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 Discussion

Turtwig

Followed on from here.

Normal Charter rules still apply. Attack the post, not the poster.If you have any issue with a particular post please report it. Please be aware that as this is human rights issue people will have very different interpretations on the implementation of those rights. Some of which you may be in strong disagreement with or even find hurtful. Please try to Keep it civil though. It is expected that both sides will be sensitive with the wording they use when putting forward their points to the other side.
The goal is for each post to be closer to the top of the pyramid.

Above all a cordial and constructive discussion atmosphere is what's strived for.
Thanks,

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

robdonn wrote: »

But would I perhaps be correct to assume that, due to the ambiguity of this point, that the Convention by itself cannot be used to infer rights to the unborn without a State's existing laws extending the definition of child to them?

I think it's more accurate to say that the Convention can be used to argue the case either way, but it's not definitive. The article you linked to is explicit that some commentators stress the relevance of the preamble to interpretation (arguing, presumably, that the Convention leans in favour of an understanding of "child" which includes the unborn) while others stress the fact that the language tending to include the unborn is found only in the preamble and not in the operative provisions. In other words, whichever way you jump on this, you can find something in the Convention to back you up.

robdonn wrote: »

As an aside, can I just thank you guys for existing? :P My partner often gives out to more for engaging in "pointless online arguments" but I love them! Without these kind of conversations, which don't really pop up in my daily life, I don't really get to learn about stuff such as UN Conventions and medical definitions. Having these debates/discussions encourages me to learn about things that I never would have thought were this interesting.

Yup, me too. If only our partners could see it that way!

robdonn

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's more accurate to say that the Convention can be used to argue the case either way, but it's not definitive. The article you linked to is explicit that some commentators stress the relevance of the preamble to interpretation (arguing, presumably, that the Convention leans in favour of an understanding of "child" which includes the unborn) while others stress the fact that the language tending to include the unborn is found only in the preamble and not in the operative provisions. In other words, whichever way you jump on this, you can find something in the Convention to back you up.

Ahh, politics... :P

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yup, me too. If only our partners could see it that way!

Why don't they understand us!

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Well, it shows that the preambular text agrees that an unborn child can be a child, depending on the interpretation of the state, but actually makes no inclusion of that in the official definition.

No the text itself offers no uncertainty at all; no possibly, no maybe. Simply "before as well as after birth".
As for the official definition; it certainly doesn't exclude the unborn.
For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
An unborn child is definitely below the age of eighteen years, so the real wriggle room there is 'human being'. Since the convention doesn't offer a definition of human being, a State may reasonably find that an unborn child, even though a child, is not a human being, and entitled to the protection of the Convention.
Of course, Article 2 requires that
States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. Arguably 'unborn' might be considered a status; absent Article 2 a negro or jewish child might be considered not a human being as race and religion aren't mentioned in the definition. So the same argument might be made on behalf of the unborn.

As Peregrinus points out; in order to be acceptable the Convention couldn't come down definitively on either side of the issue.

Peregrinus

robdonn wrote: »

Ahh, politics... :P

Absolam wrote: »

As Peregrinus points out; in order to be acceptable the Convention couldn't come down definitively on either side of the issue.

I think they deliberately fudged this, and left it as an open question, in order to maximise the number of states who would sign up to the convention, and thereby accept the other, less fudged terms. They didn't want to lose the entire convention, or a large number of potential parties, over this basically irreconcileable issue.

Loafing Oaf

Surely the salient point here is that the UN as an institution has chosen not to recognise 'the right to life of the unborn'. Give this, what does it matter if it is adopting a contestable interpretation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child or other founding documents. After all, the UN as a body choose to scrap or amend these documents if it wanted to.

The idea that this position is a result of some mistake or omission and that if some guy who goes under the name of Two Sheds on the Internet could testify before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child they would look at themselves and say "Hold on a second, we've got this all wrong..."

recedite

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Surely the salient point here is that the UN as an institution has chosen not to recognise 'the right to life of the unborn'.

