Abortions for only a select few, citizens assembly wide of mark

seamus · 06-10-2017 12:10PM

As others say here, the conversation needs to move away from this being a discussion about abortion.

The 8th amendment takes away women's rights. A pregnant woman has less right than the non-pregnant person beside them. Any decision she makes for herself effectively requires the state to approve it.

If she wants a medical procedure, the state will get involved. If she needs a medical procedure to improve her quality of life, the state is involved. If she is on death's door and requires a medical procedure that will save her life but kill the foetus, you bet your arse the state will be involved.

Ask any woman who has gone into a maternity hospital, and they will tell you the amount of times that hospital staff just did things to them without asking, or told them how things were going to be. Once you go in those doors, you become a ward of the hospital. Many choices are simply removed from you.

Whereas if I go into hospital requiring treatment, whether that be emergency, necessary or elective, at no stage will I have to go to court and ask the state if it's OK that I get it. And you can be damn sure that they will ask me, every single time, before they stick a needle in me or collect any samples.

That's the fundamental issue. It's not an abortion issue, it's a rights issue.

I agree with others that the conversation needs to be swung towards the real issue and be moved away from abortion.

blanch152 · 06-10-2017 12:13PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then you're just back to a repeat of 1983 again when the 8th amendment was introduced, and there will still be women who are past whatever term limits are placed in legislation who will seek a termination of their pregnancy, whether that be by legal or illegal means regardless.

There will always be people who will want to break any law, that doesn't necessarily mean the law should be changed.

In this case, we need to legislate for what society wants, and we need to be able to amend that legislation if the courts find a problem or society evolves. That means it is a job for the Oireachtas to set our abortion laws, not for continuous referenda and not for the judiciary.

meeeeh · 06-10-2017 12:18PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then you're just back to a repeat of 1983 again when the 8th amendment was introduced, and there will still be women who are past whatever term limits are placed in legislation who will seek a termination of their pregnancy, whether that be by legal or illegal means regardless.

Wast majority of women terminate in first trimester. After that you can have abortion in certain circumstances and it has to be approved by group of doctors. I lived in a country with very similar system and there were no calls to liberalize it or any issues with it.

I think your argument is more used as an excuse to do nothing.

blanch152 · 06-10-2017 12:20PM

seamus wrote: »

As others say here, the conversation needs to move away from this being a discussion about abortion.

The 8th amendment takes away women's rights. A pregnant woman has less right than the non-pregnant person beside them. Any decision she makes for herself effectively requires the state to approve it.

If she wants a medical procedure, the state will get involved. If she needs a medical procedure to improve her quality of life, the state is involved. If she is on death's door and requires a medical procedure that will save her life but kill the foetus, you bet your arse the state will be involved.

Ask any woman who has gone into a maternity hospital, and they will tell you the amount of times that hospital staff just did things to them without asking, or told them how things were going to be. Once you go in those doors, you become a ward of the hospital. Many choices are simply removed from you.

Whereas if I go into hospital requiring treatment, whether that be emergency, necessary or elective, at no stage will I have to go to court and ask the state if it's OK that I get it. And you can be damn sure that they will ask me, every single time, before they stick a needle in me or collect any samples.

That's the fundamental issue. It's not an abortion issue, it's a rights issue.

I agree with others that the conversation needs to be swung towards the real issue and be moved away from abortion.

That is just not true. If you go into hospital and ask them to remove your liver, they will refuse, because it would put your life in danger. So there are limits to what treatment you can seek, some of those limits are set by law, some of them are set by medical ethics.

Similarly, a woman doesn't or shouldn't have complete control over what she can do with her pregnancy. She shouldn't be allowed have an abortion of an otherwise viable fetus at 37 weeks, for example. That is horrific and abhorrent.

At the same time, the current position is untenable. Reasonable and timely access to abortion should be allowed, but there must be term-limits, possibly several term-limits. You could have a completely free access to abortion up to say 10-14 weeks (pick your limit) and a limited access thereafter (i.e. disability, danger to the woman's health etc.) up to 18-22 weeks.

