nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion under the spotlight in the European Court of Human Rights

curlzy

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20101216/tuk-abortion-laws-put-under-spotlight-e1cd776.html

I know this only relates to particular cases but I don't think it goes far enough. Personally I think it should be up to each individual and that society and the government should have no right to stop a woman getting an abortion, by refusal to provide the service. What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Up de Barrs

AS a guy I am pro choice, I support a general right to abortion as exists in the UK or Scandanavian countries rather than women having to prove that their circumstances fall within a particular set of rules.

This decisions doesn't actually change the legal position all that much but it does change it politically. Had the court ruled in favour of A (who had dire financial circumstances and whose children had been taken in to care ) it would have significantly advanced the right to abortion in Ireland. The court also dismissed B's case who was suffering an ectopic pregnancy. I would have actually expected this case to succeed. In the case of C the judgment simply re-affirms the ruling of the X case and entitles the woman to compensation as the State did not allow her vindicate her right to a termination in Ireland which was necessary to save her life.

The immediate need is for the State to legislate for abortion based on the narrow grounds allowed for in the X case. Howver sooner or later we are going to need to decide on what additional grounds abortion should be available. Ideally a referendum would be held to delete the 8th amendment which created this mess in the first place. The Oireachtas would then be free to legislate for abortion in line with the wishes of the people as expressed in an election ie the parties would in their manifestos set out how they would legislate in this area and then the Dail would subdequently pass the required legislation.

We should also be considering what we can do to reduce the need for abortion including better sex education, reducing the cost of contraception / make it available free to those who need it and providing the morning after pill over the counter. Today is a significant step towards finally dealing with all aspects of this issue in a mature manner.

sensibleken

smk89 wrote: »

The being ugly method?

Nah, armpit sex

Nodin

orourkeda wrote: »

While you might scoff at my "stereotyping" of women who fall pregnant in less than flattering circumstances. It does happen and it didnt stop in the 1980's.

Your arguments are

a) ..............

I hadn't actually made any, I'm merely pointing out the old 'control the wanton hussy' theme and other such nonsense as it arises.

I'm pro-choice with a full stop after it. I don't think that the 'womans right to choose' really needs any other argument than itself.

ze ruling wrote:

“Consequently, the court concluded that Ireland had breached the third applicant’s – "C" – right to respect for her private life given the failure to implement the existing constitutional right to a lawful abortion in Ireland.”

...like I said earlier, a totally unnessecary case, defended for five poxy years at christ knows how much cost.

rainbow kirby

It's absolutely ridiculous, and unfortunately nothing unusual for this country, for people to have to go to Europe to fight for something which was already voted for by the people. :mad:

towers

As a British expat of 7 years in Ireland I've watched with revulsion as people's wives, daughters, girlfriends, sisters etc are subjected to the added uncalled for burden of traveling to the UK or Holland for an abortion.

I've borne witness to how the enforced temporary banishment of your women affected by an unwanted/ill advised/accidental pregnancy exponentially increased the harrowing nature of a truly life shattering decision.

Any country apathetic to such wanton misogyny is in the dark ages.

I just wonder if the NIMBYism concerning abortion demonstrated in past referendums would still hold sway today? If so it's a ****ing travesty.

Handsome Bob

curlzy wrote: »

Sorry but you're coming from a very emotional "could have been me" standpoint.

Ah I love this, in other words, she made a fair point and you dismiss it by telling her she's too emotional. There is no "right" way to have this argument, she's perfectly entitled to take part in this discussion in the manner that she is.

Fox McCloud

I think in a lot of cases whether your pro or anti choice comes down to two things; when you believe life begins(and your human rights kick in).

The other I think is a deep seated desire to exist and the total fear of having never existed.. I am pro choice and I respect my mothers right to not have had me. It was her body, and should have been her choice. I'm certainly glad now I'm here now but I can get my head around the fact that I might not have been born.

