Ireland's abortion laws challenged in Europe

sold · 13-12-2009 6:25pm

I find the whole debate on abortion very interesting. According to teaching of Catholic church if a pregnant womans life is a risk you can morally treat her to save her life, even if this means one of the effects is that the pregnacy is aborted. (intention being to safe her life not the abortion). For example if a mother has an ectopic pregnancy in Ireland, she will be treated in Ireland and the pregnacy will be terminated here, as allowing the pregancy to continue would probably kill the Mother and Child. Many consultants already do this procedure in Ireland. (any others to safe the life of the mother). So women don't need to travel to england to get treated. I know some women have not taken cancer treatment to save the life of their baby, but morally you can allow treatment to save the mother even if this means the pregnancy could end. If the intention is to save the life of the Mother then treatment can, should, and IS done in Ireland today (and there have been many such procedures). Hospitals and consultants don't class them as abortions because the procedure was not to abort the baby but to save the life of the mother. The Catholic Church fully supports this.

drkpower · 13-12-2009 6:30pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

The highest number of abortions take place between the 7th to 9th week and although I would agree that people do not want people to know that they have had an abortion, its too simplistic to say that the fact that someone may show is the overriding factor for this, although it si probably one of the main factors. You are ignoring other factors that may be equally important.

I think I said it was a very significant factor. Im pretty sure I never said it was the overriding factor. And I am not ignoring the other issues. I merely raised this as one of the issues as there was a discussion going on vis a vis why people aborted early and this factor had not yet been mentioned. I think you may be elevating this issue which is not especially significant to the core question (of what should be permitted) and that you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting my position on it, which is ultimately, not much different to your own.

sparkling sea · 13-12-2009 6:32pm

sold wrote: »

I find the whole debate on abortion very interesting. According to teaching of Catholic church if a pregnant womans life is a risk you can morally treat her to save her life, even if this means one of the effects is that the pregnacy is aborted. (intention being to safe her life not the abortion). For example if a mother has an ectopic pregnancy in Ireland, she will be treated in Ireland and the pregnacy will be terminated here, as allowing the pregancy to continue would probably kill the Mother and Child. Many consultants already do this procedure in Ireland. (any others to safe the life of the mother). So women don't need to travel to england to get treated. I know some women have not taken cancer treatment to save the life of their baby, but morally you can allow treatment to save the mother even if this means the pregnancy could end. If the intention is to save the life of the Mother then treatment can, should, and IS done in Ireland today (and there have been many such procedures). Hospitals and consultants don't class them as abortions because the procedure was not to abort the baby but to save the life of the mother. The Catholic Church fully supports this.

This was discussed on Primetime last week and although some Consultants interpret the law in this way not all do, very interesting discussion. If you didn't see it you can watch it on RTE website.
Ireland is now a secular society and so this issue is not only a religious one. I would imagine that the thousands of people who have already had an abortion decided the not to take on board what the church thinks or managed to put it aside and reconcile their decision with their God.

drkpower · 13-12-2009 6:37pm

sold wrote: »

I find the whole debate on abortion very interesting. According to teaching of Catholic church if a pregnant womans life is a risk you can morally treat her to save her life, even if this means one of the effects is that the pregnacy is aborted. (intention being to safe her life not the abortion). For example if a mother has an ectopic pregnancy in Ireland, she will be treated in Ireland and the pregnacy will be terminated here, as allowing the pregancy to continue would probably kill the Mother and Child. Many consultants already do this procedure in Ireland. (any others to safe the life of the mother). So women don't need to travel to england to get treated. I know some women have not taken cancer treatment to save the life of their baby, but morally you can allow treatment to save the mother even if this means the pregnancy could end. If the intention is to save the life of the Mother then treatment can, should, and IS done in Ireland today (and there have been many such procedures). Hospitals and consultants don't class them as abortions because the procedure was not to abort the baby but to save the life of the mother. The Catholic Church fully supports this.

The views of the Catholic Church are no more relevent to this debate than are the veiws of the Irish Countrywoman's Association (or any other group of people), except insofar as they (sadly) influence many people in this country.