But that's not the case. What they have said is that the moment of birth is not a significant watershed moment in terms of defining what is, and what is not, a child.
But on the other hand, they are not saying how far back it is before that moment of birth, that they begin to recognise the rights of the child.

Seeing as even the more liberal abortion regimes tend not to carry out abortions during the final trimester (unless a serious threat to the mother exists) then it follows that most countries do actually recognise human rights in the later stages of the unborn child's existence.
The UN does not define when human rights begin, but it has said they begin at some time before birth.
Its an extremely flexible stance, as has been pointed out. A signatory state could legislate to carry out abortions an hour before the birth was due without contravening the convention.

Loafing Oaf

recedite wrote: »

Its an extremely flexible stance, as has been pointed out. A signatory state could legislate to carry out abortions an hour before the birth was due without contravening the convention.

But doesn't this de facto amount to not recognising the humanity of the foetus at all? Until some UN commitee criticises a country's abortion regime as excessively liberal, demands that they introduce stricter time limits, we can't say for certain that the UN as an institution has any concern for the 'rights of the unborn'.

Two Sheds

Absolam wrote: »

No the text itself offers no uncertainty at all; no possibly, no maybe. Simply "before as well as after birth".
As for the official definition; it certainly doesn't exclude the unborn.
For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
An unborn child is definitely below the age of eighteen years, so the real wriggle room there is 'human being'. Since the convention doesn't offer a definition of human being, a State may reasonably find that an unborn child, even though a child, is not a human being, and entitled to the protection of the Convention.
Of course, Article 2 requires that
States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. Arguably 'unborn' might be considered a status; absent Article 2 a negro or jewish child might be considered not a human being as race and religion aren't mentioned in the definition. So the same argument might be made on behalf of the unborn.

As Peregrinus points out; in order to be acceptable the Convention couldn't come down definitively on either side of the issue.

The Convention was based on, and refers to, the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which states - “The child is recognized, universally, as a human being who must be able to develop physically, mentally, socially, morally, and spiritually, with freedom and dignity.”

Two Sheds

recedite wrote: »

But that's not the case. What they have said is that the moment of birth is not a significant watershed moment in terms of defining what is, and what is not, a child.
But on the other hand, they are not saying how far back it is before that moment of birth, that they begin to recognise the rights of the child.

Seeing as even the more liberal abortion regimes tend not to carry out abortions during the final trimester (unless a serious threat to the mother exists) then it follows that most countries do actually recognise human rights in the later stages of the unborn child's existence.
The UN does not define when human rights begin, but it has said they begin at some time before birth.
Its an extremely flexible stance, as has been pointed out. A signatory state could legislate to carry out abortions an hour before the birth was due without contravening the convention.

That is already the case in the UK, where abortions are carried out up to full term in cases of Downs Syndrome or even for mild disabilities.
92% of Babies With Down Syndrome in England Are Killed in Abortions

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

That is already the case in the UK, where abortions are carried out up to full term in cases of Downs Syndrome or even for mild disabilities.
92% of Babies With Down Syndrome in England Are Killed in Abortions

Interesting report, have you read it? I'll assume you have and are not just blindly reposting a biased news source, but for everyone else here is the summary of the report:

The discrepancy between NDSCR and DH figures on TOP for chromosomal abnormalities is explained by the high case ascertainment rate achieved by the NDSCR through a rigorous and robust reporting system. No similar process has been developed for the HSA4 forms for TOPFA.

In cases where the termination takes place before 24 weeks the doctor may lawfully be faced with a choice, if it is believed that termination on Grounds C and E are both justified – however this has been considered in the data matching exercise.

Some of the patients who are referred to in paragraph 2 above may refer themselves to a private abortion clinic and seek termination under Ground C –again this was considered during the cross matching exercise.

Some cases may not be reported on Form HSA4 because the statutory obligation is imposed on the doctor who terminates a pregnancy and it is not always clear who this may be or even which hospital is responsible. In these cases the abortifacient medication may be administered at the Fetal Medicine Centre and the patient will then return to the DGH to complete the abortion.

Some doctors do not appreciate the statutory obligation to complete Form HSA4.

