Abortion under the spotlight in the European Court of Human Rights

Lumen

Unwanted babies should not be terminated but instead form the basis of our future cyborg army in the War Against The Machines.

common sense brigade

get thrown out for adoption?

Sorry but being adopted is not being thrown out. My mother was unable to cope and her brothers adopted me and took care of me. Had abortion been the norm here I wouldnt have a life.

A foetus isn't a child, a foetus is a foetus IMO

This is a cop out. A foetus is an unborn baby with all the feeling and potential in the world...

orourkeda

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good to see a bit of good old fashioned sexism.

Mistakes of the mother ffs, unless I am out of touch, it does in fact take two people to make a baby.

They hardly grew there did they?

Sometimes blokes hit the road at the first wind of pregnancy. These things happen. Unfortunately sometimes the woman is left holding the baby quite literally. Surely a reason for women to take further responsibility

Dravokivich

bluewolf wrote: »

In my ideal world, sex education including contraceptives would be much more comprehensive in schools so that this whole issue shouldn't have to come up, or at least as little as possible.
Only way to get anywhere in this whole debate.

I don't get that arguement, kids are told sex causes pregnancy and have been for a long time in schools. It's not that hard to understand.

Anything about contraceptives and safe sex I feel should be the responsiblity of parents as it could lead to comprimising discussion, I would prefer a teacher didn't lead into.

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

In my ideal world, sex education including contraceptives would be much more comprehensive in schools so that this whole issue shouldn't have to come up, or at least as little as possible.
Only way to get anywhere in this whole debate.

I agree to certain extent. I think the teaching of biology should also be taught linked in to sex ed.

Nodin

orourkeda wrote: »

Simply put a woman who cant cope with pregnancy shouldnt get pregnant..

And if they had the sense to know that, they probably could cope with pregnancy......

orourkeda wrote: »

You're a person throwing around hypothetical situations to suit your argument as well..

I'm pointing out the holes in the plot. The fact that you seem fixated on stereotypes that I thought vanished with the 80's is rather a large one.

orourkeda wrote: »

It's called an easy way out because they cant handle the results of their irresponsible behaviour and try and remove the consequences of their actions.

...which of course they all do with a laugh, a giggle and a skip into the clinic, hussys that they are.

orourkeda

curlzy wrote: »

A foetus isn't a child, a foetus is a foetus IMO.

What difference does that make? Its alive.

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

So these women just accidentally, and completely beyond their control, fell pregnant 4, 5, 6, 7....8.... times?

People who have 8 abortions are in the minority - very much so. It is highly unlikely that any woman would relish the thought of going through a very serious medical procedure because she simpy can't be bothered to have the child. Abortion is not a decision that any right-minded human takes lightly. Granted, there are plenty of folk out there who are not right-minded and may, due to lack of education, cop on or misinformation, use it as a form of contraception but again, this would be very much the minority of people.

prinz

Dravokivich wrote: »

Anything about contraceptives and safe sex I feel should be the responsiblity of parents as it could lead to comprimising discussion, I would prefer a teacher didn't lead into.

That would be great if parents were accepting that responsibility. A lot don't, and where the parents fail the State has to step in IMO.

common sense brigade

Where do we draw the line do we allow abortions at 20 weeks
have you actually seen a scan of the development of a baby at 4 months (Yes its a baby not a fetus)
At the end of 4 months:Fetus is 6-1/2 to 7 inches long

• Weighs about 6 to 7 ounces
• Fetus is developing reflexes such as sucking and swallowing. Fetus may begin sucking his/her thumb
  Tooth buds are developing
• Sweat glands are forming on palms and soles
• Fingers are well defined
• Sex is identifiable
• Skin is bright pink, transparent and covered with soft, downy hair
  
• Although recognizably human in appearnace, the baby would not be able to survive outside the mother's bod

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

So these women just accidentally, and completely beyond their control, fell pregnant 4, 5, 6, 7....8.... times?

I've no idea. Going on the article, I'd say neither have you. Seeing as they constitute a small minority, its hardly something the use against others as a general argument.

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

Granted, there are plenty of folk out there who are not right-minded and may, due to lack of education, cop on or misinformation, use it as a form of contraception but again, this would be very much the minority of people.

As linked to earlier, a third of women obtaining an abortion in the UK recently were on their second or more procedure. A minority yes, but a very troubling one.

Mrmoe

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good to see a bit of good old fashioned sexism.

Mistakes of the mother ffs, unless I am out of touch, it does in fact take two people to make a baby.

