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

J C wrote: »

If the document is really about what it says on the cover ... 'Making a better Future Together' i.e. for both mother and child then the 8th will have no effect on it ... and I would welcome any initiatives to make a better future together for mothers (and fathers) and their children.

You're just making stuff up here, the National Maternity Strategy itself actually says that 40.3.3 reduces birthing women's rights for their consent to be necessary.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

The question remains whether you believe that somebody who is determined by mental health professionals to be a substantive danger to themselves or others (whether pregnant of not) should be sectioned?
... and I note that you haven't answered this question.

The fact that you seem to think I haven't answered probably showshow little you understand of the process : a MH professional can't just section someone on a whim - there is a legal procedure to follow, outside which the person can be deemed to have been illegally detained, no matter who was behind the "sectioning". That procedure is in the MHA not POLDPA. The latter has no clause for sectioning a woman instead of granting her an abortion.

If she was deemed to require sectioning, then the MHA needed to be applied, and it wasn't. One has to assume this is because she didnt fulfill the criteria. The second opinion called in by her Guardian also confirms that.

So your question about sectioning someone who is a danger to themselves or others is moot. An absolute priority must be to ensure that "mental health" can't be used as an alibi for locking up difficult cases, the way the Soviet Union used to, or as the Irish health service now seems to.

J C wrote: »

I believe in the personhood of unborn human beings ... we don't magically become persons when we are born ... and are 'non-persons' before birth.

The fact that jurisdictions that allow legal abortion create a legal fiction that the unborn are non-persons, in order to legally facilitate abortions, doesn't mean that they aren't actually persons.

The Offenses Against the Person Act proscribes procured abortion in Ireland ... and the 'person' protected from being aborted in the Act is the unborn child.

But the unborn child is not legally a person.
it doesnt have a pssport, a PPE number, or an identity at all.
The recent SC case cleared thwt up I would have thought.

J C wrote: »

I'm looking at photo of a young mother clearly loving and caring for her child ... and the title of the document is 'Creating a Better Future Together'.
If it is proposed that abortion on demand is part of the 'future together' ... this is a logical contradiction ... because abortion makes any future together or otherwise impossible ... and it's objectively not 'better' for the unborn children killed by these abortions ... and its also not 'better', for the mothers who subsequently deeply regret their abortions.

The claim that access to termination of pregnancy is not a necessary part of health services for women is a lie.

It is prolife propaganda which tries to sneak Catholic "double intention" theology into secular law without acknowledging it.

Savitta Hallappanavar needed an abortion, and so do women who have ectopic pregnancies or other crises.

As for women who may regret their abortions, people may regret all sorts of things, but that doesnt mean they should be banned for everyone else.

... we cannot have it both ways ... if a woman is undergoing a mental health crisis where she is a threat to herself ... she should be sectioned until the crisis is treated or otherwise passes ... or are you saying that if she is pregnant, she should be aborted ... whether the pregnancy is the reason or not for her mental health issues?

No. None of that.

People should not be sectioned if they don't meet the carefully thought out requirements in the MHA. It's really not that hard to understand.

J C wrote: »

Unborn children are tiny vulnerable human beings entitled to continue living and growing ... like all human beings.

Except when you think they're not, right?

Or should the Morning After Pill and the IUD be outlawed too?

J C wrote: »

Nobody is saying that abortion isn't necessary to save a woman's life ... just that abortion on demand isn't justifiable.

Actually the Dublin Declaration said exactly that. None of the signatories seem prepared to stand over it now though, which rather discredits their current claims to know when abortion is necessary.

... and the POLDPA allows such healthcare ... which is perfectly within the spirit and the letter of the 8th.

In theory. As Savitta found to her cost.
And then there is the question of why a miscarrying woman should have to end up infertile or in constant pain - is her health not also worth preserving, as much as her life?

You are correct ... but the primary reason for limiting abortion is the effect it has on the unborn child (death) ... women who regret their abortions is another reason for limiting abortion.

