Abortion under the spotlight in the European Court of Human Rights

CathyMoran wrote: »

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

So you support abortion. Least we know where we stand.

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.

In an ideal situation, those of us unable to raise a child, or who do not want one, would abstain from having sex. However, abstinence has been a proven disaster in terms of its being taught regarding sex education in the US etc etc. It's very easy to say 'well don't have sex then', but as an argument it doesn't really stand the test of the reality of human life. Abstinence education didn't work in the US and it won't work here.

100% failsafe contraception, apart from abstinence, does not exist. It's important to realise that it's not really possible to tackle the problem with sounding off on the merits of abstinence. I'm not saying that it's not a good idea, but it's pretty unrealistic.

My point is that precautions may be taken that may fail. I agree completely with you that women should educate themselves on their cycle and that couples should use multiples forms of contraception. I think that contraception should be as easily available as it is possible to be while being regulated safely. I think that girls in school should be educated properly on the various forms of contraception and how to effectively use them, and be encouraged to combine multiple types.

But sometimes situations are not ideal and I would be sympathetic to a woman in that position. It's easy to be sanctimonious about safe sex and abstinence, but mistakes can happen even if safe sex is practised.

towers wrote: »

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..

You've had an equal role in creating an embryo. I'd be interested in knowing though when/at what stage you may consider yourself a father?

seamus wrote: »

Except that it neglects to consider the material sticking point in the debate - the status of the foetus.

Does the status of a fetus matter if the woman if the woman is suicidal or her life is in danger? Or that question only arise if it's a woman with no mental or medical problems? Get me?

hotmail.com wrote: »

Does the status of a fetus matter if the woman if the woman is suicidal or her life is in danger? Or that question only arise if it's a woman with no mental or medical problems? Get me?

No, I don't. For many people that question is always there. If they consider the foetus to be a person, they recognise that sometimes someone has to die in order to save someone else. The status of the foetus isn't ignored by them, but they recognise that in order for the mother to live, the foetus must die.

seamus wrote: »

No, I don't. For many people that question is always there. If they consider the foetus to be a person, they recognise that sometimes someone has to die in order to save someone else. The status of the foetus isn't ignored by them, but they recognise that in order for the mother to live, the foetus must die.

So you are in favour of abortion. Grand.

The issue of what a fetus is doesn't come into question, as you've outlined.

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm just making the point that it is simply hypocritical to be in favour of abortion in some cases and not in others.

I do kinda see where you're coming from but at the same time it'll never be a practical situation to have some thing like this so black and white in regards to the law.

Resi12 wrote: »

For some reason I feel like if an abortion was something a man had to do it would be legal a long time ago.

Spot on.

I find it unusual that many of the prolifers are actually men.

prinz wrote: »

Simple reason. Where they experimented in the States with teaching abstinence...they made a balls of the whole thing by teaching abstinence and going home. There's a lot more to it than just saying 'don't have sex'.

Oh OK, I think we're more on the same page then - abstinence as a component of sex education? I would be of the practical leaning of having a very solid education on contraceptives and how to effectively use them. I got none of that in school (convent...) and it's really a disaster that most of a girl's knowledge of contraception should come from crappy magazines.

Resi12 wrote: »

For some reason I feel like if an abortion was something a man had to do it would be legal a long time ago.

You make it sound like an abortion has no impact whatsoever on the man involved.

hotmail.com wrote: »

You said you were in favour of abortion though? Did I get that wrong?

We're not discussing my viewpoint (and no, in the post you quoted, I didn't state my stance).

By your logic, since it's OK to kill someone to save your own life, then that makes it OK to kill someone in all circumstances. Right?

Unless of course you don't consider a foetus to be a human being, at which point I have to ask you whether this is a blanket, "It's not human till it comes out" opinion, or is it something less tangible?

hotmail.com wrote: »

You said you were in favour of abortion though? Did I get that wrong?

Fundamental mistake of most of the "Pro-Life" side.
It's not necessarily in favour of abortion.. It's being in favour of giving women the choice.

prinz wrote: »

+1, it should be coming from their parents ideally.

Considering some parents ideas on sex, sometimes its best girls/boys hear it from a more reasonable point of view.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I see what you are getting at, but don't expect people to like the idea.

Personally, Ireland should have brought in abortion a long time ago. No sane person, pro-choice or pro-life, wants the power to tell women and couples what they can and can't do with their bodies. They have the right to choose for themselves and not get boats/planes across Europe because the Government is too afraid of the old people vote.

Yep I agree completely. And every time there is an abortion debate the same people come out with the same illogical arguments. There appears to have been shift in public opinion lately, as expressed by some of the posters here - that abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances.

Arguably that is some progression from the 1980s when all abortions were widely regarded as "wrong".

The inevitable consequence of bringing in a law that allows abortion in certain circumstances is that it will be exploited. We'll have the highest female "feeling suicidal" rate in the world and I've no doubt that doctors will turn a blind eye. It will be a farce.

So please let's have some logic - some women will always want an abortion. Let's just allow them to do it here.

prinz wrote: »

As a component yes, but also given the respect it should be given. Whereas at the moment, when suggested amongst adults, it generally receives a sniggering response,'abstinence, yeah right :rolleyes:' etc.

That's very true, in a 'sexed-up' society it is a bit difficult to seem non-hypocritical in arguing the merits of abstinence. I think that abstinence is a very legitimate position to argue to young people, on the grounds of maturity, emotionally and physically (babywise), and also on other health reasons such as STDs and even cancer. I'm not a person who advocates abstinence until marriage, nice a thought as it is, but definitely from a health point of view it makes huge amounts of sense. It's difficult however, like I say, to see how it would get the legitimacy it deserves in any discussion on sex education.