It's not sexism, it is pure biology. You are definitely right in that it takes two to tango. However, the consequences of a pregnancy are much more severe for a woman than for the fella that got her pregnant. It is unfair but that is the injustice of biology and nothing can be done to at this point in time to rebalance this.

curlzy

common sense brigade wrote: »

Sorry but being adopted is not being thrown out. My mother was unable to cope and her brothers adopted me and took care of me. Had abortion been the norm here I wouldnt have a life. This is a cop out. A foetus is an unborn baby with all the feeling and potential in the world...

Sorry but you're coming from a very emotional "could have been me" standpoint. Why do you think a foetus can feel pain? It's nervous system doesn't start developing until the 4 month, you need a nervous system to feel pain. It does have the potential to be a person, I agree with that but personally that doesn't equate to the state having a say in a woman's right to choice.

bronte

common sense brigade wrote: »

Sorry but being adopted is not being thrown out. My mother was unable to cope and her brothers adopted me and took care of me. Had abortion been the norm here I wouldnt have a life.

I was adopted at birth 4 years after you and I believe my birth mother should have had a choice. It works both ways.

seamus

This is a symptom of our, "Policies to get me re-elected" political system.

Those who support the right to abortion don't care about the issue as much as those who oppose it.

So the politicians only need to keep the latter camp happy to keep the votes. As as has been stated, legislation is required in this area and the ECHR will likely come to the same conclusion, but governments will continue to bluster and volley the problem around because they're terrified of upsetting some voters.

The FG/Lab Government should hold a new abortion referendum in 2012, with more solid choices as to the referendum and interpretations of the law:

1. State a clause that the right-to-life of the mother takes precedence over the right-to-life of the unborn (solidly legalising abortion in select circumstances), or
2. Update the existing clause to criminalise abortion in all circumstances (what they attempted in 1992 & 2002), or
3. Do not change the constitution

Given the polarisation on this topic, I imagine that very few people would vote to leave the constitution as-is and the vast majority of votes would fall in favour of options 1 or 2. At least this allows the politicians to legislate without incurring the wrath of their voters.

orourkeda

Nodin wrote: »

And if they had the sense to know that, they probably could cope with pregnancy......



I'm pointing out the holes in the plot. The fact that you seem fixated on stereotypes that I thought vanished with the 80's is rather a large one.


...which of course they all do with a laugh, a giggle and a skip into the clinic, hussys that they are.

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

Your arguments are

a) Women who get pregnant who have some form of psychological problems but dont have the good sense to know that their psychological problems will stress them when they get pregnant.

b) Belittling or sniping at people who suggest that sometimes people get pregnant through their own recklessness.

common sense brigade

Sorry but you're coming from a very emotional "could have been me" standpoint. Why do you think a foetus can feel pain? It's nervous system doesn't start developing until the 4 month, you need a nervous system to feel pain. It does have the potential to be a person, I agree with that but personally that doesn't equate to the state having a say in a woman's right to choice.[

Your Wrong....
Weeks 10 and 11:[/B][/COLOR] The baby can "breathe" amniotic fluid and urinate. Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.[/FONT]

Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.

Morlar

http://www.europeanmovement.ie/index.php?id=8926

“Lisbon will bring in abortion…”
The Claim

Our position on this is not secure as abortion could be established as a fundamental right and override our Protocol.
. . .
The Short Answer

Abortion is not introduced in the Lisbon Treaty.
The Long Answer
. . .
As abortion is a highly sensitive matter for this country that came to light again in the June 2008 vote on the Lisbon Treaty, Ireland asked and got a further guarantee from our EU partners in June 2009 that re-states that the Lisbon Treaty will not introduce abortion in Ireland, and that it continues to be a matter for the Irish people to decide themselves.

The European Courts do not have the authority to establish abortion as fundamental right, as they quite simply do not possess the power to do so. Though the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU courts (ECJ) the power to make decisions on the basis of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, this will not extend into changing national policy on the right to life. This area remains under complete control of the Irish government and not the ECJ.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1216/breaking11.html

The European Court of Human Rights will today rule on whether Ireland’s restrictions on abortion violate women’s human rights.

The ruling, which could have significant implications for Irish abortion law, is based on a case taken by three women in Ireland who say their health was put at risk by being forced to go abroad for abortions. The court will issue its ruling at a public sitting of the court’s grand chamber this morning, rather than a more common written judgment.

Really not liking the idea of the eu dictating Irish law.

scientific1982

Should only be allowed under extreme circumstances. Its a barbaric practice that I'd future generations will look at with contempt.

Mrmoe

bronte wrote: »

I was adopted at birth 4 years after you and I believe my birth mother should have had a choice. It works both ways.