But you still havent explained why you think killing the embryo or foetus is wrong in some cases but not others (MAP or IUD for instance)

So, where a mother is suicidal the MHA should be used to section her ... and then consideration under the POLDPA can be given to aborting her ... or inducing her, if the baby is viable?
I see on issue with that ... do you?

I've no idea what you are suggesting here, nor how it would be legal.
Are you saying that any woman who asks for an abortion under section 9 of POLDPA should potentially be sectioned first just for saying she was suicidal?

Pretty sure that little wheeze won't get past the various Human Rights agreements we've signed.

volchitsa wrote: »

In theory. As Savitta found to her cost.
And then there is the question of why a miscarrying woman should have to end up infertile or in constant pain - is her health not also worth preserving, as much as her life?

Abortions can also cause problems with carrying any future pregnancy to term, if for example, it compromises the cervix. If a woman is miscarrying because her child is dead, the 8th has no effect. A mothers health is obviously worth preserving ... and where the health issue is so serious as to threaten her life the POLDPA is available ... and where the health issue is more minor, it will likely resolve once the pregnacy comes to term and can be treated in-between. Where it is a health issue, that is not related to her pregnancy, it can be treated even if the unborn child dies as a result.

volchitsa wrote: »

But you still havent explained why you think killing the embryo or foetus is wrong in some cases but not others (MAP or IUD for instance).

MAP and IUDs are potentially abortifascient ... and are used where a pregnancy hasn't been determined to be present. They are on the borderline between contraception and abortion ... and as such, don't fall foul of the 8th.

Going beyond the MAP is aborting a pregnacy that is known to exist and falls into the definition of procured abortion ... which is proscribed by Statute Law and the 8th.
It is precisely the 'slippery slope' (they tolerated this, so why will they not now tolerate that) which worried people, when the MAP was allowed ... and now you are proving these fears to be well founded ... by attempting to use a pill taken the morning after sex, to now justify abortion on demand up to 12 weeks ... and up to 24 weeks for defined cases and up to term in other cases.

volchitsa wrote: »

I've no idea what you are suggesting here, nor how it would be legal.
Are you saying that any woman who asks for an abortion under section 9 of POLDPA should potentially be sectioned first just for saying she was suicidal?

Pretty sure that little wheeze won't get past the various Human Rights agreements we've signed.

If somebody is assessed by mental health professionals to be a risk to themselves or others, they can (and should) be sectioned under the MHA until the acute risk passes ... this logically applies to everyone, whether they are pregnant or not.

volchitsa wrote: »

You're making most of this up, as far as I can tell. The law excludes women's health as a reason for intervening, and the reality of women's testimonies some of which were posted here, is that even when the fetus is dead, doctors are afraid to intervene surgically because occasionally a very weak, slow heart beat may be detected after the birth.

... so you are expecting the people to vote for unrestricted abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and later for specified cases ... because doctors are standing by afraid to intervene when an unborn child is dead and there a slight heartbeat. I think that a law (or a medical protocol) could easily be drafted to remove any doubts about medical issues around dead unborn children ... and it wouldn't be affected by the 8th.

volchitsa wrote: »

If you have evidence that treatment unrelated to the pregnancy can be given you should post it up : the distinction you make is a religious one of double intent, which doesn't exist in the law.

Once again, a law (or a medical protocol) could easily be drafted to remove any doubts about medical issues around treatment for non-pregnancy related treatments for pregnant women ... and it wouldn't be affected by the 8th.

volchitsa wrote: »

No, they don't fall foul of it because it was carefully redefined to allow the destruction of the embryo in such cases, ie before implantation.

When did this happen?
I don't think that you are correct about this.

volchitsa wrote: »

But for anyone whose objection is based on the claim that life begins at fertilization, destroying such an embryo is morally the same as destroying an implanted one.

It is a Scientific fact that all new life starts at the moment of fertilization ... and this applies to everything from frogs to birds to human beings ... and all sexually reproducing organisms.

