Abortion under the spotlight in the European Court of Human Rights

ScumLord · 17-12-2010 12:54AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The verb "to choose" is transitive; i.e., it needs an object in order to make sense. The object in this case is abortion.

Someone said earlier that they don't believe "pro-choice" equals "pro-abortion". It's useful to create an equation to understand why it does. (Note: not my idea - I was never the best at Maths!)

People with a "pro-life" viewpoint see keeping the baby and giving it up for adoption as the two morally right decisions to take. Both involve giving birth.

People with a (for the sake of argument) "pro-choice" viewpoint also hold the above two as valid choices and hold up abortion as a third. We all understand that abortion is the ending of a human life (because the zygote/embryo/foetus possesses the DNA of a human being and is alive). We won't go into the dissent about cut-off points for aborting an infant's according to how far along in the gestation process he/she is. If one is for abortion in any case, then that person is more "pro-choice" than someone who is "pro-life".

The equations:
"Pro-life" = pro(keeping baby) OR pro-adoption
"Pro-choice" = pro(keeping baby) OR pro-adoption OR pro-abortion

We cross out what the two have in common...
"Pro-life" = pro(keeping baby) OR pro-adoption
"Pro-choice" = pro(keeping baby) OR pro-adoption OR pro-abortion

[So, the thing that makes a "pro-choice" position different from a "pro-life" one is that the former sees abortion as a right/justified.]

Therefore, [because there is nothing else to separate the two viewpoints,] we can say that
"Pro-choice" = pro-abortion

The choice in question equates to abortion.

Personally I don't like the thought of abortions, I like to see nature run it's course and think if you get yourself up the duff well that's it, natures caught you out and the circle of life continues on it's merry way. But at the same time I see people who shouldn't be parents ruining the next generation and then of course there's the very real problem of over population and poor resource management in general meaning the next generation could be in for a horrible life.

There are many factors that could play into deciding either way but ultimately unless it's going to be my child and my responsibility I can't make that choice for some one else. So I'm pro choice even though I'd never make that choice myself.

I don't believe a person magically gets a soul at the moment of conception either. Being born is the start of life and it's the first test every living thing on this planet has to go through.

orourkeda · 17-12-2010 01:02AM

ScumLord wrote: »

Personally I don't like the thought of abortions, I like to see nature run it's course and think if you get yourself up the duff well that's it, natures caught you out and the circle of life continues on it's merry way. But at the same time I see people who shouldn't be parents ruining the next generation and then of course there's the very real problem of over population and poor resource management in general meaning the next generation could be in for a horrible life.

There are many factors that could play into deciding either way but ultimately unless it's going to be my child and my responsibility I can't make that choice for some one else. So I'm pro choice even though I'd never make that choice myself.

I don't believe a person magically gets a soul at the moment of conception either. Being born is the start of life and it's the first test every living thing on this planet has to go through.

If you believe this to be the case, surely it can't magically get a soul the day the child is born either.

Surely in order to be born one needs to be conceived.

ScumLord · 17-12-2010 01:05AM

orourkeda wrote: »

If you believe this to be the case, surely it can't magically get a soul the day the child is born either. When would this start and why?

I don't think it's magically picked up a soul in the birth canal but it's past the first test of life and made it out into the world to become another hungry mouth. It's out and making it's own demands on the world that the rest of us can fulfil.

poppyvalley · 17-12-2010 01:09AM

Weathercheck wrote: »

It is interesting debate.

I personally would be in favour of Choice upto a certain extent .

Should'nt the choice be er....I dont want to become pregnant so which of the many choices of contraception will I use. Except in the case of rape. It all boils down to personal accountability.

Demonique · 17-12-2010 01:17AM

Jester Minute wrote: »

The Irish people have no appetite for abortion. I've examined each of the three cases, A,B, and C, and none of them had any grounds.

The woman, C, had no grounds whatsoever for an abortion. Current Irish law allows for her to be treated, should her cancer have returned, even if she was pregnant, and even at risk to the unborn child.

