Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irish Government violating the human rights of women
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Because the continued development of the unborn is contingent upon the woman carrying the unborn, in her body. That's why the woman's welfare should take precedence over the welfare of the unborn. Granted, you personally may see no reason for the termination of a viable late term pregnancy, but I've already given the reason, many times now - the woman in question does not want to continue her pregnancy, does not want to give birth, and seeks an abortion with the result that terminating her pregnancy will inevitably result in the death of the unborn. A developing human life (not yet an offspring as it is still attached and insulated by the woman's body) is subject to the whims of the woman whether you agree with it or not, and that's an inescapable biological fact. If a woman chooses to take her own life, then by extension, the developing unborn life within her also dies. The continued existence and development of the unborn, is predicated upon the continued existence of the woman in question carrying the unborn within her uterus.
If a woman takes her own life, the unborn could be saved hypothetically. A newborn will also die with no-one to feed it, that's not exclusive to pregnancy (only the cause of death would be suffocation not starvation in the former).
I find your reason of 'just because she wants to terminate at full-term' unsatisfying (although by now you've surely figured that out yourself). A woman can give birth without becoming a mother, although a societal stigma certainly exists.One eyed Jack wrote: »A born human being as a result of ignoring the woman's will, is quite a bit more than a temporary infraction, considering the average life span of a human being once it's born is about 70 years. The outcome you describe above, whether it's fortunate or unfortunate, depends entirely upon whom you ask, and if a person is seeking a late term abortion, the chances are that the outcome you describe above for them, would be a more fortunate outcome than the alternative, which is giving birth to a human being they never wanted and bringing that human being into the world.
A woman should never be forced to keep a child and the child could be put up for adoption. It may be difficult to know that you have a child out there somewhere in the world but saying that inducing a euthanised stillbirth is a better outcome is --- i actually don't have the words.
Personally I believe that if the foetus has a chance of survival outside of the womb then that should be the benchmark for establishing a boundary on abortion. Your first paragraph uses the argument that it cannot survive without the mother, we both know our technology is changing that.One eyed Jack wrote: »Why at all may you be as well to remove it alive, when the woman does not want it to be removed alive? She does not want it, and if you force her to give birth to a child she does not want, that will have a detrimental effect upon her mental health which will make her recovery that much more difficult. This isn't the kind of stuff we can flip a coin over, we must also ackowledge the emotional and mental health of the woman in question, and provide sufficient supports and aftercare which supports her in her decisions, not the decisions we make for her.
If an independent organism can survive without biological support from the 'mother', her desire for it to be alive or dead post removal is irrelevant, why kill something that can survive outside her body simply because she no longer wants it inside her body?
It's like saying someone on life-support should be euthanised because their family no longer wishes to keep them on life support even though they may survive if unplugged.
The right to merely live would certainly trump someone else's mental health in this case (although mental health could go either way -- many women have complained that they could see the aborted foetus which traumatised them), knowing a removed foetus may live/die in an incubator -which is completely out of their hands - is surely less likely to cause trauma anyways??One eyed Jack wrote: »She's been spared nothing physiologically, but have you given any thought to her emotional and mental well being? Of course giving birth to a full term baby may be unbearable, but one of the reasons for what may make it unbearable is that the woman was forced to give birth to a human being against her will, and is now forced to live with the consequences of a decision that was made for her by someone else. What you have done certainly ties in with your argument that the right to life of the unborn, takes precedence over the human rights of the woman who has now become a mother against her will. That's quite likely to cause her hopeless and unbearable suffering which offers her no respect nor dignity, and now you've brought a child into the world who has been rejected by their own mother. They're off to a great start in life already.
Mental Health (or damage done to it) is absolutely impossible to quantify -- and i'm aware you know that -- and i'm sure we can agree that a full term abortion is likely to be a rare request. However I think right to life itself does take precedence to someone else's mental health (in this scenario). The termination of a life has an easily quantifiable damage even if the terminated is oblivious.
The 'mother' who is upset that her developed foetus was born should realise that the foetus is an individual independently capable of survival therefore not merely 'hers' but also a separate patient that medical staff are responsible for.
