Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

recedite wrote: »

Even if it is assumed that the foetus is not a thinking self aware creature, which seems a reasonable supposition, it is still human.

My appendix is human. It does not have a right to life.

recedite wrote: »

Because it is human? I think you are using this non-sentience thing to deny the humanity of the unborn human.

Nope. I am using it to point out that there is no reason for it to be allocated "Humanity". I can not deny it something it does not have. As I said if someone were to build a model of "humanity" for me that was devoid of sentience they might have a point. But outside mere biological taxonomy I see nothing "human" about a fetus other than it's DNA.

I am seeing nothing important about being human in what you have written. It seems circular and empty. Nothing more than 'Humans are important because we are humans and so we think humans are important'.

Whereas my approach is to look at what differentiates humanity from everything else. If Humans are to be considered important compared to any other life on this planet, then why? What is it about us that makes us different, special, important, or even relevant?

And what I find is the results of that inquiry are exactly the things the fetus being aborted lacks. Not just slightly lacks, but ENTIRELY lacks.

recedite wrote: »

Even if it is assumed that the foetus is not a thinking self aware creature, which seems a reasonable supposition, it is still human. Which takes us back to the "person in a coma" analogy.

And as I said the two things are not comparable on anything other than they both have human DNA. But the differences between them are important. One HAS the faculty of sentience, the other does not. Being in a coma, or even being asleep, does not mean the faculty is not there. There is a massive difference between "off" and "absent".

recedite wrote: »

Well I did say No. I agree there is no onus if that entity is non-human. Or not even a life form, as in your AI example.

And why does being a life form matter at all? Sentience is sentience, regardless of the platform it happens to be running on. There is nothing particularly special about meat, compared to say silicon, that would elevate one over the other.

Why are people still having pointless debates about when life starts or when sentience begins?

Women have a right to choose, the unborn have a right to life, all we have to do is choose the appropriate balance between those rights and the other rights involved. The Oireachtas committee seems to have made a fair attempt at that, whether they got it 100% right should be the debate.

Turning back to the political aspects of the referendum, it seems FF are going to tear themselves inside out on this one.

blanch152 wrote: »

Why are people still having pointless debates about when life starts or when sentience begins?

Women have a right to choose, the unborn have a right to life, all we have to do is choose the appropriate balance between those rights and the other rights involved.

Why? Because when you talk about finding a "balance" what that involves in compromise on behalf of the pregnant woman. Or, rather than compromise, it involves a curtailing of her freedoms and choices and well being.

Now when another sentient agent is involved, that makes a LOT of sense to do. For example my free right to swing my fists around ENDS at your face. Because the moment you, another sentient agent, comes into play then my rights and choices and well being often has to be curtailed to balance for yours.

But when the other entity is not at all sentient, and never has been, then finding that "balance" is superfluous to requirements. You are curtailing the rights and choices and well being of the woman in deference to a "no one". You are finding "balance" where no balance is required, and doing so at measurable cost to the ACTUAL sentient woman in question. One does not have to, nor should we, find a balance with "other rights involved" when in fact there ARE no other rights involved.

So the reason we are having the "pointless" debate would be because it is not "pointless" at all. It in fact goes to the very crux of the abortion issue and, I suspect, to issues our species will face in the future....... such as how to morally and ethically treat things like Alien Life and/or Artificial Intelligence at the point we meet one/some that are themselves every bit (or even more so) as sentient as us.

Andyfitzer wrote: »

OK. Thanks. I agree, rape is a minefield in this scenario. I think that introducing abortion on demand is insane to help such a minority of cases, though. I would have to disagree about forcing someone to not kill another human, especially as they were the one whose actions caused it in the first place. I would prefer to see free contraception like the marina to all who want it.

You haven't mentioned the human in the womb at all. How do you feel about the taking of that life? How do you reconcile your views with the loss of life?

Language is important. The normalised use of the phrase 'abortion on demand' is intended to pretend a serious decision of a female with respect to her own body is somehow something frivolous. The implication that this phrase would accurately describe or gauge the vast vast majority of these decisions is dishonest.
This language should be challenged.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am considering it in the context of the thread, not in isolation. The context of the thread being abortion. If you ignore the context then the isolation issue is yours, not mine.

And in that context the woman is a living SENTIENT entity with rights, choices and well being for us to consider. The Fetus is not. So I see no reason to curtail the former in deference to the latter. Except this fantastical notion that the potential to be sentient should be afforded the same rights as something that is sentient.

So no balance needs to be found as there IS nothing to balance that I can see. Nor should there be.



And I think that middle ground is sentience. The faculty of sentience does not exist in a 16 week fetus. It does exist, we believe, in a 36 week fetus. But hardly anyone is choosing for non medical reasons to do in the fetus at 36 weeks. Most abortions by choice vastly occur in or before week 12, and the near totality by week 16.

The middle ground is there already, it does not require seeking.

We are probably in agreement in that I support the Oireachtas committee proposal.

However, I do not dismiss the right to life of the unborn, neither do I dismiss the right to bodily integrity of a woman or the right to choose or the right to travel. Like every other similar situation, there are conflicting rights and a balance is needed, the Oireachtas committee appears to have got it right.

On sentience, there is no unchallenged scientific position on when sentience begins, so even if you reduce it to a scientific argument, rather than one of balancing rights, you still have to balance different scientific opinions.