The next question is when does the law offer protection to a living being.
In the case of frogs, birds and other wildlife, the law protects their lives at all stages from fertilization to natural or accidental death.

In the case of human beings, Irish Law currently offers protection from fertilization until natural or accidental death. The only exception is where the human being must be killed to prevent the death of another ... this is enshrined in the 8th in relation to unborn human beings ... and in Common and Statute Law in relation to born human beings.

In other countries protection is legally removed from unborn human beings for various stated reasons and at various stages between fertilization and birth ... to facilitate procured abortion.

If the 8th is repealed and abortion as proposed is introduced, we will be in the bizarre situation that frogspawn will have absolute legal protection and unborn human beings will have no rights and no legal protection, up to 12 weeks and beyond.

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think not knowing if someone is in a house you set fire to is a legal defence if someone dies. Not knowing if you are pregnant (assuming you are aware you had sex) is morally the same - if as you seem to believe, the fertilized egg is a person. If it is not, then when does it become a person?

... not knowing somebody was in a house, wouldn't be a defense, if somebody died as a result of arson ... but you would need to prove that somebody did die ... and that is the legal loophole that keeps the MAP and IUDs legal. Nobody can prove, one way or the other whether there is a pregnancy present.
Like I have said, they are on the borderline between contraception and abortion - and are legal, as a result.

volchitsa wrote: »

Well that's your fault for choosing a point of personhood and then thinking you can justify ignoring it whenever it suits you.

Not so much a slippery slope as pointing out the failures of prolife logic.

There is definitely a slippery slope ... for example, you are now asking people to approve procured abortion on the basis that abortificient contraception is already available in Ireland.

volchitsa wrote: »

Of course. But that is not the case under POLDPA.

The girl who was put in a locked psychiatric ward was not deemed to come under the MHA, so this explanation cannot be accepted in her case. So Ireland is still guilty of locking up "undesirables" and of abusing psychiatric hospitals to do so.

I think you are drawing unwarranted conclusions. The facts seem to be that this young woman was suicidal and pregnant and it was decided by mental health professionals to detain her in a psychiatric hospital. How she was detained is unclear ... but as you have said, yourself, she could/should have been sectioned under the MHA if she was so acutely ill as to be a threat to herself or others, whether she was pregnant or not.

volchitsa wrote: »

Oddly in the 3 decades since it was predicted by the AG that this couldn't be done, well, umm, it hasnt been done.

I think that alone shows that your sudden attack of optimism is nonsense.

Where there is a will there is a way ... and it is totally unreasonable to demand that abortion on demand by allowed because nobody is apparently able to draft a medical protocol to define what is to be done when an unborn child is dead in utero ... or where a woman needs necessary medical treatment and is pregnant.
Of course the fact that D & Cs or medical inductions are routinely used where unborn children are found to be dead, indicates that the issue is addressed under the 8th de facto if not de jure.

volchitsa wrote: »

It was the Roche judgment, over whether IVF embryos were included in the right to life afforded by the 8th. https://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1215/125382-embryo/

And yes I am correct.

... there was an attempt to pass an amendment to the 8th do this ... and when this failed to pass ... this judgement was then made.
... so, as far as the courts are concerned, the 8th does exactly what it says on the tin ... protects unborn human life ... but only in so far as practicable and with due regard to the life of the mother.
It strikes a perfect balance IMO ... and we repeal it at great peril, because the courts have interpreted the rights of the unborn as tightly as possible ... and politicians may have their efforts at legislation, liberal and all as their proposals are ... further liberalized by the Supreme Court, if the 8th is removed.

volchitsa wrote: »

Except it doesn't. As I showed above.

Fair point, that it doesn't protect human beings when they are artificially produced and the whole area of the production of human embryos for scientific experimentation also need to be addressed in legislation if not in the constitution.
Something separate from the abortion issue ... and something that may need to be revisited and legislated on.

volchitsa wrote: »

Seems very careless of human life - surely if one really thought these were people, the precautionary principle should apply and these products should just be banned in case there is a person there?