Medical Staff turn off life support for adults all the time when they can't be saved but must help those who can be saved. Abortion should be no different.One eyed Jack wrote: »I don't think at all this discussion is ultimately futile, it's one that needs to be had, because discussion of the issue is one of the ways in which the social stigma surrounding abortion in society becomes more socially acceptable to talk about, which is a good thing IMO, as it makes it easier for women to open up and discuss their experiences, and it makes it easier for women who find themselves in a situation where they are experiencing a crisis pregnancy to seek out support and early intervention at the earliest point, rather than delaying because they cannot come to terms with the idea of an abortion. The cognitive dissonance presented by their morality, in my experience at least, is the greatest barrier to women seeking an abortion. Nozz was right earlier when he said -
My response to that is that we could also tackle the stigma of not choosing to keep your newborn -- but yes women should not feel guilty about abortion (within medically defined limits). But some humans feel guilty for swatting a fly even when society places no value on the fly.
But yes, early intervention is key and delayed action can only compound the guilt.One eyed Jack wrote: »Of course I have a problem with abortion, as an abstract concept. I wish it wasn't necessary. I wish there were advances made in medical science that would eliminate the need for women to undergo abortions and for the unborn life to be terminated in the process. But, it's the best we have at the moment, and I do hope that in the future that will change. Of course the idea of abortion makes me uncomfortable, but I am even more uncomfortable with the idea of forcing a woman to give birth against her will and bring an unwanted child into the world.
Of course it's easy for me to leave my personal morality aside in comparison to the woman who cannot afford to leave her personal morality aside when faced with the decision to terminate her pregnancy by procuring an abortion. I would consider it immoral and unethical to make that decision any more difficult for her.
We all must draw a line and harden our hearts sooner or later -- whether for the woman or the foetus. The decision is no longer solely about the woman when the foetus can be extracted. Additionally someone out there may want that child.
(and don't worry, we all know that no-one really wants abortion but we acknowledge it's required existence)One eyed Jack wrote: »I agree with that, generally speaking (I'm not going to get philosophical about it whether it is indeed a biological impulse or in our nature, I know what you mean), which is why if a woman does not want to become a responsible parent who puts her offspring first, she should not be forced to do so, by anyone.
See above re: adoption. Is it a satisfactory answer? No, it's not. I honestly do sympathise with any woman in this position -- we don't know the multitude of reason why she may opt for an abortion at full-term but if you ask me -- in that case the psychological damage is likely done if she carried it thus far out of guilt or other trauma (perhaps denial etc..).One eyed Jack wrote: »I don't draw the line, because the only person who can truly answer that question with any certainty, is the woman who is faced with that decision. What I mean by that is that the question isn't whether a woman should or shouldn't be allowed do anything, when the fact is that she already can, at least while the unborn is still inside her uterus and she has full autonomy and control over whether she chooses to give birth or not.
I addressed this above regarding the medical team being responsible for two -- not just one. Pregnancy is also somewhat of an involuntary process much like our heartbeat or digestion -- our bodies do it without our input. She really doesn't have full control and requires external medical attention to assert that control.One eyed Jack wrote: »Not necessarily, but that would be a question you would have to inquire of the individual themselves, and it would be based upon an almost infinite number of factors. The fact that they may be aware they were unwanted by their own biological parent could be quite influential on their mental and emotional well being. It's one of those questions that's impossible to know with any degree of certainty, but what of their mother? Have you given any thought to her long term emotional and mental well being?
Yes, I have. It wasn't clear from my other posts I admit. Speaking of certainty -- we can't say whether euthanising and still birthing a developed foetus would cause less distress than live birthing it -- but I'd confidently wager it's the other way around. At a late stage, an abortion is not only cruel to an oblivious and largely developed foetus, it's probably more likely to trigger guilt.
I can't believe that as a pro-choicer that I'm about to use the 'M-word' in an abortion debate -- but if a late-term foetus can survive outside the womb then aborting it is murder.0 -
Paramite Pie wrote: »If a woman takes her own life, the unborn could be saved hypothetically. A newborn will also die with no-one to feed it, that's not exclusive to pregnancy (only the cause of death would be suffocation not starvation in the former).
The difference between both of the above scenarios for starters is that suicide is not a criminal act, whereas infanticide is. In the case of a woman who takes her own life, the hypothetical odds that the foetus could be saved would depend upon the circumstances in which she chose to take her own life, in an attempt to ensure she would also end the life of the unborn.Paramite Pie wrote: »I find your reason of 'just because she wants to terminate at full-term' unsatisfying (although by now you've surely figured that out yourself). A woman can give birth without becoming a mother, although a societal stigma certainly exists.
