wished to lower the tone of the argument. You disagree with me on a serious issue, there's no need to make it personal.

---

I can’t help feeling that if we feel the right to exercise choice in our actions, we should also accept responsibility for them. Regardless of age, circumstances and stupidity.

I agree with you, Corinthian, but for me, having an abortion is a means of exercising and accepting responsibility.

I realise that this issue is more complicated than I am making it out to be, ie that there is also a father whose views and wishes must be taken into account.

Thank you for being objective enough to see the validity of my arguments.

---

Sand: I'm glad you interpreted my post correctly, yes, what I was trying to say is that children are having children before they've grown up themselves.



- andro

androphobic

Hey swiss, seems our posts overlapped.

Originally posted by swiss
This I cannot agree with. As another 'penis wielding oppressor' I know that the issue of abortion/adoption touches a woman's psyche far more than it would trouble us, yet the bottom line remains that I believe that the trouble, discomfort - and yes emotional trauma of the mother - even if she is but a child herself is worth less than the life of the unborn child they carry within them

I can definitely see your point. Like I said in my post a few moments ago, the issue is more complicated.. I didn't include the father, and I should have. I apologise.

I have seen first-hand the trouble, discomfort and emotional trauma that follows abortion, and I accept the consequences of such action.

I would still consider it as an option.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by androphobic
Thank you for being objective enough to see the validity of my arguments.

I accept the validity of your arguments if it is your contention that the foetus is either not a human being or is some manner inferior and hence should not be afforded the same basic rights as any other human being. Under that premise your arguments are logical. Otherwise they fall apart completely.

However, if that is your contention, then it is an amoral one, possibly arrived at using utilitarian values. It is a judgement of who is a person and who is not, who is more worthy and who is not. As such it is not one that should be made lightly, if at all.

If we are considering the consequences of our actions in this discussion, then we would do well to consider the consequences of our attributing rank and value to our humanity and where that may ultimately lead.

JustHalf

Androphobic, if you believe the unborn child is a person, I'm really disturbed by your argument is not that the mother's life is more important. Surely all lives are equally important?

And even if a mother's life is more important than the childs, that's not what you seem to mean. What you seem to mean is that a mother's quality of life is more important than the child's right to have any sort of life, something I strongly disagree with.

bonkey

OK - going through the last few posts, a few things came to mind which I thought I'd throw back into the pot....

1) The classical "my body" argument : "at the end of the day it should be my choice to have a baby or not".

Of course its your body. And when you choose to have sex, you are making a choice on how to use your body. Should this result in pregnancy, you then want to be able to choose again because the odds didnt play in your favour when you made your initial choice.

2) The 15-year old single mother from a deprived background

Now we've moved on to : "they dont know what theyre doing, and thus, we shouldnt hold them accountable for their stupidity", Which I find massively hypocritical when offered as a secondary argument to : "I'm informed and know what I'm doing, but still dont want to be held accountable for my actions".

I fail to see how someone can argue that they shouldnt be held responsible for the reprecussions of their own informed actions, and then maintain that lack of education is also an excuse.

For those who argue in favour of abortion being allowed so as not to punish "kids" who dont fully realise what they do.....I ask you to look a bit deeper. If a kid kills (say) a young toddler through brutal torture and rape. would you let him off if "he didnt really know what he was doing, or understand the ramifications"? Well, would you? If a kid steals a car and goes joyriding, killing several pedestrians losing control of the car, should we forgive hium because "he knew no better"? No? Well, then, please explain to me why abortion on these "young and uneducated" grounds is any different.

jc

Victor

While not advocating pregnancy or sex at 15, it is relatively common in other parts of the world. Women tend to mature quicker than men, I'm not sure when exactly is 'ideal' physiologically (whateever about legally, socially, economically or emotionally) for a women to have a baby, but I suspect it is on the lower side of 20.

Sex (with a peer) is legal in france at 15. You cannot say to a teenager "you are an adult now and can have sex" while at the same time saying "you don't have adult responsibilities". A hundred years ago in Ireland, I understand the age of consent was 12.

I imagine in many third world countries, teenage pregnancies are a majority over twenty-something pregnancies. Would you have all of these to automatically have abortions. You would kill entire nations.

I have a 13 year old niece who was quite capable of look after her baby sister in day-to-day matters. I wouldn't expect her to have to look after all the responsibilities, but I do think that any young teenager is given help with their baby (family, health board, GP, etc.). Looking after the baby was something my niece wanted to do and (within reason) was capable of doing. It provided her with an additional means of proving her emerging adulthood.

I think you do teenagers a dissservice in saying they can't look after a baby.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Victor
A hundred years ago in Ireland, I understand the age of consent was 12.

I think that particular law was only changed after a pedofile escaped with his 12 year old 'bride' to Ireland from the UK, back in the 50's or 60's.

Would you have all of these to automatically have abortions. You would kill entire nations.

Hmmmm... UN concerned with population explosion in Third World... UN argues for Abortion/Contreception Education in Third World...

Ignore that last point. Playful troll upon my part :rolleyes:

Our man in Havana

Time for the usual day of rest before polling

Lemming

Just part of an articule in today's Irish times I found:

My rant is not quite on abortion itself, but more the taoiseach slipping up badly and being heavily biased when he should be doing his job.

Full article here

Speaking at Fianna Fáil's final campaign press conference, Mr Ahern said he would not be "in a hurry" to legislate for abortion, on the basis of the X case judgment, if the referendum was lost.

"Legislatively, we would have to go back to the drawing board. But I have given no thought to that.

"In fairness, it isn't something that I will do in a hurry," he told The Irish Times.

His final remarks differed from those made by him during Fianna Fáil's opening press conference of the campaign when he warned that a No vote would threaten a liberal abortion regime.

Talk about inconsistency :rolleyes: He either means it or he doesn't. I wish he'd make up his bloody mind and do his job - ie. leading this country instead of making half-baked statements and trying to cover "all popularity bases".

But here's the BIGGY:

Insisting then that a No vote logically meant the X case would have to be covered by legislation, he added: "I do not want to see a pro-choice, liberal abortion regime in this country."

He can't make that call. He's suppoed to be impartial, and its not up to him, its up to the people who elect him whether or not they want to see a "pro-choice libereal abortion regime in this country" as he puts it. And he's suppoed to be representative of the people?? Bah!!:mad:

JustHalf

In fairness, if this referndum doesn't pass, it doesn't necessarily mean the majority of the voters are pro-choice.

There a perfectly valid pro-life reasons for voting no (such as the fact that the government will be funding Irish abortions in England, if the health minister is anyone to go by).

Is there actually a requirement for the X-case to be covered by legislation at all?