But she did have a choice, there is the choice between giving up for adoption and raising the child.

orourkeda

Nodin wrote: »

"mistakes of its Parents" . It - or so I'm informed - takes two to conceive a child. One of them, astounding as you may find it, is required to be male. I realise this interrupts the narrative of the 'wanton hussy' who must be reigned in, but I didn't invent the process.

I know how it works. I get the message. There's also this new thing called contraception that one or both parties may use to reduce the likelihood of unwanted pregnancy. You knew that didnt you seeing as youre the one dispensing biology lessons to the unintiated.

I didnt invent wanton hussy either but if you want to pretend it doesnt exist then suit yourself.

smk89

MrStuffins wrote: »

GARCON!!!!!

MORE POPCORN OVER HERE!!!!

Screw popcorn, I'll have the rack of lamb.
This thread looks like it means to go on!

curlzy

common sense brigade wrote: »

Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.

Ah, sorry then I thought it was 16 weeks. If it's the case that the foetus can feel pain then I would hope that the anesthetic would work on the foetus as well as the mother, I'd imagine it would. Also I would be of the mindset that the cut off point would be early enough in the pregnancy, say 12 weeks or so.

prinz

Morlar wrote: »

Really not liking the idea of the eu dictating Irish law.

The European Court of Human Rights isn't an EU institution, it gets it's power from the Council of Europe and has many more member states than the EU does.

seamus

Morlar wrote: »

Really not liking the idea of the eu dictating Irish law.

They've been doing so since the 1970's.

This has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty or sovereignty. You'll notice that the court challenge has been going on since well before Lisbon.

We are a signatory to the EConventionHR, which means that we agree to be bound by the points contained therein.

Where Irish law or the constitution is found to be in breach of the above convention (by restricting human rights), other states can impose fines and sanctions on Ireland.

We then have three options:
1. Pay the fines and deal with the sanctions on an ongoing basis
2. Change our law so that we're no longer in breach of the ECHR
3. Withdraw our signature from the ECHR

Option 1 is not sustainable. Option 3 has other effects, and would probably implicitly mean that we have withdrawn from the council of europe and possibly the EU.
So option 2 is the best option.

But we can't be forced to change anything. This has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty, and very little to do with the EU.

sensibleken

Morlar wrote: »

http://www.europeanmovement.ie/index.php?id=8926


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1216/breaking11.html


Really not liking the idea of the eu dictating Irish law.

The EU have been dictating Irish Law since we joined, its nothing new. In fact they have dictated such horrible laws such as equal pay for men and women, legalisation of homosexuality etc.

Those articles show two different things.

The first shows more stupid claims by coir about abortion being brought in. Which is false

The second is a ruling that Ireland has not enacted legislation that was decided by the Irish supreme court that abortion is allowable if the mothers life is in danger. It is telling the government that it has a duty to legislate in the area, not dictate the actual law itself

bronte

Mrmoe wrote: »

But she did have a choice, there is the choice between giving up for adoption and raising the child.

Oh! Wow! Well when you say it like that!

omahaid

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1216/abortion.html

rte wrote:

As the rulings of the court are binding, it is now likely the Government will have to impliment a woman's right to an abortion if her life is at risk.

Sisko

scientific1982 wrote: »

Should only be allowed under extreme circumstances. Its a barbaric practice that I'd future generations will look at with contempt.

future generations will look at anti choice people the same way they'll look at fundamentalist religious people, anti gay rights people, anti womens rights people so on and so forth.

aDeener

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good to see a bit of good old fashioned sexism.

Mistakes of the mother ffs, unless I am out of touch, it does in fact take two people to make a baby.

indeed it does, pity this isn't taken into account when a father wants custody of his child in cases of divorce....

sexism eh

Sulmac

Bit of an anticlimax result to be honest - the Supreme Court here has already ruled that abortion when the woman's life is at risk (including suicide) is allowed within the confines of the Constitution (the "X" case). The only problem is that it's never been legislated for.

They pretty much dodged the bigger issue here, although arguably brought in a clause saying abortion must be allowed when the woman's health (as opposed to life) is at risk.

Still, hopefully this will spur on the government (or next government) to bring in laws to that effect (at the very least).

smk89

sensibleken wrote: »

The EU have been dictating Irish Law since we joined, its nothing new. In fact they have dictated such horrible laws such as equal pay for men and women, legalisation of homosexuality etc.

Those articles show two different things.

The first shows more stupid claims by coir about abortion being brought in. Which is false

The second is a ruling that Ireland has not enacted legislation that was decided by the Irish supreme court that abortion is allowable if the mothers life is in danger. It is telling the government that it has a duty to legislate in the area, not dictate the actual law itself

AAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! Not equal pay!