What she wanted to do was to kill the child directly just because.There was no medical need for that.

I see you've crawled out from under your rock

strobe · 17-12-2010 01:24AM

poppyvalley wrote: »

Should'nt the choice be er....I dont want to become pregnant so which of the many choices of contraception will I use. Except in the case of rape. It all boils down to personal accountability.

Contraception isn't 100% effective.

marienbad · 17-12-2010 02:08AM

common sense brigade wrote: »

Point taken did not mean to insult I meant pro-chice! but it kinda amounts to the same thing doesnt it ?. I mean if you pro choice is that not a way of making yourself feel better than saying pro abortion. pro choice is easier to swallow maybe? then pro abortion. I know what your saying, you prob will never have an abortion but you dont mind if it happens next door...that kinda thing?

It dos'nt amount to the same thing at all,there are loads of people who would never contemplate having an abortion themselves, but have a fundamental difficulty imposing that view on others in such a private matter.

Jester Minute · 17-12-2010 02:35AM

marienbad wrote: »

It dos'nt amount to the same thing at all,there are loads of people who would never contemplate having an abortion themselves, but have a fundamental difficulty imposing that view on others in such a private matter.

This privacy nonsense was the foundation for the US Roe V. Wade case. I see it's being trotted out again for our this case. Surprise surprise. There is no right to privacy in the case of killing.

Now this lady, C, she wanted to pre-emptively strike the unborn child just because. The fact is, she could have (and should have) continued as normal with the child. If she got sick again, Irish law allowed for her to be treated, even if this may harm the child in some way. Chemotherapy - whatever. This claim to require clarification is bogus. They want abortion on demand and this is a good step for them.

This is about big business. Planned Parenthood, MS etc.. all want to cash in on the Irish market.

Jester Minute · 17-12-2010 02:39AM

Demonique wrote: »

I see you've crawled out from under your rock

Beg your pardon? I know you not, so which rock I crawled out from under is nothing to you.

marienbad · 17-12-2010 02:50AM

Jester Minute wrote: »

This privacy nonsense was the foundation for the US Roe V. Wade case. I see it's being trotted out again for our this case. Surprise surprise. There is no right to privacy in the case of killing.

Now this lady, C, she wanted to pre-emptively strike the unborn child just because. The fact is, she could have (and should have) continued as normal with the child. If she got sick again, Irish law allowed for her to be treated, even if this may harm the child in some way. Chemotherapy - whatever. This claim to require clarification is bogus. They want abortion on demand and this is a good step for them.

This is about big business. Planned Parenthood, MS etc.. all want to cash in on the Irish market.

Big business, my ass, why not just implement the referendum the the Irish people voted on and jub done.

Why do you dismiss the right to privacy as nonsense ? would you regard it as nonsense in connection with what you read, how you vote, your sexual proclivities , or is just in regard to abortion ?

Sardonicat · 17-12-2010 02:56AM

Jester Minute wrote: »

This privacy nonsense was the foundation for the US Roe V. Wade case. I see it's being trotted out again for our this case. Surprise surprise. There is no right to privacy in the case of killing.

Now this lady, C, she wanted to pre-emptively strike the unborn child just because. The fact is, she could have (and should have) continued as normal with the child. If she got sick again, Irish law allowed for her to be treated, even if this may harm the child in some way. Chemotherapy - whatever. This claim to require clarification is bogus. They want abortion on demand and this is a good step for them.

This is about big business. Planned Parenthood, MS etc.. all want to cash in on the Irish market.

Lady C was advised that a pregnancy could cause a return of cancer which would be much more difficult to cure. i.e., there is a high possibility she could die even after treatment.

Now, I have never been in this position, so I will not judge this woman who was facing the possibility of having aggresive treatment that could leave her child severely disabled, requiring 100 times the support and dedication of an abled body child without a mother to care for it. I don't know what I would do in her situation. She has nothing but my sympathy.