But you say that morally you can allow treatment to save the mother even if this means the pregnancy could end. However, Irish law only allows such a measure if there is a substantial risk to the mother. And there is no real guidance on what this means. So what if there is only a very low risk of death; is abortion permittted or does the mother simply need to take this small risk?

And what if there is no risk to her life, but there is a significant risk to her health and well-being? What happens then?

Khannie · 13-12-2009 6:38pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm just trying to highlight inconsistencies in general with people who are apposed to abortion, including yourself, you mentioned earlier that you didn't have a problem with it. *edit* The MAP that is.

What occured to me about the MAP is that it's really no different from the pill. The ideal scenario with the pill (and MAP) is that the egg is not released. I can't say with 100% certainty though that this has never occurred (egg release) to my wife at some point (she has been on the pill for years at a time while we were otherwise having lots of sex). In the scenario where the egg is released, fertilisation of that egg is a definite possibility and the pill would (as I understand it, but I'm open to correction) work in the same way as the MAP, by preventing implantation in the womb. I'd be none the wiser. I can't say that has never happened. Am I prepared to stop using birth control? no.

Maybe you're right. If I am being inconsistent I'll give it more thought. I'll give it more thought anyway (to determine whether I'm being inconsistent or not).

MagicMarker wrote: »

Many disagree with abortion because of their own personal ideologies, but when faced with the scenario I mentioned earlier they wouldn't have a problem with it, because their own personal freedom and happiness usually trumps the potential happiness of the microscopic egg inside them. There wouldn't be an ounce of guilt when swallowing that pill.

I'm not one of those people.

We wouldn't take the MAP to prevent pregnancy because we would feel guilt (if we had unsafe sex we would accept the possibility of a resulting pregnancy and love the resulting child). It's only fair of me to point out we're in a good position to do / say that. One more child in our house wouldn't have a huge impact.

The Corinthian · 13-12-2009 6:38pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

The highest number of abortions take place between the 7th to 9th week and although I would agree that people do not want people to know that they have had an abortion, its too simplistic to say that the fact that someone may show is the overriding factor for this, although it si probably one of the main factors. You are ignoring other factors that may be equally important.

Hold on, you didn't mind being simplistic on this when you said:

sparkling sea wrote: »

However the early termination rate suggests that women seem to give great consideration to falcts like, takes 12 weeks for the fetus to fully implant in the lining of the womb, also the neural and nervous systems have not developed and the developing foetus is not consciously aware.

So you can hardly chastise him for something that you yourself are guilty of.

MagicMarker - would this be one of those contradictions you were talking about?

sold · 13-12-2009 6:44pm

drkpower wrote: »

The views of the Catholic Church are no more relevent to this debate than are the veiws of the Irish Countrywoman's Association (or any other group of people), except insofar as they (sadly) influence many people in this country.

But you say that morally you can allow treatment to save the mother even if this means the pregnancy could end. However, Irish law only allows such a measure if there is a substantial risk to the mother. And there is no real guidance on what this means. So what if there is only a very low risk of death; is abortion permittted or does the mother simply need to take this small risk?

And what if there is no risk to her life, but there is a significant risk to her health and well-being? What happens then?

I am totally against abortion, but as a catholic thank God my faith goes further than the Irish Constition. Morally if there is ANY risk of death then you can treat the mother. This is what is happening in Ireland today. (you don't have to go to England or europe)

sparkling sea · 13-12-2009 6:51pm

drkpower wrote: »

I think I said it was a very significant factor. Im pretty sure I never said it was the overriding factor. And I am not ignoring the other issues. I merely raised this as one of the issues as there was a discussion going on vis a vis why people aborted early and this factor had not yet been mentioned. I think you may be elevating this issue which is not especially significant to the core question (of what should be permitted) and that you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting my position on it, which is ultimately, not much different to your own.

Sorry if I misunderstood your point. Mine is just that there are a whole host of reasons as to why people choose not to have an abortion after the 12th week and I believe the main factor is the issue of when life begins. Its not an easy decision as some people have tried to try to portray it to be
Anyone I know who made this choice give it a great deal of thought once they got over the shock.
I totally agree that people finding out that a person has had an abortion is also significant but I would also the reason why they cant keep what could turn into a potential child is the overriding one. I could be wrong though

sparkling sea · 13-12-2009 6:53pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hold on, you didn't mind being simplistic on this when you said:

So you can hardly chastise him for something that you yourself are guilty of.