Such arrangements would be a reasonable balance to the right to bodily integrity, the right to access to medical treatment, the right to health of the woman, the right to life of the unborn, and all of the other conflicting rights involved in this discussion. If you focus only on one right, or one aspect of one right, then you lose the ability to take a balanced approach.

One eyed Jack · 06-10-2017 12:21PM

seamus wrote: »

As others say here, the conversation needs to move away from this being a discussion about abortion.

The 8th amendment takes away women's rights. A pregnant woman has less right than the non-pregnant person beside them. Any decision she makes for herself effectively requires the state to approve it.

If she wants a medical procedure, the state will get involved. If she needs a medical procedure to improve her quality of life, the state is involved. If she is on death's door and requires a medical procedure that will save her life but kill the foetus, you bet your arse the state will be involved.

Whereas if I go into hospital requiring treatment, whether that be emergency, necessary or elective, at no stage will I have to go to court and ask the state if it's OK that I get it.

That's the fundamental issue. It's not an abortion issue, it's a rights issue.

I agree with others that the conversation needs to be swung towards the real issue and be moved away from abortion.

The State would be involved if you could get pregnant, so it's misleading to try and distract people from what the actual issue is which is that the 8th amendment protects the equal right to life of the unborn as the right to life of the mother and does all in it's power to vindicate that equal right to life by allowing for circumstances where the pregnant woman's life is at risk.

This isn't a question of rights plural, because there's only one right is relevant with regard to the 8th amendment - the right to life. If we're being asked in a referendum to repeal that amendment, then the right to life of the unborn is no longer equal to the right to life of the pregnant woman, and therefore it makes legislating to broaden our laws regarding abortion that much easier.

Outlaw Pete · 06-10-2017 12:23PM

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Nobody is going to decide to just terminate their pregnancy with a few weeks left to go simply because of a change of mind!

That's inaccurate. Indeed many women have been jailed for doing so. Some abortionists too for providing them.

Vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester

Vast majority of murder victims (94%) are people under 49. Should we make it legal to kill people over 50?

Course not. Vast majority means feck all when it comes to what we should and should not legislate for.

Recently the rarity of suicide as a result of pregnancy from rape was cited on a thread and the (rightful) response was '1 is 1 too many' and so if 'rarity' is not considered a sufficient retort against the need for having legislation in place on one side of the argument..... then why should it be considered such on the other?

One eyed Jack · 06-10-2017 12:30PM

blanch152 wrote: »

There will always be people who will want to break any law, that doesn't necessarily mean the law should be changed.

In this case, we need to legislate for what society wants, and we need to be able to amend that legislation if the courts find a problem or society evolves. That means it is a job for the Oireachtas to set our abortion laws, not for continuous referenda and not for the judiciary.

That's exactly my point - aren't we being asked to change the law by having a referendum? The Oireachtas will then put forward more half measures proposals for changes in the law which will mean women will still be in limbo rather than making abortion safe, legal and rare.

SafeSurfer · 06-10-2017 12:31PM

super_furry wrote: »

This referendum is about scrapping the 8th amendment from the statute books. Once that’s done, then look at what replaces it.

Voters aren't going to take that leap of faith. Vote to scrap something without knowing what will replace it.

meeeeh · 06-10-2017 12:31PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's inaccurate. Indeed many women have been jailed for doing so. Some abortionists too for providing them.

Can you provide a bit more reliable statistical data than 'many'. And in how many cases mental issues were present.

I think some limits must be applied and they are usually around the time fetus can survive outside womb so the scaremongering around abortions in 40th week is pretty disingenuous.

nozzferrahhtoo · 06-10-2017 12:34PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's inaccurate. Indeed many women have been jailed for doing so. Some abortionists too for providing them.

How "many" is "many" here and what data have you to back it up? Is there a point being made here other than a pedantic attack on someone thoughtlessly using the word "no one" when he likely means "next to no one"?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Vast majority of murder victims (94%) are people under 49. Should we make it legal to kill people over 50? Course not. Vast majority means feck all when it comes to what we should and should not legislate for.

It does and it doesn't. It means "feck all" to the morality of it for sure. One can either argue an act is moral or immoral...... the number of people doing it is probably nothing to do with that.