Where doctors were aware of the HSA4 form, and where they may have fully completed or signed the form, there was sometimes no system or process to ensure that the form was submitted.

Since the Abortion Act became law, clinical practice has changed and developed. Abortion was initially a gynaecological procedure whereas now, especially with advances in prenatal screening and diagnosis, TOPFA is much more an integral part of maternity and obstetric care. This involves different staff and while there was a ‘system’ for managing the HSA4 forms in gynaecology departments, this needs to be translated to the maternity environment. Matters relating to the Abortion Act1 are not included in the formal midwifery training programmes.

It was clear that in none of the healthcare organisations visited was there any evidence to suggest that either doctors or midwives were trying to hide or manipulate the figures relating to TOPFA. It is also important to record that there is no doubt that the care of the individual women and families was the overwhelming priority for the clinicians and healthcare workers that were interviewed.

SOURCE

So yes, the proper paperwork is not being completed in an outrageously large number of cases, but it is not due to anyone trying to hide figures, for the majority of cases it's simply that either doctors/midwives don't know who is supposed to fill out the form, they don't think that the form is important or they don't know there is a form at all.

So what does this tell us? Well, it's not that 92% of foetuses with Down Syndrome are aborted! The figures of this report show that there were 994 abortions performed with foetuses with Down Syndrome, which is not too dissimilar from from the group's 2013 report of 943.

The National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register has not released a 2014 report yet (or at least I can't find it) but there were about 775 Down Syndrome live births in 2012 and about 728 in 2013. So, unless 2014 had an extraordinary effect on human genetics, we can presume that 2014 had a Down Syndrome live birth rate of anywhere between 650 and 750.

Now, even if we take the lower figure there, 994 + 650 = 1644.

Is 994 considered 92% of 1644? For the figure of 92% to be true we would have to assume that there were only 86 babies born with Down Syndrome in 2014, a massive departure from the 700+ in previous years.

So in the future, when someone throws a statistic at you, give it a sniff. If it smells like poo then you know where they've pulled it from.

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

Interesting report, have you read it? I'll assume you have and are not just blindly reposting a biased news source, but for everyone else here is the summary of the report:

SOURCE

So yes, the proper paperwork is not being completed in an outrageously large number of cases, but it is not due to anyone trying to hide figures, for the majority of cases it's simply that either doctors/midwives don't know who is supposed to fill out the form, they don't think that the form is important or they don't know there is a form at all.

So what does this tell us? Well, it's not that 92% of foetuses with Down Syndrome are aborted! The figures of this report show that there were 994 abortions performed with foetuses with Down Syndrome, which is not too dissimilar from from the group's 2013 report of 943.

The National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register has not released a 2014 report yet (or at least I can't find it) but there were about 775 Down Syndrome live births in 2012 and about 728 in 2013. So, unless 2014 had an extraordinary effect on human genetics, we can presume that 2014 had a Down Syndrome live birth rate of anywhere between 650 and 750.

Now, even if we take the lower figure there, 994 + 650 = 1644.

Is 994 considered 92% of 1644? For the figure of 92% to be true we would have to assume that there were only 86 babies born with Down Syndrome in 2014, a massive departure from the 700+ in previous years.

So in the future, when someone throws a statistic at you, give it a sniff. If it smells like poo then you know where they've pulled it from.

Nice sidestep.

The link is to show that abortions are carried out up to birth, which you agree with. I have no intention of wasting my time on chasing statistics relating to non-existent paperwork - one child given a lethal injection to the heart is one too many. Don't you agree?

[Deleted User]

Two Sheds wrote: »

Nice sidestep.

The link is to show that abortions are carried out up to birth, which you agree with. I have no intention of wasting my time on chasing statistics relating to non-existent paperwork - one child given a lethal injection to the heart is one too many. Don't you agree?

The link does not show that, does it?

Two Sheds

Deleted User wrote: »

The link does not show that, does it?

..Abortion is legal in Britain, up to birth, in situations where a baby is diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome..

There are also approximately 60 cases per year where the child is aborted alive and then left to die of hypothermia and shock.