Jester Minute · 17-12-2010 02:56AM

marienbad wrote: »

Big business, my ass, why not just implement the referendum the the Irish people voted on and jub done.

Why do you dismiss the right to privacy as nonsense ? would you regard it as nonsense in connection with what you read, how you vote, your sexual proclivities , or is just in regard to abortion ?

A referendum might be a good idea.

There is no right to privacy so you can do wrong. There is no right to do wrong. A lot of things that are morally wrong are not legislated against. But killing people is. What I read, how I vote is my business. But once I decide to involve other people, then the law must protect the others from myself. This includes the unborn baby, children, and in general all people's right not to be killed or harmed in any way. Privacy has got nothing to do with it. I can kill my wife in private, but it is still a crime. Similarly, a mother can kill her unborn child in private. It's still wrong, and it's still a crime.

strobe · 17-12-2010 03:14AM

orourkeda wrote: »

We now know that he catholic church is not as influential as it once was. However, this does not mean that there will not still be a great deal of opposition to any proposed changes that would make Irelands abortion laws less conservative then they are now. Whatever peoples reasons for their opposition to this is irrelevant and is their own business entirely.

If it is on the basis of religious beliefs then so be it. I don't believe that they deserve to be chastised over it because playboy was banned some years ago or some other inane reason. People have their reasons.

If people are going to come out on either side of a debate though they have to present their reasons and they have to be prepared to do so truthfully and be prepared to accept those reasons will come in for criticism and be willing to try and defend them.

It is NOT enough to say "I agree/disagree with x. I have my reasons and they are none of your business".

There is no reason people that do this should be listened to by anyone.

Progress is not made in this way.

Napper Hawkins · 17-12-2010 03:18AM

I would just like to ask all the pro-lifers on here :

What was it like when you adopted that orphan you have now and how has it impacted on your life? Good or bad? Raising a child is a tough job as far as I can tell.

And if you haven't yet done so, then what's keeping you?

Serious question.

marienbad · 17-12-2010 03:19AM

Jester Minute wrote: »

A referendum might be a good idea.

There is no right to privacy so you can do wrong. There is no right to do wrong. A lot of things that are morally wrong are not legislated against. But killing people is. What I read, how I vote is my business. But once I decide to involve other people, then the law must protect the others from myself. This includes the unborn baby, children, and in general all people's right not to be killed or harmed in any way. Privacy has got nothing to do with it. I can kill my wife in private, but it is still a crime. Similarly, a mother can kill her unborn child in private. It's still wrong, and it's still a crime.

and who decides what is wrong ??

Jester Minute · 17-12-2010 03:21AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Lady C was advised that a pregnancy could cause a return of cancer which would be much more difficult to cure. i.e., there is a high possibility she could die even after treatment.

Now, I have never been in this position, so I will not judge this woman who was facing the possibility of having aggresive treatment that could leave her child severely disabled, requiring 100 times the support and dedication of an abled body child without a mother to care for it. I don't know what I would do in her situation. She has nothing but my sympathy.

Abortion is always going to kill the child.

If the mother had the child, she may or may not have a relapse of cancer. That remains only a possibility. There are no grounds for a pre-emptive strike against the innocent life of the child.

Leave the unborn child in peace. In the (unlikely) event that the cancer does return, the medical people can deal with that at the time using medical treatment that respects the lives of both and does its best to protect and save both.

What we are talking about in the C case is a pre-emptive strike on an innocent unborn child because the mother was not willing to do what was right and just, and which is what every good mother does: put the life of her child before her own.

strobe · 17-12-2010 03:22AM

marienbad wrote: »

and who decides what is wrong ??

Magic Sky Daddy.