Morally speaking you are correct ... legally speaking the 8th was deemed to not provide protection.
The same would be true if somebody burned down a house with no regard to whether somebody was killed in the arson. They would only be legally charged with arson, if it couldn't be proven that anybody was killed ... but they would be morally guilty of recklessness as to whether somebody could have been killed by their actions.

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a woman should be put on trial for taking one, but they could be banned from import, like the abortion pill. Just in case. If we can do without abortion, we can do without the MAP too?

Quite true ... but we are where we are on the 'slippery slope' towards abortion on demand ... and we are now being asked to metaphorically 'jump over an abortion cliff' ... to approve abortion on demand up to 12 weeks ... and with a few medical formalities, beyond 12 weeks.

volchitsa wrote: »

You wouldn't allow someone to continue year after year being reckless with people's lives after they know there might be someone there?

Quite true ... and you are now starting to make pro-life points against the liberalization of abortion ... the point that recklessness in regard to sexual conduct (for example, engaging in unprotected sex) shouldn't be rewarded by society with abortion on demand ... or abortion as 'contraception'.
People sometimes need to be held responsible for their actions ... especially where other human lives are involved.

volchitsa wrote: »

Not asking anything, just pointing out the contradictions in prolife arguments.
That is what debate is about, after all.

The point you are making is that the Irish people should now approve procured abortion on the basis that abortificient contraception is already available in Ireland. This is the classic 'slippery slope' in action.

volchitsa wrote: »

But she wasn't. You do know that someone can't be sectioned against their will merely for being suicidal, right?

If they are suicidal to the point where it can be determined that they are a threat to themselves ... they can be sectioned ... or ideally, voluntarily admitted for treatment.

volchitsa wrote: »

Someone with a clear, non-imagined reason for being suicidal (diagnosis of a very serious illness for example, or major distress over an unwanted pregnancy) is not liable to come under MHA criteria for being sectioned. They need to be seen not to be able to think logically about their problems.

If they were thinking rationally about their problems, they wouldn't be suicidal, doubly so, if the issue causing their stress is transient or temporary.

volchitsa wrote: »

Being suicidal over a sprained ankle probably seems unreasonabke, but if the person is a dancer, with a major competition or show coming up, something essential for their career, it may be. In that case one has to reason with them, and if necessary try to get them to accept hospitalization with their consent.

... I think that if somebody is actually suicidal ... and this can be determined beyond doubt ... they may have to be sectioned, to give them a 'breathing space' to allow the issue stressing them to be addressed or medically treated.

volchitsa wrote: »

Look you clearly don't know the law on mental health and sectioning people, yet you areconvinced that it says what you want it to say.

On the grounds that you can only bring a horse to water, there's no point in me continuing this discussion.

Its a free country ... and you don't have to engage in any discussion ... but please don't try and use the argument that your opponent doesn't understand something, to withdraw yourself.

The obvious thing to do, is to point out where I'm wrong ... if I am.

J C wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Look you clearly don't know the law on mental health and sectioning people, yet you areconvinced that it says what you want it to say.

On the grounds that you can only bring a horse to water, there's no point in me continuing this discussion.

Its a free country ... and you don't have to engage in any discussion ... but please don't try and use the argument that your opponent doesn't understand something, to withdraw yourself.

The obvious thing to do, is to point out where I'm wrong ... if I am.

I did, several times. You keep insisting that the law allows something it doesn't.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Unfortunately it is not ethical to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy either.

It is ethical to legally 'force' people to not kill. Most people don't do so, of their own accord.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

It's not about the rights and wrongs of a law but about practicalities. The only reason Ireland can have this debate is because it is outsourcing abortion provision abroad.