MagicMarker - would this be one of those contradictions you were talking about?

Whats with the cliqueness.

drkpower · 13-12-2009 6:56pm

sold wrote: »

I am totally against abortion, but as a catholic thank God my faith goes further than the Irish Constition. Morally if there is ANY risk of death then you can treat the mother. This is what is happening in Ireland today. (you don't have to go to England or europe)

Hooray!
Abortion on demand - good man!
Every pregnancy, of course, carries with it the risk of death.

But being serious for a second, I respect your position to a degree.
But what about where the mother faces a significant risk to her health, short of death, do you believe she should just have to run that risk?

Silverfish · 13-12-2009 7:12pm

>

<

I'm going to ask people for the last time to use this button instead of backseat moderating (infractable) or 'pulling people up' on the thread. Thank you.

sparkling sea · 13-12-2009 7:13pm

How would you deal with the following situation -

A married women has an affair and becomes pregnant. She has four children with her husband and the possible fifth one is not his. Its not something he will except if he finds out. She does not want to leave her husband.
What should she do

Should she.

Break up her existing family and all that involves.

Setup home with the potenial childs father

Not tell her husband

Other

Have an abortion, even though fundemental this is something she disagress with.

A friend of mine did his thesis on abortions and came across a survey that asked the above question, I am trying to see if I can find it on the internet, the answers made very interesting reason.

The morality of the woman having an affair was not to be considered in the answer

MagicMarker · 13-12-2009 7:16pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hold on, you didn't mind being simplistic on this when you said:

So you can hardly chastise him for something that you yourself are guilty of.

MagicMarker - would this be one of those contradictions you were talking about?

The only contradiction I am talking about is thinking abortion is wrong, but agreeing with the MAP. The contradiction there is as clear as day to me.

drkpower · 13-12-2009 7:16pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

How would you deal with the following situation -

Why not have the baby and sign over guardianship to the father.

This isnt exactly the best example of a moral conundrum where abortion is the only or best answer!

sparkling sea · 13-12-2009 7:27pm

drkpower wrote: »

Why not have the baby and sign over guardianship to the father.

This isnt exactly the best example of a moral conundrum where abortion is the only or best answer!

It wasn't meant to be. Wasn't part of his thesis just something he came across. I was wondering how people would deal with the situation in a realistic way, bearing in mind their knowledge of real life and how it works.

Its possible that the baby could be signed over to the father, if the father wanted this, but in reality is is not likely to happen because of the impact it would have on, the existing children, the mother, the husband, the potental father and his family.

drkpower · 13-12-2009 7:29pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

Its possible that the baby could be signed over to the father, if the father wanted this, but in reality is is not likely to happen because of the impact it would have on, the existing children, the mother, the husband, the potental father and his family.

I think the bulk of the 'impact' has already happened, tbh!

Khannie · 13-12-2009 7:30pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

Its not an easy decision as some people have tried to try to portray it to be

You keep saying that someone has portrayed it as an easy decision somewhere. I have yet to see it. Can you provide us with a quote?

Khannie · 13-12-2009 7:35pm

Silverfish wrote: »

><

I'm going to ask people for the last time to use this button instead of backseat moderating (infractable) or 'pulling people up' on the thread. Thank you.

Can you give us examples since your last warning so we know what you're talking about? I'm a bit confused about what "pulling people up" means tbh. (seriously)

Khannie · 13-12-2009 7:51pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

True, but there are discrepancies, and there are direct contradictions.

That is true. I've said I'll consider my position further (or whether I'm actually contradicting myself). What I'd love to hear is whether the pro-choice side feel that a womans bodily sovereignty has a limit and if so how to define it?

We've had one poster say she feels it does not have a limit; She feels that the woman should have the right to terminate right up until birth. While I disagree strongly, at least she answered.