The one thing I have most about abortion is how the pro-life literature tends to tug at the heart strings. Back in school in religion class, I remember how my teacher was nearly crying at how an abortion is preformed and the video the silent scream is one example of the almost emotional blackmail that occurs.

Now I study medicine and even thought the details are quite sickening it seems that abortion is more of a democratic issue i.e. should people be able to decide what everyone is able to do based upon their moral choices.

Sulmac

smk89 wrote: »

The one thing I have most about abortion is how the pro-life literature tends to tug at the heart strings. Back in school in religion class, I remember how my teacher was nearly crying at how an abortion is preformed and the video the silent scream is one example of the almost emotional blackmail that occurs.

Saw that in school myself; an awful video which if anything made me less sympathetic to the pro-life cause because of the tactics they use.

Mrmoe

bronte wrote: »

Oh! Wow! Well when you say it like that!

Cool. I'm glad we both see eye to eye.:)

prinz

Sulmac wrote: »

Saw that in school myself; an awful video which if anything made me less sympathetic to the pro-life cause because of the tactics they use.

Prefer if you didn't have to see it huh?

Sulmac

prinz wrote: »

Prefer if you didn't have to see it huh?

I didn't really care at the time, but in retrospect there's something just wrong about showing a video of an abortion to a bunch of 13 and 14 year olds.

common sense brigade

If it's the case that the foetus can feel pain then I would hope that the anesthetic would work on the foetus

How very humane. Once we are all assured the baby is doped up and feels nothing in its immenent death. Then we can all comfortably get along with reading the sunday papers and smoking our pipes and brush the reality under the carpet. Sure everyone else is doing it in other countries, why shouldnt we just be the same.

silverspoon

I don't think a long debate on where life begins and an argument between the pro-life/pro-choice sides of the argument is going to change anyone's mind here. We all know where we stand on this argument, and we all know exactly where it goes in the end anyway.

I've been aware about the A, B, and C case for a while now and thought 'Oh fcuk, not another abortion debate to distract us all for a while.'

The fact is that Ireland does recognise abortion in circumstances of rape and threat to the life of the mother, but has not set up any means by which an abortion can be procured without the mother needing to travel to the U.K. As far as I'm aware the argument of the three women is that the caveat re: the life of the mother, should be extended to the health of the mother.

I don't know how successful they will be. There are alot of issues at play; one of course being that this issue strikes at the heart of our sovereignty, and hugely divisive.

These women are arguing for an extension of the cases in which an abortion may be granted. I hope that this issue would be left for us as a nation to decide; yes the EU has jurisdiction with regards to this, but I think it would be a disaster for the image of the EU (imagine the reception in the US) if it compelled us to extend the cases in which an abortion can be granted.

But there are huge flaws with the system in place. We have limited circumstances but no regulation of it. We do not have a gestational limit on when the abortion could legally take place. 'Threat to the life of the mother' - again not covered by legislation as to the limits. Any law we have regarding abortion is case law. Case law is much more malleable (in theory) than legislation. There is much more uncertainty.

I think it would be favourable, no matter what side you are on, for the vagueness of Irish law with respect to this to be galvanised in legislation. The position currently held by the constitution has not been set down legislatively, because there is no political will to do so. If it is legal in certain cases for women to have an abortion, then the legislative vacuum should be addressed, as should the fact that there are no means to procure an abortion here, even if the circumstances are legal. Here is a potential violation of human rights, and here is where I could see the EU having a voice that they may very well exercise.

(Eh...just quick edit to acknowledge I have the wrong institution, was labouring under idea that I was talking about the ECJ - bit embarrassing)

Sulmac

silverspoon wrote: »

The fact is that Ireland does recognise abortion in circumstances of rape and threat to the life of the mother, but has not set up any means by which an abortion can be procured without the mother needing to travel to the U.K.

I agree. Basically, the three abortion referenda in 1992 (well, the two that passed - the right to "information" and the right to travel) effectively 'legalised' abortion - but only abortions not performed in Ireland. It's slightly hypocritical if you think about it, we're just exporting the problem instead of dealing with it at home.

smk89

prinz wrote: »

Prefer if you didn't have to see it huh?

I can just see you eyes rolling back, your head pointed skyward as you see god's hand make a thumbs up for you as you said that.