I understand that you would find the woman's choice unsatisfying under the circumstances, but that then begs the question of whether we should oblige a woman to offer what we would consider a valid reason to want to terminate her pregnancy, and then you're into the same territory as those people who are opposed to abortion under any circumstances, because no reason would ever be a valid reason by their standards. I don't think women should be under any obligation to justify their reasons for why they choose to have an abortion, because their reasons are satisfactory to them, and that's all that should matter. Whether their reasons are unsatisfactory to anyone else should be neither here nor there.
A woman absolutely can not give birth without becoming a mother, because she becomes a mother by virtue of the fact that she has given birth. Before that, she is not yet a mother and does not have the responsibilities of motherhood, and if she does not want the responsibility of motherhood, then she must be allowed to make that determination for herself, and the necessary support and resources should be made available to her to prevent her from becoming a mother should she not wish to do so.Paramite Pie wrote: »A woman should never be forced to keep a child and the child could be put up for adoption. It may be difficult to know that you have a child out there somewhere in the world but saying that inducing a euthanised stillbirth is a better outcome is --- i actually don't have the words.
But the question of adoption should never come into it in the first place if what the woman is requesting is an abortion. A woman should not only never be forced to give up a child, that much we agree on, but I would also go further and say that situation would never arise were she not forced to give birth against her wishes in the first place.
I know what we're arguing here of course is the extreme end of the scale, and is an incredibly rare scenario, but it's the first thing that people who are opposed to abortion will introduce into an argument, and as Nozz suggested earlier -nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I doubt it. If you were campaigning for abortion in Ireland you would have to be clear exactly what you are campaigning for. And one of the first questions that is always asked when you want to campaign or debate for full choice abortion is about where the cut offs would lie. And I have my answers to that question ready. If you do not, then that's you not me.
We need to have our answers ready for when these extreme scenarios are introduced!
(Tbh I'm still perplexed as to why Nozz who campaigns for abortion in Ireland was not familiar with the opinion of the ECHR in relation to Article 2 of the EHCR in relation to the fact that the Convention does not confer human rights on the unborn, but that it has no authority to impose laws on member states which is why the Irish Government is allowed to continue to enforce the 8th amendment in the Irish Constitution)Paramite Pie wrote: »Personally I believe that if the foetus has a chance of survival outside of the womb then that should be the benchmark for establishing a boundary on abortion. Your first paragraph uses the argument that it cannot survive without the mother, we both know our technology is changing that.
Yes, technology is changing that, and pushing the boundary back further and further, which is why a time limit on whether a woman can avail of abortion would be a disaster, and why I completely disagree with the bar being set at whenever the unborn has the potential to survive outside the womb. That's not an abortion, that's forcing a woman to give birth, because we now possess the technology to make the determination which we see is in the best interests of the unborn, regardless of her wishes!
That's going to lead to more cases where in spite of a woman wanting to have an abortion, she will now be forced to give birth, and will be forced to be party to an adoption instead! The laws could simply remain as they are in that case, because no doubt the panel that would decide these matters would in line with POLDPA offer her a termination, but instead of an abortion, they would terminate the pregnancy by forcing her to give birth, and then the baby would be taken into State care, until the baby was adopted!
(1950's Irish State called, and they want their ideas back!)Paramite Pie wrote: »If an independent organism can survive without biological support from the 'mother', her desire for it to be alive or dead post removal is irrelevant, why kill something that can survive outside her body simply because she no longer wants it inside her body?
Because her desire to end her pregnancy in the manner in which she chooses should be her choice, and her choice alone? I don't see her wishes at all as irrelevant, especially when she can control whether she chooses to give birth or not, and wouldn't it be better to provide support and care to the woman no matter what her decision, rather than have the situation we have now where some women are putting their own lives at risk in order to avoid giving birth?