Total generalisation here but I think a lot of pro-life campaigners have this is the back of their minds. The other thing I dont get about pro-life groups, if its all about the childs survival and not about punishing the nasty loose women why do they never offer services and financial support for those who arent in any possition to raise a child without total state support. I think actions speak louder than words on this one.

hotmail.com

Abortion is legal in this country - you just need to get a plane in order to get one and many thousands of Irish women do. Think of the economic loss to the country with all those women going abroad.

How can someone be in favour of abortion in some cases and not in others. It doesn't make sense - if you find it acceptable in some cases, then surely you must see as acceptable in all cases.

prinz

silverspoon wrote: »

Wow I'd love to have the 100% failsafe contraception you use.

You could always, you know, not have sex. Then again that concept is complete beyond the comprehension of most posters here I would imagine.

Secondly to that you could always educate yourself as to the biological process of the menstrual cycle and ovulation etc and desist from sex for the period when it is possible to become pregnant. Thirdly add in multiple forms of contraception if needs be.

towers wrote: »

Any country apathetic to such wanton misogyny is in the dark ages..

Does the father get a real say in whether an abortion occurs or not?

prinz

hotmail.com wrote: »

... if you find it acceptable in some cases, then surely you must see as acceptable in all cases.

That's bizarre reasoning, even for this debate.

The Waltzing Consumer

An embarrassing issue. I will be very happy when Ireland eventually brings in abortion legislation and we cease to be a laughing stock. You think we would be past this nonsense. I thought America was bad when issues like school prayer and evolution is debated, but this is cringe-worthy.

Come on Ireland, get out of the dark ages.

hotmail.com

prinz wrote: »

That's bizarre reasoning, even for this debate.

What's bizarre about it?

Some people find it acceptable for a woman to have an abortion if she's suicidal or if there is a threat to her life. I'm suggesting that if they see that as acceptable, why can't they see all potential abortions as acceptable. Abortion is abortion after all, no matter what the circumstances of the woman are.

prinz

hotmail.com wrote: »

What's bizarre about it?
Some people find it acceptable for a woman to have an abortion if she's suicidal or if there is a threat to her life. I'm suggesting that if they see that as acceptable, why can't they see all potential abortions as acceptable. Abortion is abortion after all, no matter what the circumstances of the woman are.

You cannot compare giving potentially life-saving medical treatment to a pregnant woman which could/will result in her losing that pregnancy.. and someone who is perfectly healthy and got pregnant "accidentally".

You may as well compare killing someone in self defence and murder.. in both cases someone ends up dead...so what's the difference and the circumstances are irrelevant.

seamus

hotmail.com wrote: »

Some people find it acceptable for a woman to have an abortion if she's suicidal or if there is a threat to her life. I'm suggesting that if they see that as acceptable, why can't they see all potential abortions as acceptable. Abortion is abortion after all, no matter what the circumstances of the woman are.

I don't think you're making an equal comparison here.

Imagine a woman and her son are kidnapped and she has two choices - let the son die, or refuse and they both die.
Because it's "OK" to choose the former option and the mother survives, that doesn't mean it's OK in all cases to kill the child for any reason.

The right of the mother to survive above the child and the right of the mother to terminate the child are almost universally recognised as two very different scenarios.

smokedeels

I knew something was up, got home last night and my mother attacked me with a vacuum cleaner. I'll explain to her that this ruling can’t be applied retrospectively.

hotmail.com

prinz wrote: »

You cannot compare giving potentially life-saving medical treatment to a pregnant woman which could/will result in her losing that pregnancy.. and someone who is perfectly healthy and got pregnant "accidentally"QUOTE]

Yes you can compare the two, because the outcome is the same - the fetus is aborted.

So I take it you're in favour of abortion in some cases and not in others. Just typical of Irish hyprocisy.

prinz

smokedeels wrote: »

I knew something was up, got home last night and my mother attacked me with a vacuum cleaner. I'll explain to her that this ruling can’t be applied retrospectively.