All in all, the debate should be about 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 10 weeks or some other time-limit and unrestricted versus ffa, rape, woman's health risk etc. in order to find a commonly accepted compassionate middle ground.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can not "dismiss" what is not there myself, so I do not "dismiss" the right to life of the unborn either. Rather I explore what that right means, why and when we (should) assign it, and on what basis. And my conclusion is I can find nothing that brings us to show moral and ethical concern for an entity.... which the fetus in question actually has.

Your idea of "balance" certainly has to come on line when sentience comes into the question. But around 98% of abortions are done long before that happens.



There is indeed no scientific conclusion as to when it begins. There is however vast scientific consensus on stages when it is absent. These are two different questions "When does sentience begin?" and "What stages can be be as sure as sure gets that it is absent?".

My position is based on the second question, and around 98% of abortions by choice are happening well within the window that the answer to that question provides.

As such if I woke up in an Ireland tomorrow with abortion by choice available up to 16 weeks I would be abundantly happy with that. But if I woke up in an Ireland with 12 weeks, or 20 weeks, I would not lose a shred of sleep over either.

Well then, for different reasons, we are both reaching approximately the same conclusion.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, the referendum will be on complete removal of 43.3 and the insertion of a clause that says the Oireachtas can legislate to regulate terminations.

That's the perfect outcome for me. Let's hope the people vote for it.

But is it the perfect outcome? I presume your in favour of repeal?

In that case, do you think that not replacing with some sort of fixed guarantee might sway some people to the keep the 8th?

Will people be fearful on how it could be legislated on, especially in the future?

Would it have been better to have a 10, 12, 14 weeks limit replacing it and getting it passed, rather than risk total failure?

Or do you think there is enough support or removing guarantees will have little or no effect?

ForestFire wrote: »

Would it have been better to have a 10, 12, 14 weeks limit replacing it and getting it passed, rather than risk total failure?

See divorce, where a chickensh!t 4-year rule was put into the constitution for exactly this reason, to make sure no-one would vote no in case Quickie divorces would be introduced, and it is far too long.

Now we need another referendum to change it.

The Govt are correct - they should propose the proper change, and if people don't pass it, they don't pass it.

This time.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would not be against a Constitutional prohibition on "late-term" abortions except in the cases of risk to the life of the mother and/or fatal foetal abnormalities.

I don't believe it is possible to craft any article to do this that will be both crystal clear and futureproof.

As you well know yourself, constitutional law is never black and white, even the most straightforward and innocuous statement can be looked at from another angle.

What's being mooted as the proposed wording uses the phrase "termination of pregnancy", which inherently includes the protections that you're looking for.

This would allow "late-term" abortions, but would still place an onus on the doctors to deliver and save the life of the child, where possible. Termination of a pregnancy does not require killing the unborn in all cases, and even if the legislation were to permit terminations up to 40 weeks, the proposed wording would not make it constitutionally legal to euthanise the unborn before the procedure.

murphaph wrote: »

In fairness abortions on demand at 39 weeks are only legal in a handful of countries and I do not believe for a second that they would be legal on demand in Ireland post deletion of 43.3. I am socially liberal in pretty much every way but I draw the line somewhere too and an abortion a day before due date is not acceptable to me. The woman should have terminated earlier, simple as that.

The government are correct to avoid another fudge-straight repeal with a statement that the Oireachtais should legislate for abortion. The way it should always have been of course.

Hopefully the electorate recognises that the constitution is no place for this sort of law.

I think in cases of extremely late term abortions, the baby is delivered via c-section and handed over to social workers. I don't think any country allows the euthanisation of newborns.
As far as I'm aware, that's how it works in countries where late term abortions are allowed.

volchitsa wrote: »

I dont think anyone has a very late term abortion just because they dont want to be pregnant. Other than rare events like someone being prevented from having an abortion (which ironically is more likely tohappen in Ireland than elsewhere because of a deliberately limited access to abortion) I think any really late abortions are due to the baby being diagnosed with a serious and usually fatal abnormality.

So they are done to people who actually wanted the baby. I really don't think there's such a thing as the baby then being handed over to social workers, that would be very cruel to the grieving parents.

I was referring to a case I read from the US, where a woman was suffering from massive mental health problems and was suicidal. They delivered her baby at circa 31 weeks and handed it over to state care.
I wasn't talking about FFA, moreso the extremely rare cases where the baby is perfectly healthy and viable but continuing the pregnancy for the woman isn't an option.

recedite wrote: »

That's not actually true. The proposal is to remove the constitutional right to life of the unborn.
Any future rules would be decided by TD's, not by the people. A politician's promise is worth nothing now, and it never will be. Without any constitutional limit, there is absolutely nothing to constrain them, so we have no idea what they might legislate for in the future.
Legalised euthanisa/abortion any time up until birth would be entirely possible. I'm not saying its likely, just that there would be no constraints.

For heaven's sake TDs legislate on behalf of the people every day. It's kind of their job.

recedite wrote: »

Of course they do, and minority govts are regularly held to ransom by smaller parties or independents. Look at how the FG water charge policy got dumped by FF despite the polluter pays principle being an important part of the EU water directive. Just because that was the wacky policy promise that FF campaigned on, and it worked for them.

A future FG govt. might need a few votes from some ultra liberal social democrat party whose own electioneering might involve a promise to get rid of every legal restriction on abortion. That is actually the position in Canada AFAIK, so it would very likely be the next ambition for the pro-choice campaign here.

Come off it. That future FG Government would be out on its ear at the next opportunity if it did so. Canada has had this ultra liberal attitude for as long as I can remember so why hasn't a more recent government simply tightened things up since?

Most countries in Europe have coalition government as a rule and none that I am aware of have Canadian style abortion laws.