Aside from that you are required to pick a point in the pregnancy when this sovereignty ends. If that's your position then I'd ask you this:

Why should this priority of the mothers bodily sovereignty end?
What would you use to determine the point that bodily sovereignty ends?
Do you think abortion should be illegal one second after that point?
If so, what do you think has changed during that one second?

Magicmarker, I'd really like to hear your answers on that (I'm not calling you out or whatever, feel free to decline the invitation

).

sparkling sea · 13-12-2009 7:58pm

Khannie wrote: »

You keep saying that someone has portrayed it as an easy decision somewhere. I have yet to see it. Can you provide us with a quote?

I would have to read over previous posts - so no

This is something that I doubt we will reach agreement on, you think abortion is wrong, I think your position is extreme, although I respect your right to hold this view.

I wish the abortion pill was available and abortions could be allowed for up to 12 weeks.

I also find it embarssing that Irish women have to travel to another country to have a procedure that thousands of women require and despite the fact that this is known to all, it will always be the elephant in the room that the system will ignore if the anti abortion lobby has its way.

Democracy is meant to carry out the wishes of the majority with due regard to the rights of the minority - in this case, the spirit of a democracy in my opinion is ignored

Silverfish · 13-12-2009 8:09pm

Khannie wrote: »

Can you give us examples since your last warning so we know what you're talking about? I'm a bit confused about what "pulling people up" means tbh. (seriously)

One post requesting people be civil.

One post requesting a video be removed.

Both deleted.

Khannie · 13-12-2009 8:15pm

That explains why I couldn't see them.

Thanks.

sparkling sea · 13-12-2009 8:16pm

Khannie wrote: »

That is true. I've said I'll consider my position further (or whether I'm actually contradicting myself). What I'd love to hear is whether the pro-choice side feel that a womans bodily sovereignty has a limit and if so how to define it?

We've had one poster say she feels it does not have a limit; She feels that the woman should have the right to terminate right up until birth. While I disagree strongly, at least she answered.

Aside from that you are required to pick a point in the pregnancy when this sovereignty ends. If that's your position then I'd ask you this:

Why should this priority of the mothers bodily sovereignty end?
What would you use to determine the point that bodily sovereignty ends?
Do you think abortion should be illegal one second after that point?
If so, what do you think has changed during that one second?

Magicmarker, I'd really like to hear your answers on that (I'm not calling you out or whatever, feel free to decline the invitation ).

I would say that a measure could be based on something like the harm principle please remember I don't believe that a feotus in a human being until after the 12th week at the earliest. The principle states that the only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others( the feotus not being an other up to 12 weeks because of implanation and developmental reasons). His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.
I dont believe that anything in life is balck or white and discretion is needed in all circumstances. I would apply the law as it stands to situations after 12 weeks and up to 16 weeks but the circumstances would have to be exceptional and the law applied on a sliding scale.

Khannie · 13-12-2009 8:40pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

I would have to read over previous posts - so no

I don't think such a post exists tbh. I can say with absolute certainty that there has not been one by me (because I absolutely do not hold that view) and I've been the most consistent and vocal pro-life contributor to the thread.

sparkling sea wrote: »

I think your position is extreme

You keep saying that. I don't see how....if there were a referendum tomorrow its result would not be a foregone conclusion. As such lots and lots of people hold my view (possibly a majority). That hardly makes me extreme. Quite the opposite.

The person I called extreme said that they believed a woman should be allowed to terminate at 39 weeks. Now I'd say that's extreme because a very *very* small number would agree with her.

edit: Sparkling sea, you've missed a few of the questions I asked there that are related to time. If you expect to put something into law that is based on time then that law will be absolute, that's why I asked the questions that I did.

The Corinthian · 13-12-2009 8:40pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

Whats with the cliqueness.

What's with the avoiding questions?

MagicMarker wrote: »

The only contradiction I am talking about is thinking abortion is wrong, but agreeing with the MAP. The contradiction there is as clear as day to me.

Naturally, but I'm simply pointing out that it is not the only case of contradiction, such as sparkling sea's earlier simplification, then later admonishing another poster for doing exactly the same thing.

drkpower wrote: »

Why not have the baby and sign over guardianship to the father.