Keith186 · 17-12-2010 03:22AM

common sense brigade wrote: »

Well I firmly believe that the baby has a right to life. If you don’t want to keep a baby there are plenty of loving couples out there dying to have children that cannot. I myself was born to a single mother in 1980, if abortion had been socially acceptable back then I may not have been here. Yes it is hard being pregnant for 9 months. I have a daughter myself. But why not put yourself out for nine months and give the baby a life through adoption if you do not want it. I agree in extreme medical cases were the mother’s life is endangered that abortion should be allowed. But it should not be allowed for women who find themselves inconveniently pregnant ‘and emotionally not able’ that is a cop out. Get up and get over it and if you cannot cope with a baby give another family a chance at happiness. My sister is currently undergoing fertility treatment for blocked tubes and the heartbreak she has endured for years trying to conceive breaks my heart. She would be a wonderful mother . I am a mother, when I held my baby in my arms the thought of anyone or anything harming her made me physically ill. I do not believe that the aborted baby does not feel the pain of dying. You can all dress it up how you like with medical jargon but can you all be sure that tiny baby slumbering in its mother’s womb does not feel the pain of being extracted .

"You didn't kill Kenny, you bastard".

Jester Minute · 17-12-2010 03:25AM

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

I would just like to ask all the pro-lifers on here :

What was it like when you adopted that orphan you have now and how has it impacted on your life? Good or bad? Raising a child is a tough job as far as I can tell.

And if you haven't yet done so, then what's keeping you?

Serious question.

I am a single male with no job (hence my being up at 2.25am). I am not in any position to be adopting anyone.

marienbad wrote: »

and who decides what is wrong ??

Well, apart from the little voice of conscience, by which we all know that killing is wrong, we do still live in a (nominally) Christian country. At this moment in time, the majority of people in Ireland would be against baby-killing and the laws reflect that.

strobe · 17-12-2010 03:28AM

strobe wrote: »

Magic Sky Daddy.

Jester Minute wrote: »

we do still live in a (nominally) Christian country.

QED

Napper Hawkins · 17-12-2010 03:36AM

Jester Minute wrote: »

I am a single male with no job (hence my being up at 2.25am). I am not in any position to be adopting anyone.

Well, apart from the little voice of conscience, by which we all know that killing is wrong, we do still live in a (nominally) Christian country. At this moment in time, the majority of people in Ireland would be against baby-killing and the laws reflect that.

Well why don't you get yourself a ****ing job and back up your pro-life stance by adopting? Hop to it.

And **** your medieval, mumbo jumbo religion too, you reckon Irish people are superior to people of other nations where abortion is legal?

Baby-killing...for ****s sake.

marienbad · 17-12-2010 03:40AM

Jester Minute wrote: »

I am a single male with no job (hence my being up at 2.25am). I am not in any position to be adopting anyone.

Well, apart from the little voice of conscience, by which we all know that killing is wrong, we do still live in a (nominally) Christian country. At this moment in time, the majority of people in Ireland would be against baby-killing and the laws reflect that.

Glad to hear you say that, deserves two cheers , the part saying ''and the laws reflect that'' , so when we draw up the legislation in line with the referendum of 17 years ago and now reiterated by the ECHR we can all go home happy.

Star Bingo · 17-12-2010 03:50AM

yet more pointless expenditure of jism. we're the ultimate nanny state ffs, nan would never turn away a grandchild lets put that phrase to more apt use. you lot just want coke n hookers

Demonique · 17-12-2010 04:33AM

Jester Minute wrote: »

I am a single male with no job (hence my being up at 2.25am). I am not in any position to be adopting anyone.

Hurrah for people without uteri telling women what to do with their bodies

Jester Minute · 17-12-2010 04:47AM

Demonique wrote: »

Hurrah for people without uteri telling women what to do with their bodies

I don't have to be a woman to know that abortion is wrong and to desire that it not be introduced to this country. Plus it's not just about the mother's body, the baby has its own body.

Jamiekelly · 17-12-2010 05:54AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEFWDYB0rWo

Its a tricky issue.
The one thing I am gonna say is I fucking hate the people that are like "oh if abortion was legal then people would just stop using condoms and get an abortion anytime they get pregnant".
People are retarded if they think people who get abortions are doing it for the laugh. Its not as if its easy on them. Its most likely one of the worst days of their lives when they go to get an abortion and people have the nerve to make them out to be killing children for the fun of it.