Not at all ... some women travel to England for abortions alright ... but Ireland historically had anti-abortion legislation at the same time as England had similar legislation.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Backstreet botched abortions are something many people of an older generation can remember. For younger generations there are still issues of women returning with complications from abroad. I met young medical students who have become pro-choice from having seen so many young women in A+E after returning from abroad. This is hardly ethical either. If there are complications with abortion they should be at home and not have to travel. This is a medical issue.

It sounds like there is a significant risk of complications from abortion, whether it is 'backstreet' or medically induced. The answer is obviously 'don't do it'. It will save the baby's life as well as ensuring that the mother doesn't suffer both mental and physical 'complications'.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

No one who is pro-choice thinks this is a matter to be celebrated. We don't gleefully will the "killing" of the unborn. It's just some of us have the courage to realise what the situation entails and what needs to be done to do right by our women in a difficult circumstance.

It isn't 'right' for either the women or unborn children involved.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Abortion "on demand" is the only practical way to legislate for abortion. A woman can't wait weeks for a jury to decide her fate if impregnated via rape, for example. And from a moral perspective there is no difference between a foetus conceived through rape or by accident from the unborn's point of view. But there is no morality in forcing women to be "held responsible for their actions" and to have to carry a pregnancy to term. And what a bizarre point of view!

The MAP is a routine part of medical treatment for cases of rape or sexual assault ... so abortion shouldn't be necessary.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Who are you to judge? Who is anyone? Who is to say that one's actions do not negatively impact on others, maybe even resulting in deaths? It isn't worth the pain caused to so many women in this country to feel morally superior about abortion. As far as I can see, the world isn't perfect yet.

The world will never be perfect ... nor will any of us be perfect.
However, respecting human life is a very basic thing to do.

J C wrote: »

The world will never be perfect ... nor will any of us be perfect.
However, respecting human life is a very basic thing to do.

Respecting the fact that others believe different things than you do, is a very basic thing to do as well.

That has been very hard to accept for many in Ireland. But thankfully that is changing.

Volchitsa is correct, suicidality alone is not grounds for detention. The 2001 Act is clear that it's a nature and degree argument.
Firstly, you must be suffering from a mental illness that would materially benefit from treatment in an approved centre (nature).
Secondly, because of the mental illness, there is a risk of harm to the person/others, or, the person's judgment is so impaired that they cannot act in their best interests (degree).

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/25/enacted/en/html

Whilst suicidality can be viewed as a degree of mental illness, it can't be viewed as a nature of mental illness. A person needs to be mentally ill AND suicidal.
As detention in an approved centre must materially benefit the person, a woman who is suicidal because she does not want to continue her pregnancy will not be materially benefitted by involuntary detention, simply because approved centres cannot terminate pregnancies.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Unfortunately it is not ethical to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy either.

it's even more unethical to allow an unborn child to be killed just because a woman doesn't want to be pregnant though.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

It's not about the rights and wrongs of a law but about practicalities.

it will ultimately be about what is the right or wrong thing to allow to happen in the majority of cases though. but allowing for the practicalities where genuinely necessary as well. that is how many will see this issue.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

The only reason Ireland can have this debate is because it is outsourcing abortion provision abroad.

i disagree. it's not outsourcing anything, women are simply availing of a service that isn't availible. i would think that for it to constitute genuine outsourcing, the government would have contracts with the various agencies in the uk who cary out abortions.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Backstreet botched abortions are something many people of an older generation can remember. For younger generations there are still issues of women returning with complications from abroad. I met young medical students who have become pro-choice from having seen so many young women in A+E after returning from abroad. This is hardly ethical either. If there are complications with abortion they should be at home and not have to travel. This is a medical issue.

no different to many of us becoming pro-life after realising the realities of abortion. people form their views based on various things.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

No one who is pro-choice thinks this is a matter to be celebrated. We don't gleefully will the "killing" of the unborn. It's just some of us have the courage to realise what the situation entails and what needs to be done to do right by our women in a difficult circumstance.

so exactly the same as pro-life. however, pro-life are of the same viewpoint for both, rather then just the woman.