But when it comes to legislation it would be foolish not to legislate based on not just the moral and ethical positions, but based on what people actually want and need.

Since the VAST majority of abortions (well into the 90%s) appear to occur in or before week 16........ one could certainly put forward moral arguments as to why abortion up to week 24 is morally ok (which I have done in the past) but would it make any sense to do so, or to legislate for it, if it is entirely superfluous to requirements.

So in short I suspect the arguments around the ethics and morality of abortion itself........ and those around what we should actually legislate for and allow and provide........... are going to have stark differences between them.

meeeeh · 06-10-2017 12:34PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Voters aren't going to take that leap of faith. Vote to scrap something without knowing what will replace it.

I suspect this probably true but it shouldn't be. Abortion shouldn't be dealt with in constitution. People constantly vote without knowing what will happen in every general election.

SafeSurfer · 06-10-2017 12:35PM

We could have a situation next year where those who wish to create life will through IVF will be means tested but those who wish to destroy life will have abortion paid for entirety by the state.

If it's your body your choice don't expect me to pay.

SafeSurfer · 06-10-2017 12:37PM

meeeeh wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Voters aren't going to take that leap of faith. Vote to scrap something without knowing what will replace it.

I suspect this probably true but it shouldn't be. Abortion shouldn't be dealt with in constitution. People constantly vote without knowing what will happen in every general election.

Should fundamental rights not be included in the constitution? Should they be in the gift of short term politicians to remove or amend?

Hooks Golf Handicap · 06-10-2017 12:38PM

osarusan wrote: »

The most debated issue is going to be where the limit sits for abortion on request. I'm happy with 14-16 weeks, but not happy with 24-26 weeks, for example, and I imagine that many people will feel the same - the later that limit goes, the more support will drop.
.

Problem is in Ireland that many pregnant women don't receive their 12 week scan until week 14 or 15.
That leaves a very short time frame to make a life changing decision.

AustinLostin · 06-10-2017 12:39PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

We could have a situation next year where those who wish to create life will through IVF will be means tested but those who wish to destroy life will have abortion paid for entirety by the state.

If it's your body your choice don't expect me to pay.

You realise you are already 'paying' for the choices of 1000s of Irish citizens treatment, as a result of choices which negatively impacted their health.

meeeeh · 06-10-2017 12:42PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Should fundamental rights not be included in the constitution? Should they be in the gift of short term politicians to remove or amend?

What fundamental rights? Rights of a cluster of cells? Un constantly points to violations of those rights by Irish constitution by forcing women to travel, refusing them treatment and so on. If you are worried about fundamental rights they are already violated by Irish constitution.

SafeSurfer · 06-10-2017 12:43PM

AustinLostin wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

We could have a situation next year where those who wish to create life will through IVF will be means tested but those who wish to destroy life will have abortion paid for entirety by the state.

If it's your body your choice don't expect me to pay.

You realise you are already 'paying' for the choices of 1000s of Irish citizens treatment, as a result of choices which negatively impacted their health.

I'm paying to prolong the life of people with lung cancer who chose to smoke or car crash victims who chose to speed. Not the choice of someone to kill their child.

A Little Pony · 06-10-2017 12:44PM

I will be taking the view of the Pope on this issue.

Charles Babbage · 06-10-2017 12:44PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Exactly.
There is a completely different debate required about what type of abortion laws (if any), we should have in Ireland. There are legitimate views on both sides, but also grey areas around viability, late-term abortion, lifestyle choice abortions etc. At the same time, there is a near universal view that what happened in a Galway hospital to that poor woman should never be allowed happen in Ireland again.

The best thing to ensure that what happened in a Galway hospital to that poor woman is never allowed happen in Ireland again would be an clause in the constitution requring the government to staff the health service properly. This might save other people too.

SafeSurfer · 06-10-2017 12:45PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

I will be taking the view of the Pope on this issue.

Well he is infallible you know :-)

One eyed Jack · 06-10-2017 12:45PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I think some limits must be applied and they are usually around the time fetus can survive outside womb so the scaremongering around abortions in 40th week is pretty disingenuous.

The problem with setting term limits at the point where the foetus can survive outside the womb is that first of all it forces a woman to give birth when she doesn't want to, and second of all that point is being pushed back further all the time with advances in medicine.