That's a good one.

prinz

hotmail.com wrote: »

Yes you can compare the two, because the outcome is the same - the fetus is aborted.
So I take it you're in favour of abortion in some cases and not in others. Just typical of Irish hyprocisy.

I don't have a problem with killing someone in self defence, does that mean I must be ok with murder?

hotmail.com

seamus wrote: »

I don't think you're making an equal comparison here.

Imagine a woman and her son are kidnapped and she has two choices - let the son die, or refuse and they both die.
Because it's "OK" to choose the former option and the mother survives, that doesn't mean it's OK in all cases to kill the child for any reason.

The right of the mother to survive above the child and the right of the mother to terminate the child are almost universally recognised as two very different scenarios.

Nope, abortion is abortion is abortion, no matter what fancy scenarios you come up with. Either you're in favour of it or against it.

hotmail.com

prinz wrote: »

I don't have a problem with killing someone in self defence, does that mean I must be ok with murder?

Self defence? We're talking about abortion.

prinz

hotmail.com wrote: »

Self defence? We're talking about abortion.

I sense you agree that your reasoning can't be taken seriously tbh.

CathyMoran

hotmail.com wrote: »

Nope, abortion is abortion is abortion, no matter what fancy scenarios you come up with. Either you're in favour of it or against it.

It is not that straight forward - the life of the mother is important - in some cases if the pregnancy is not stopped then the mother will die, the pregnancy would die if the mother dies. Having abortions on demand is a totally different thing.

towers

prinz wrote: »

You could always, you know, not have sex. Then again that concept is complete beyond the comprehension of most posters here I would imagine.

Secondly to that you could always educate yourself as to the biological process of the menstrual cycle and ovulation etc and desist from sex for the period when it is possible to become pregnant. Thirdly add in multiple forms of contraception if needs be.

Does the father get a real say in whether an abortion occurs or not?

That's a good question; however the premise of your question is that you're the father of a baby. You're not. You've fertilised an embryo. End of. You're not a father of anything yet.

My position as a realist (note: not father) towards a woman I've helped make pregnant is one of empathy; it's the only one I believe I'm entitled to, and it's this:

"I'll support you in any decision you make".

And I dare say that should be the position of the State as well.

sensibleken

hotmail.com wrote: »

Self defence? We're talking about abortion.

in the case of it being a threat to the mothers life its self defense. Or if the baby has a serated head

hotmail.com

prinz wrote: »

I sense you agree that your reasoning can't be taken seriously tbh.

I'll ask again...do you find it acceptable for women in some cases to get an abortion and not in others? Yes or no.

hotmail.com

CathyMoran wrote: »

It is not that straight forward - the life of the mother is important - in some cases if the pregnancy is not stopped then the mother will die, the pregnancy would die if the mother dies. Having abortions on demand is a totally different thing.

I completely disagree. Abortion is abortion because the fetus is still destroyed no matter what the condition of the mother is.

It's simple logic in my view.

prinz

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'll ask again...do you find it acceptable for women in some cases to get an abortion and not in others? Yes or no.

Yes.

CathyMoran

hotmail.com wrote: »

I completely disagree. Abortion is abortion because the fetus is still destroyed no matter what the condition of the mother is.

It's simple logic in my view.

The mother is keeping the pregnancy alive - if she dies so does the pregnancy - better that one lives.

prinz

hotmail.com wrote: »

It's simple logic in my view.

Do you realise you have people, IIRC, on both sides of the abortion debate seeing a flaw in your simple logic?

common sense brigade

Does the father get a real say in whether an abortion occurs or not?

I think the father should have a say in abortion decision. We are only talking about being pregnant 9 months. If a mother does not want the baby and the father does. I am talking about women who have incoveniently got pregnant and just are not ready for a baby. Of which I think that is a cop out. Put yourself out fopr nine mths and give the baby up for adoption or to the father should he wish. Why not have the baby and let the father raise it or childrenless couples. I was raised by two men and they were amazing parents. I have had a baby. The 9 months is hard but it is only 9 months. For the sake of a little person having a life.