Abortion is also legal up to birth in Ireland and there were three such cases last year although the Minister has refused to divulge the ages of the unborn.
There is also the possibility that the abortions were carried out at catholic hospitals which have agreed to be part of the abortion regime.

[Deleted User]

Two Sheds wrote: »

There are also approximately 60 cases per year where the child is delivered alive and left to die.

Abortion is also legal up to birth in Ireland and there were three such cases last year although the Minister has refused to divulge the ages of the unborn.
There is also the possibility that the abortions were carried out at catholic hospitals which have agreed to be part of the abortion regime.

So no, the link does not show what you asserted it does;

Two Sheds wrote: »

Nice sidestep.

The link is to show that abortions are carried out up to birth, which you agree with. I have no intention of wasting my time on chasing statistics relating to non-existent paperwork - one child given a lethal injection to the heart is one too many. Don't you agree?

"legally permitted" and "are carried out" are very different concepts. Try not to conflate them or present evidence of one as evidence of the other.

I imagine that an enormous number of things that are legally permissible things rarely if ever come to pass.

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

There are also approximately 60 cases per year where the child is aborted alive and then left to die of hypothermia and shock.

Abortion is also legal up to birth in Ireland and there were three such cases last year although the Minister has refused to divulge the ages of the unborn.
There is also the possibility that the abortions were carried out at catholic hospitals which have agreed to be part of the abortion regime.

If we got rid of the eighth amendment we could change the law in this regard.

Two Sheds

Deleted User wrote: »

So no, the link does not show what you asserted it does;

If you want to play word games to ease your conscience then fire away.
The legislation allows for abortions at any stage of pregnancy and we know that abortions are carried out after 24 weeks, a viable age.

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

Nice sidestep.

The link is to show that abortions are carried out up to birth, which you agree with. I have no intention of wasting my time on chasing statistics relating to non-existent paperwork - one child given a lethal injection to the heart is one too many. Don't you agree?

When your argument has been shown to be dishonest, falling back on emotive rubbish doesn't give you back any credibility at all.

Abortions carried out after viability are not, afaiaa, carried out because of only minor disabilities, they are for major life-limiting abnormalities, ones which which the parents feel that they as a family could not manage, or that it would be cruel to expect their future child to live with. If it even has a future at all - fatal fetal abnormalities are a large proportion of these late terminations.

So in the vast majority of such terminations, the couple's main desire is to prevent the child from suffering, and the means used in the termination reflect that. Your attempt at putting an anti-choice spin onto such a tragedy shows your agenda for what it is.

Two Sheds

lazygal wrote: »

If we got rid of the eighth amendment we could change the law in this regard.

You'll need to explain that one, especially since most of those pressing for its removal are also pushing for abortion on demand.
In all likelihood, the 8th has saved thousands of lives to date.

[Deleted User]

Two Sheds wrote: »

If you want to play word games to ease your conscience then fire away.
The legislation allows for abortions at any stage of pregnancy and we know that abortions are carried out after 24 weeks, a viable* age.

We do, in 160 cases (0.08%) . But we do not know what you are asserting to be true.

We do not know anything about the statement which you made, "that abortions are carried out up to birth". The link provides no further details other than 24+ weeks.

It's not word games, it's simply precision.
* in general cases

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

There are also approximately 60 cases per year where the child is aborted alive and then left to die of hypothermia and shock.

Make up your mind. Just now you appeared to be against terminations where the fetus is killed before being induced. Given that these are fetuses with major disabilities, (and in Ireland ones where continuing the pregnancy will kill the mother), you are effectively saying that your preferred solution is for forced continuation of pregnancy, no matter what the outcome for the child and the mother.

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

You'll need to explain that one, especially since most of those pressing for its removal are also pushing for abortion on demand.
In all likelihood, the 8th has saved thousands of lives to date.

Because the right to life of a mother is a constitutional right, it must be legislated for the entire duration of a pregnancy. You don't suddenly stop potentially having a risk to life because of pregnancy after 24 weeks. If we didn't have the eighth amendment, and hadn't introduced another amendment on the right to life even in cases of suicide, the legislature would have a freer hand in abortion legislation, and could outlaw it totally. Instead the eighth amendment, as promised in 1983, created a constitutional right to abortion where none existed before.