Surely if we legislate properly for abortion in Ireland, it should focus on the woman who is pregnant, and not the unborn foetus developing inside her which under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, has no rights! It's only under the Irish Constitution that the unborn is conferred with a right to life from the moment of implantation, a position which is in direct contravention of Articles 2 of the ECHR. Under UK law, the unborn is also not considered a person until they are born, and that was one of the key factors in the recent findings of the case for abortion in Northern Ireland -Mr Justice Horner commented that the European Court of Human Rights has shied away from determining when human life begins and has concluded that it is a matter for each Member State to determine within that State’s margin of appreciation. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland has interpreted the right to life as commencing at the moment of conception whereas in England and Wales the common law position is that a foetus is not a legal person until it is born and has a separate existence from its mother. Mr Justice Horner held that there are no grounds for concluding that the common law in Northern Ireland is any different to that in England and Wales: “While the foetus does not have a right to life under Article 2 of the Convention in Northern Ireland, pre-natal life here is given protection under certain statutes” (a reference to the Coroners Act (NI) 1959 which requires a coroner to hold an inquest into a foetus which was “capable of being born alive”).
Source: COURT DECLARES ABORTION LAW IN NORTHERN IRELAND BREACHES EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS BY FAILING TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS TO BAN
(bold emphasis my own)Paramite Pie wrote: »It's like saying someone on life-support should be euthanised because their family no longer wishes to keep them on life support even though they may survive if unplugged.
It's nothing like that at all though. A person unplugged from life support dies. The idea of life support is that it literally is just that, and without that support, the person dies. They don't survive if life support is withdrawn, and that still wouldn't qualify as euthanasia because euthanasia is an entirely different concept and is as yet also illegal in Ireland.
If you wanted to create a comparable analogy, then I'll see your analogy and give you this one -
The whole family chooses to take their own lives if the person is not taken off life support, ie - the woman will take her own life if she is not allowed to avail of an abortion.Paramite Pie wrote: »The right to merely live would certainly trump someone else's mental health in this case (although mental health could go either way -- many women have complained that they could see the aborted foetus which traumatised them), knowing a removed foetus may live/die in an incubator -which is completely out of their hands - is surely less likely to cause trauma anyways??
That's the current situation as it now stands in Ireland with the 8th amendment in place - that the right to life of the unborn trumps the woman's mental health (unless she is assessed as being at risk of suicide), and there's no way as you point out to quantify how an individual woman may react under the circumstances you present above. Certainly I would suggest that the above scenario should be minimised in order that the woman is not exposed to undue distress, but that would be a procedural change rather than suggesting an adoption in place of an abortion.Paramite Pie wrote: »Mental Health (or damage done to it) is absolutely impossible to quantify -- and i'm aware you know that -- and i'm sure we can agree that a full term abortion is likely to be a rare request. However I think right to life itself does take precedence to someone else's mental health (in this scenario). The termination of a life has an easily quantifiable damage even if the terminated is oblivious.
I can't agree with that at all in bold tbh.
Of course the termination of a life has an easily quantifiable physiolgical damage to the unborn. They die. But I've already made the point that they should be given due respect, dignity and consideration in death, in order to minimise any potential trauma the woman experiences in requesting an abortion and going through with the procedure.Paramite Pie wrote: »The 'mother' who is upset that her developed foetus was born should realise that the foetus is an individual independently capable of survival therefore not merely 'hers' but also a separate patient that medical staff are responsible for.
I think given the circumstances of a late term abortion, they are more than acutely aware of that fact already, but if what they are requesting is an abortion, then forcing them to give birth to a baby who will then be taken into State care and put up for adoption isn't just a compromise, I would consider it under the heading of cruel and unusual punishment. It's not a lesson I would want any woman to have to be subjected to that she should be forced to realise that her body is not her own, that the right to life of the unborn takes precedence over her human rights.Paramite Pie wrote: »Medical Staff turn off life support for adults all the time when they can't be saved but must help those who can be saved. Abortion should be no different.
Abortion is different, because the unborn is not the same as a person who is born. Medical staff should be under no obligation to save the life of the unborn if a woman requests an abortion that would result in the termination of the life of the unborn. The fact that the unborn foetus is still inside her at the time makes all the difference, and she should not be reduced to being considered merely a life support vessel for an unborn life which has no human rights.Paramite Pie wrote: »My response to that is that we could also tackle the stigma of not choosing to keep your newborn -- but yes women should not feel guilty about abortion (within medically defined limits). But some humans feel guilty for swatting a fly even when society places no value on the fly.
But yes, early intervention is key and delayed action can only compound the guilt.