That post was more smug that George Clooney's Oscar acceptance speech

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1216/breaking11.html (It went against Ireland)

bronte

Mrmoe wrote: »

Cool. I'm glad we both see eye to eye.:)

http://soshable.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Everything_went_better_than_expected.png

CathyMoran

It was stupid that the ectopic was not treated in Ireland and as to the woman having chemo...I was potentially in a similar position a few years ago, I had just been diagnosed with oesophageal cancer and needed a ct but as there was a small chance that I was pregnant they would not do the test until they knew that I was not pregnant - not having treatment would result in certain death for me (within weeks). Luckily I was not pregnant at that time but it made a stressful situation even more stressful.

curlzy

prinz wrote: »

Prefer if you didn't have to see it huh?

Definately, much in same way I don't want to see a video of someone's tooth being pulled or toenail removed. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen though.

snickerpuss

prinz wrote: »

Prefer if you didn't have to see it huh?

I wouldn't like to watch footage of brain surgery. Doesn't mean I'm against it!

prinz

Sulmac wrote: »

It's slightly hypocritical if you think about it, we're just exporting the problem instead of dealing with it at home.

There are plenty of things you can do legally abroad that are illegal here. That doesn't mean it's hypocritical.

smk89 wrote: »

I can just see you eyes rolling back, your head pointed skyward as you see god's hand make a thumbs up for you as you said that. That post was more smug that George Clooney's Oscar acceptance speech

Are you hiding in the photocopier? :eek:

smk89

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Ireland has failed to properly implement the constitutional right to abortion where a woman is entitled to one where her life is at risk.

The ruling will put issue of abortion back on the political agenda and is likely to force the Government to introduce legislation or official guidelines on access to abortion for women whose lives are at risk.

The court unanimously ruled this morning that the rights of one of three women who took a case challenging Irish abortion laws were breached because she had no “effective or accessible procedure” to establish her right to a lawful abortion.

The woman – known only as “C” – had a rare form of cancer and feared it would relapse when she became unintentionally pregnant.

However, the woman was unable to find a doctor willing to make a determination as to whether her life would be at risk if she continued to term.

This morning the court concluded that neither the “medical consultation nor litigation options” relied on by the Government constituted an effective or accessible procedures.

“Moreover, there was no explanation why the existing constitution right had no been implemented to date,” the court ruled.

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

The court ruled that there had been no violation of the rights of the two other women involved in the case - "A" and "B".

The Strasbourg-based court, which is separate from the EU, adjudicates on human rights issues among all 47 member states of the Council of Europe

The identities of the women, who took the case, remain confidential.

Two of them are Irish and one is a Lithuanian national who was residing in Ireland. All of them travelled to the UK to have an abortion after becoming pregnant unintentionally.

They include a woman who ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb; a woman who received chemotherapy for cancer and was unable to get clear advice on the dangers posed by an unplanned pregnancy; and a former alcoholic and drug abuser who feared her unplanned pregnancy would jeopardise her attempts to be reunited with her other children in the care system.

The women - supported by the Irish Family Planning Association - argued before the court last December that they were subject to indignity, stigma and ill-health as a result of being forced to travel abroad for their abortions.

The Government robustly defended the laws and said Ireland's abortion laws were based on “profound moral values deeply embedded in Irish society”.

It argued that European Court on Human Rights has consistently recognised the traditions of different countries regarding the rights of unborn children. However, it maintained that the women’s challenge
sought to undermine these principles and align Ireland with countries with more liberal abortion laws.

The case was lodged before the court in 2005 and was heard last year at an oral hearing before the European Court of Human Rights's grand chamber.

This 17-judge court is reserved to hear cases that raise serious questions affecting the interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights.

As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights – now incorporated into Irish law – the Government is obliged to remedy any breaches of the convention.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1216/breaking11.html

TL;DR: Ireland loses the case based mainly on C's case of a lack of a private life

prinz

curlzy wrote: »

Definately, much in same way I don't want to see a video of someone's tooth being pulled or toenail removed. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen though.

snickerpuss wrote: »

I wouldn't like to watch footage of brain surgery. Doesn't mean I'm against it!

Completely different scenarios.

silverspoon

Sulmac wrote: »

I agree. Basically, the three abortion referenda in 1992 (well, the two that passed - the right to "information" and the right to travel) effectively 'legalised' abortion - but only abortions not performed in Ireland. It's slightly hypocritical if you think about it, we're just exporting the problem instead of dealing with it at home.

Exactly - I was trying to think of a way to say that in my post but you put it very eloquently - it is just exportation of the problem. Which is just another example of being afraid to upset the cart with regards to voters.

It is ridiculous to recognise a right to abortion in certain circumstances, yet have no means by which these rights may be realised in Ireland. As long as it's not in our back yard eh?

prinz

smk89 wrote: »

TL;DR: Ireland loses the case based mainly on C's case of a lack of a private life

A welcome ruling in my book.