How do you know it has saved thousands of lives? There is also a constitutional right to travel and information for those who want to kill the unborn. Surely such constitutional amendmends are the furthest thing possible, even though they stem from the eighth amendment, from saving thousands of lives?

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

You'll need to explain that one, especially since most of those pressing for its removal are also pushing for abortion on demand.
In all likelihood, the 8th has saved thousands of lives to date.

Except we know it hasn't, because the right to travel for abortions is expressly written into Irish law.

Do you have any evidence that thousands of women have remained pregnant because it was too difficult or expensive for them to have a termination? It sounds like a very short term view of expense, given the cost of raising a child.

And it's not as though there are many more children available for adoption in Ireland than in the UK, so where are all these unwanted children who have been "saved"? Being brought up by the people who really didn't want them in the first place but were too poor or disorganized to access an abortion abroad?
Sounds like a great start in life. Or not.

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

Nice sidestep.

A somewhat ironic characterisation, as you've now claimed that foetal "full human rights" had been legally established, and produced (weak) evidence of something else entirely. And now that foetuses with mild disability are aborted within an hour of birth... and then have done exactly the same thing again.

As sidesteps go, this seems like a decidedly Maori one. (That's a rugby reference, in case anyone panics looking for racial overtones there.)

Maybe state the point you have a basis for in the first place, and trim the emotive rhetoric to accord with the facts -- or at least some sort of arguable case.

Two Sheds

volchitsa wrote: »

When your argument has been shown to be dishonest, falling back on emotive rubbish doesn't give you back any credibility at all.

Abortions carried out after viability are not, afaiaa, carried out because of only minor disabilities, they are for major life-limiting abnormalities, ones which which the parents feel that they as a family could not manage, or that it would be cruel to expect their future child to live with. If it even has a future at all - fatal fetal abnormalities are a large proportion of these late terminations.

So in the vast majority of such terminations, the couple's main desire is to prevent the child from suffering, and the means used in the termination reflect that. Your attempt at putting an anti-choice spin onto such a tragedy shows your agenda for what it is.

And you're accusing me of emotive rubbish!

Downs Syndrome is not a lifetime of suffering, unless it's at the hands of narrow-minded cretins. Cleft pallet is very treatable but is cited as a reason for late-term abortions.
Dozens of abortions carried out on foetuses with minor imperfections such as cleft lip or club foot

oldrnwisr

Two Sheds wrote: »

And you're accusing me of emotive rubbish!

Downs Syndrome is not a lifetime of suffering, unless it's at the hands of narrow-minded cretins. Cleft pallet is very treatable but is cited as a reason for late-term abortions.
Dozens of abortions carried out on foetuses with minor imperfections such as cleft lip or club foot

You really ought not to argue using misinformation.

Firstly, with regard to cleft palate. There were 184,571 abortions performed in the UK in 2014. Of these, 3099 were carried out under ground E of the legislation (foetal abnormality). Cleft palate was named as the principal medical condition in just 10 of these cases. None of the cleft palate related abortions were late-term. In fact, in total only 202 of the 3099 abortions performed under ground E were carried out over 24 weeks and most of these were carried out due to serious nervous system malformations.
Secondly, cleft palate is mentioned as the principal medical condidtion in just 10 cases but is mentioned in the clinical notes of 29, meaning that cleft palate was present in a foetus which also had some other more serious malformation. You see, cleft palate on it's own can be successfully treated but it is often accompanied by much more serious defects such as Loeys-Dietz syndrome, Stickler's syndrome or Treacher Collins syndrome so it's not always a guarantee that cleft palate can be treated successfully.

This is also an important point to bear in mind when talking about Down's syndrome. Most people who raise Down's syndrome as a negative in an abortion discussion usually have little or no knowledge of the nature of Down's syndrome and just how different each case can be. The reality, you'll find is much more complicated than the black and white world you seem to occupy. Down's syndrome is hugely varied with some symptoms such as congenital heart disease only occurring in 40% of cases. While most Down's syndrome patients suffer mild to moderate intellectual disability, there are some cases where there are severe intellectual and physical disabilities. Taking a one-size fits all view of what Down's syndrome really is is wrong and unhelpful.