I thought the answer to that would be obvious - child maintenance.

sparkling sea · 13-12-2009 9:51pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

What's with the avoiding questions?

Naturally, but I'm simply pointing out that it is not the only case of contradiction, such as sparkling sea's earlier simplification, then later admonishing another poster for doing exactly the same thing.

I thought the answer to that would be obvious - child maintenance.

Ha ha ha your hilarious

MagicMarker · 13-12-2009 9:53pm

Khannie wrote: »

What would you use to determine the point that bodily sovereignty ends?

It's a tough question, certainly I believe the point at which a fetus can survive on it's own would be a factor. I've read that it's possible from around 22 weeks or so, whereas the UK's laws allow it up to 24 weeks. I'm not sure about that, I suppose that's for the doctors to answer.

Consciousness/sentience is another factor, if a fetus is mentally aware or capable of suffering. I've read differing 'facts' on this, although it appears that a fetus can't feel pain until around the 26-28 week mark.

If there's no suffering, no consciousness, then imo abortion is almost comparable to turning off a life support machine imo. We don't see a problem with this for grown adults, we even harvest their organs to help others, the same can be said for stem cells in embryos. Both very comparable, albeit at different ''life'' stages.

Khannie wrote: »

Why should this priority of the mothers bodily sovereignty end?

If the fetus is at a stage of development where it can suffer or survive on it's own, then I suppose it comes to a point where abortion becomes inhumane. I would imagine this to be the main reason there are cut off points in other countries, along with the fact that the procedure is more complicated at a later stage in pregnancy.

In an ideal world, a fetus can be removed after this cut off point at the mothers request and it can nurtured for by medical staff etc. But this isn't an ideal world, maybe with research this could be possible in the future.

Khannie wrote: »

Do you think abortion should be illegal one second after that point?

If so, what do you think has changed during that one second?

Yes I do, but only from a legal perspective. If the law says something, then it must be adhered to unless there are extenuating circumstances. However, I don't think that particular situation would arise:)

The Corinthian · 13-12-2009 10:17pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

Ha ha ha your hilarious

If you're going to try avoiding answering a point, you'll find that simply not responding until it blows over works a lot better than trying to trivialize it and bring attention to yourself.

sparkling sea · 13-12-2009 10:18pm

Khannie wrote: »

I don't think such a post exists tbh. I can say with absolute certainty that there has not been one by me (because I absolutely do not hold that view) and I've been the most consistent and vocal pro-life contributor to the thread.

You keep saying that. I don't see how....if there were a referendum tomorrow its result would not be a foregone conclusion. As such lots and lots of people hold my view (possibly a majority). That hardly makes me extreme. Quite the opposite.

The person I called extreme said that they believed a woman should be allowed to terminate at 39 weeks. Now I'd say that's extreme because a very *very* small number would agree with her.

edit: Sparkling sea, you've missed a few of the questions I asked there that are related to time. If you expect to put something into law that is based on time then that law will be absolute, that's why I asked the questions that I did.

Totally accept that you do not think it is an easy decision it thats what you say.

How you would decide when sovereignty ends could be based on for example a principle like the harm principle. You would need to establish when human life begins based on certain principles.
The law is not absolute because it is always open to interpretation by judges or acting judical bodies, its ever evolving, amendable and updated.

drkpower · 13-12-2009 10:19pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Consciousness/sentience is another factor, if a fetus is mentally aware or capable of suffering. I've read differing 'facts' on this, although it appears that a fetus can't feel pain until around the 26-28 week mark.

If there's no suffering, no consciousness, then imo abortion is almost comparable to turning off a life support machine imo. We don't see a problem with this for grown adults, we even harvest their organs to help others, the same can be said for stem cells in embryos. Both very comparable, albeit at different ''life'' stages.

The pain or suffering argument is of no value - the foetus could be very easily anaesthetised or otherwise made unable to feel pain if that is the concern.

And you are also mistaken in your consciousness argument. We don't turn off a life support machine where they have no 'consciousness', we turn them off because there is no prospect of 'consciousness' returning. Big difference.

Ireland's abortion laws challenged in Europe

Comments