Suggesting that we should put term limits in place because the majority of women already do something, isn't really much of an argument when you consider that the vast majority of women who want an abortion are determined to get one, one way or another already, whether that be either a medical or surgical abortion, so the laws are grand as they are, because they work for the vast majority.

Personally I know far more women who couldn't care one way or the other for the outcome of a referendum as they will have an abortion one way or the other rather than remain pregnant, regardless of the law in this country or the proposal of any new laws which would restrict their freedom and their right to self-determination.

SafeSurfer · 06-10-2017 12:47PM

meeeeh wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Should fundamental rights not be included in the constitution? Should they be in the gift of short term politicians to remove or amend?

What fundamental rights? Rights of a cluster of cells? Un constantly points to violations of those rights by Irish constitution by forcing women to travel, refusing them treatment and so on. If you are worried about fundamental rights they are already violated by Irish constitution.

You choose to define an unborn child as a cluster of cells. That is exactly what we all are. We all have rights.
The UN is in no position to lecture Ireland about protection of rights when you look at their record.

meeeeh · 06-10-2017 12:51PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The problem with setting term limits at the point where the foetus can survive outside the womb is that first of all it forces a woman to give birth when she doesn't want to, and second of all that point is being pushed back further all the time with advances in medicine.

Suggesting that we should put term limits in place because the majority of women already do something, isn't really much of an argument when you consider that the vast majority of women who want an abortion are determined to get one, one way or another already, whether that be either a medical or surgical abortion, so the laws are grand as they are, because they work for the vast majority.

Personally I know far more women who couldn't care one way or the other for the outcome of a referendum as they will have an abortion one way or the other rather than remain pregnant, regardless of the law in this country or the proposal of any new laws which would restrict their freedom and their right to self-determination.

Yes but those women will not have abortion in week 26 unless there are some other serious issues like fetal abnormalities or danger to health of mother. Certain restrictions are perfectly workable and are usually built into legislation, which is way to complex to be decided with referendums and should be assessed by people who are paid to govern full time. And not by average Joe who thought about 3 minutes on the subject.

And the laws are not grand because only those with money have access to abortion. It means of controlling the lives of poor and vulnerable people and often forcing those who are the least equipped to have children to have them.

sheepo · 06-10-2017 12:57PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

We could have a situation next year where those who wish to create life will through IVF will be means tested but those who wish to destroy life will have abortion paid for entirety by the state.

If it's your body your choice don't expect me to pay.

You'll be paying through your taxes, same as you do for any other medical procedure that people have.

murpho999 · 06-10-2017 12:59PM

This is going to be a masssive event next year.

In a few months the pro-lifers and religious groups will peddle their misinformation and lies.

Only last week after the Pro-Choice march a woman was interviewed by RTE News stating she was a rape victim and abortion would have destroyed her child's and her own life.

Nobody said to her that it would not have been as the abortion would have not been compulsory.

Stuff like this is going to ramp up as we get closer.

nozzferrahhtoo · 06-10-2017 01:00PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Suggesting that we should put term limits in place because the majority of women already do something, isn't really much of an argument when you consider that the vast majority of women who want an abortion are determined to get one, one way or another already

This is why I never, as a pro-choice campaigner, use the "Well if you do not allow abortions people will just go to the UK and get them anyway".

For me the moral and ethical discussion is about whether we as a society/state should be offering abortion by choice as a service, and with what limitations.

That, having established those limitations, there may be people "determined to get one one way or another" who go outside the system and do so is irrelevant to me.

Our goal should be to decide our moral and ethical position together on what to offer, or not offer, as a service. What people who do not or can not avail of that service then decide to do is, for me, a different discussion.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You choose to define an unborn child as a cluster of cells. That is exactly what we all are. We all have rights.

Exactly. So the people who get annoyed at having the fetus described as a bunch of cells need to ask themselves why they have an issue with that.

A lot of abortions do not just happen on a clump of cells however, but a barely differentiated clump of cells, such as the abortifacient medication used shortly after conception.

However the "well we are all just a clump of cells really" point brings up what for me is the core discussion that abortion requires we have. Which is......... when you speak of "Rights"............ what EXACTLY is it that has rights, what EXACTLY is it we assign rights to, and is the thing identified actually something the fetus being aborted has?

I have thought long and hard on that question and I have come to the conclusion that no, no it isn't, and hence I have no moral or ethical concern about 12 or 16 week old fetuses being aborted.

SafeSurfer · 06-10-2017 01:01PM

sheepo wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

We could have a situation next year where those who wish to create life will through IVF will be means tested but those who wish to destroy life will have abortion paid for entirety by the state.

If it's your body your choice don't expect me to pay.

You'll be paying through your taxes, same as you do for any other medical procedure that people have.

You say "you will" as if it's a foregone conclusion. It isn't.

One eyed Jack · 06-10-2017 01:04PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes but those women will not have abortion in week 26 unless there are some other serious issues like fetal abnormalities or danger to health of mother. Certain restrictions are perfectly workable and are usually built into legislation, which is way to complex to be decided with referendums and should be assessed by people who are paid to govern full time. And not by average Joe who thought about 3 minutes on the subject.

I don't know whether they would or they wouldn't to be honest, but my point is that if you're saying that the vast majority of abortions are already carried out in the first trimester, then what's the point in legislating to allow only for abortion in the first trimester? It would seem more than a bit pointless surely? Like one of the reasons for late stage abortions is because those women never even realised they were pregnant in the first place. Another reason is the time it takes to save up the money either to travel, and/or for the procedure itself, another is that often these women go through months of mentally torturing themselves because they don't want to have an abortion, but they don't want to give birth either. My point is that I don't care what their reasons are, I trust that they know they are doing what is right for themselves, and I'd rather they were able to do that safely and with as minimum distress as possible, and as much support afterwards as possible.

meeeeh wrote: »

And the laws are not grand because only those with money have access to abortion. It means of controlling the lives of poor and vulnerable people and often forcing those who are the least equipped to have children to have them.

I didn't see this bit. But I don't agree that the current laws actually are a means of controlling the lives of poor and vulnerable because the State already provides support for the poor and vulnerable, and I don't agree with the idea of determining that a person is any less equipped to have children by virtue of their social status alone. That's a tactic that if abortion laws were broadened in this country could massively backfire in that the State would no longer feel obliged to provide for the poor and vulnerable because the State now provides for abortion, leaving a woman two choices - abort, or face the consequences. It forces their hands, and that has not just consequences for them, but consequences for their children that they chose to have rather than an abortion.

Guy:Incognito · 06-10-2017 01:19PM

seamus wrote: »

As others say here, the conversation needs to move away from this being a discussion about abortion.

The 8th amendment takes away women's rights. A pregnant woman has less right than the non-pregnant person beside them. Any decision she makes for herself effectively requires the state to approve it.

If she wants a medical procedure, the state will get involved. If she needs a medical procedure to improve her quality of life, the state is involved. If she is on death's door and requires a medical procedure that will save her life but kill the foetus, you bet your arse the state will be involved.

Ask any woman who has gone into a maternity hospital, and they will tell you the amount of times that hospital staff just did things to them without asking, or told them how things were going to be. Once you go in those doors, you become a ward of the hospital. Many choices are simply removed from you.

Whereas if I go into hospital requiring treatment, whether that be emergency, necessary or elective, at no stage will I have to go to court and ask the state if it's OK that I get it. And you can be damn sure that they will ask me, every single time, before they stick a needle in me or collect any samples.

That's the fundamental issue. It's not an abortion issue, it's a rights issue.

I agree with others that the conversation needs to be swung towards the real issue and be moved away from abortion.

The problem is, unless you can condense all that in to a catchy one liner, most people aren't interested. They are either too lazy or don't want to educate themselves on issues. Sur someone will fling a headline on Facebook for them to get animated about and form their opinion on.

PeterParker957 · 06-10-2017 01:22PM

For my two cents worth, the brain stem develops at 15-16 weeks.

Before that the foetus is not sentient. So before then, I have no issue on the reason.

After that - medically necessary only. I'd vote for that.

Abortions for only a select few, citizens assembly wide of mark

Comments