UK 2014 Abortion Statistics Report
UK 2014 Abortion Statistics Datasets (Excel)

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Nice sidestep.

The link is to show that abortions are carried out up to birth, which you agree with. I have no intention of wasting my time on chasing statistics relating to non-existent paperwork - one child given a lethal injection to the heart is one too many. Don't you agree?

Side step? I addressed the issues raised by the article that you posted. Are you trying to claim that the entire point of that 550+ word article was to make the assertion that abortions are carried out until birth? That one, single, tiny 3 word aside comment was actually the crux of the article?

Oh, and which I agree with? How have you come to that conclusion? And what non-existent paperwork are you talking about? I linked to EVERY paper and report that I made reference to.

Two Sheds

volchitsa wrote: »

Except we know it hasn't, because the right to travel for abortions is expressly written into Irish law.

Do you have any evidence that thousands of women have remained pregnant because it was too difficult or expensive for them to have a termination? It sounds like a very short term view of expense, given the cost of raising a child.

And it's not as though there are many more children available for adoption in Ireland than in the UK, so where are all these unwanted children who have been "saved"? Being brought up by the people who really didn't want them in the first place but were too poor or disorganized to access an abortion abroad?
Sounds like a great start in life. Or not.

What do NI and RoI have in common?

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

And you're accusing me of emotive rubbish!

Downs Syndrome is not a lifetime of suffering, unless it's at the hands of narrow-minded cretins. Cleft pallet is very treatable but is cited as a reason for late-term abortions.
Dozens of abortions carried out on foetuses with minor imperfections such as cleft lip or club foot

More spin from you - and the Daily Mail.

From their article, a hint as to where the truth really lies :

Joan Morris, national co-ordinator for Eurocat and director of the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register, told The Sunday Times: 'The Department of Health abortion data should not be published by congenital anomaly because it is incomplete and not accurate.'

She added that some of the abortions may have been after more serious defects were discovered.

Club foot or cleft palate when in isolation are fairly minor and treatable disabilities. But these abnormalities are sometimes only the visible signs of much more serious problems which can't be cured. And I have some personal experience of this. Do you? Because IMO for anyone to misrepresent the effects this sort of disability has on babies and families in order to further their own anti-choice agenda is shameful.

As for me saying that families who terminate pregnancies in the most humane way possible because they wish to prevent their future child from suffering, how is that emotive? It's a fact. You may wish to present them as child murderers or something, but afaik most people disagree with that simplistic view of what are complex issues.

veliktom

I am curious as to the roles and responsibilities of men in the context of pregnancy in Ireland. If we as a state require a pregnant woman to remain pregnant in all but the most extreme circumstances, then does the state impose responsibilities on the contributor of the other half of the genetic material, and if not, why not?

Take for example a young woman who becomes pregnant from a one-night stand, but otherwise does not have a relationship with the man. The woman follows Irish law and brings the pregnancy to term. Could this woman pursue the father for 50% of her pregnancy related expenses upon paternity being established? Is the father required to pay maintenance if the child is not put up for adoption, and is there a requirement for access to be granted?

Personally I think that if the state is going to oblige women to do something (ie. remain pregnant) then in the name of equality the man involved should also have obligations.

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

What do NI and RoI have in common?

Lots of things, particularly a traditional approach to the family and to child rearing that the rest of the UK doesn't really have. It's not surprising that rates of abortions are lower. But the law is the result of that cultural difference, not the cause of it.

Otherwise you're claiming that Irish people, north and south, are mainly anti-abortion, with the exception of women of child bearing age, who are only prevented from having abortions right left and centre because of the law that the rest of the population imposes on them.

If that were really the case, there would be an urgent discussion to be had as to why the only people whose lives and health were potentially at risk from pregnancy were not finding any support from the rest of the population concerning their worries. Is that really what you think?