As for the "every life is precious" argument. My hole. 45 babies are born every minute in the world, and on average 11 of those babies will die before their first birthday due to bad healthcare, living conditions, lack of food etc.
Its a chemical reaction. Thats all it is.

Sorry for my slightly off the wall opinion but I am pro choice and proud of it

ebixa82 · 17-12-2010 08:01AM

Without stereotyping I find people who are pro-life also:

1) believe in God and all that organised religion crap

2) believe that recreational drugs are destroying society and much more harmful than alcohol.

3) listen to Joe Duffy (and not for the sheer comedy of the contributions of his supporters)

Gross generalisation but there you OK.

Women should absolutely have the right to chose. It's a no-brainer.

I'm pretty sure if a poll was done across the general population then the Pro-Choice side would win. And that includes all the OAP catholic church lovers out there.

A more accurate reflection of societal views could be achieved by a poll on some place like boards where the majority of posters are of child making age and who have the potential to be faced with such a decision..

It's not as if banning abortion in Ireland prevents people from taking a cheap Ryanair flight or a ferry over to blighty. It just greatly inconveniences them and makes the whole process much more traumatic and stressful.

It also has led to an increase in the number of women buying abortifacients over the internet which is a whole other problem altogether!

scientific1982 · 17-12-2010 08:20AM

ebixa82 wrote: »

Without stereotyping I find people who are pro-life also:

1) believe in God and all that organised religion crap

2) believe that recreational drugs are destroying society and much more harmful than alcohol.

3) listen to Joe Duffy (and not for the sheer comedy of the contributions of his supporters)

Gross generalisation but there you OK.

Women should absolutely have the right to chose. It's a no-brainer.

I'm pretty sure if a poll was done across the general population then the Pro-Choice side would win. And that includes all the OAP catholic church lovers out there.

A more accurate reflection of societal views could be achieved by a poll on some place like boards where the majority of posters are of child making age and who have the potential to be faced with such a decision..

It's not as if banning abortion in Ireland prevents people from taking a cheap Ryanair flight or a ferry over to blighty. It just greatly inconveniences them and makes the whole process much more traumatic and stressful.

It also has led to an increase in the number of women buying abortifacients over the internet which is a whole other problem altogether!

I'd be the exception to your rule ebixa82. And this issue is far from a no-brainer.

pels · 17-12-2010 08:46AM

It's when reading threads like this you see what a sexist and non-civilized country Ireland is.

Bah, disgusted.

common sense brigade · 17-12-2010 09:04AM

There are plenty of children already in the adoption system that those couples could adopt but are too selfish to do so as they want a cyute widdle baybee. Pregnant women aren't broodmares for the infertile

Wait, so because your sister can't conceive other women shouldn't have the right to decide their own reproduction choices.

Your wrong there are hardly any adoptions in Ireland, yet 4,000 women travelled away to England last year to have abortions. They could have had these babies adopted. I dont think people who adopt do so to get a cutsey accessory baby.
Why should women that get pregnant and decide 'they are not emotionally ready for a baby'time isint right''careers just taking off'.etc . why should these women be allowed to decide that they cant go through nine months of pregnancy. Its only nine months and its not fun being pregnant. But for the sake of a measly nine months of your life to give a life. I have a baby and a career. I am not a religious nut sitting at home each day watching pro life videos. If there is a referendum lets see the outcome then. I dont know a single Pro Abortion Choice person in all of my professional friends in their 30's. Live in Co Clare. Maybe we are unusual but as I said a referendum will show what the consensus is. If the outcome is Pro Life side, it is not good enough to say we are all loonies. Also Men should have a say in what happens to their babies.

Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life
No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.

Abortion under the spotlight in the European Court of Human Rights

Comments