And if not within medically defined limits, are you suggesting that they should be made to feel guilty? That's got stigma and shame written all over it IMO. At least we're agreed on early intervention, and hopefully these extreme and incredibly rare scenarios remain that way.Paramite Pie wrote: »We all must draw a line and harden our hearts sooner or later -- whether for the woman or the foetus. The decision is no longer solely about the woman when the foetus can be extracted. Additionally someone out there may want that child.
(and don't worry, we all know that no-one really wants abortion but we acknowledge it's required existence)
I used think along those lines too, when I was 13 and we were having a discussion on abortion in religion class. I was of the firm belief that abortion was unnecessary and that the unwanted child could be given up for adoption (I used the analogy of a teddy bear missing an eye, that shouldn't mean that the teddy bear should be thrown out when someone else might want it!).
I had no idea then that I was completely missing the whole point of why a woman would want an abortion, and after having been exposed to reality, I realised that a woman shouldn't be forced to have to continue her pregnancy and give birth because someone else wants a child! She shouldn't be held under any obligation to someone else because they want a child and she doesn't. It's her body, not theirs!Paramite Pie wrote: »See above re: adoption. Is it a satisfactory answer? No, it's not. I honestly do sympathise with any woman in this position -- we don't know the multitude of reason why she may opt for an abortion at full-term but if you ask me -- in that case the psychological damage is likely done if she carried it thus far out of guilt or other trauma (perhaps denial etc..).
Perhaps the psychological damage is done, but we don't have to compound it by forcing her to give birth against her will and have her live with the consequences of decisions that were made for her, in the interests of someone else (namely ourselves, because we comforted ourselves with the knowledge that what we were doing was in the best interests of the unborn child). That really, really makes me incredibly uncomfortable, and I'm not sure I could even live with it myself having that on my conscience. It seems incredibly cruel, immoral, and unethical, to me at least.Paramite Pie wrote: »I addressed this above regarding the medical team being responsible for two -- not just one. Pregnancy is also somewhat of an involuntary process much like our heartbeat or digestion -- our bodies do it without our input. She really doesn't have full control and requires external medical attention to assert that control.
The medical team should only be responsible for, and have a duty of care towards the person requesting an abortion. I'm reminded of those fake abortion clinics in the US where they try and prevent women from having an abortion.
Pregnancy is absolutely not an involuntary process? In order to maintain a pregnancy, there are a number of factors involved in maintaining a woman's health during pregnancy that she must undertake in order to continue her pregnancy, and she absolutely has full control over how her pregnancy proceeds. She can assert her control by doing something as simple as abstaining from food and water, but the State has a rather nasty habit of intervening on behalf of the unborn to force nutrition into her in order to maintain her pregnancy and then deliver it by C-section -A YOUNG woman, who was refused an abortion under the country’s new laws, had the baby delivered by Caesarean section after going on hunger strike.
The woman was in the second trimester of the pregnancy when she discovered she was pregnant and requested the abortion, which was refused.
In what is believed to be one of the first cases under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013, the woman sought an abortion as she claimed to be suicidal.
Her case was assessed by a panel of three experts, as set out under the legislation passed last summer.
The psychiatrists on the panel determined her life was at risk as she had suicidal thoughts. But the consultant obstetrician said the baby could be delivered as it was far enough into the pregnancy.
The panel decided the baby should be delivered. The child was born at 25 weeks and is understood to be doing well.
Source: Baby delivered as woman refused abortion under lawParamite Pie wrote: »Yes, I have. It wasn't clear from my other posts I admit. Speaking of certainty -- we can't say whether euthanising and still birthing a developed foetus would cause less distress than live birthing it -- but I'd confidently wager it's the other way around. At a late stage, an abortion is not only cruel to an oblivious and largely developed foetus, it's probably more likely to trigger guilt.
You admit yourself though that you really can't say that with any degree of certainty, but I can say with certainty that it's not something I'd be willing to make a bet on, because I would consider the will of the woman in question to be a far more relevant factor in how she would feel in that scenario if we were to force her into a situation which was against her will.Paramite Pie wrote: »I can't believe that as a pro-choicer that I'm about to use the 'M-word' in an abortion debate -- but if a late-term foetus can survive outside the womb then aborting it is murder.
It isn't though, it's an abortion, which is not murder.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement