Abortion under the spotlight in the European Court of Human Rights

Up de Barrs

AS a guy I am pro choice, I support a general right to abortion as exists in the UK or Scandanavian countries rather than women having to prove that their circumstances fall within a particular set of rules.

This decisions doesn't actually change the legal position all that much but it does change it politically. Had the court ruled in favour of A (who had dire financial circumstances and whose children had been taken in to care ) it would have significantly advanced the right to abortion in Ireland. The court also dismissed B's case who was suffering an ectopic pregnancy. I would have actually expected this case to succeed. In the case of C the judgment simply re-affirms the ruling of the X case and entitles the woman to compensation as the State did not allow her vindicate her right to a termination in Ireland which was necessary to save her life.

The immediate need is for the State to legislate for abortion based on the narrow grounds allowed for in the X case. Howver sooner or later we are going to need to decide on what additional grounds abortion should be available. Ideally a referendum would be held to delete the 8th amendment which created this mess in the first place. The Oireachtas would then be free to legislate for abortion in line with the wishes of the people as expressed in an election ie the parties would in their manifestos set out how they would legislate in this area and then the Dail would subdequently pass the required legislation.

We should also be considering what we can do to reduce the need for abortion including better sex education, reducing the cost of contraception / make it available free to those who need it and providing the morning after pill over the counter. Today is a significant step towards finally dealing with all aspects of this issue in a mature manner.

sensibleken

smk89 wrote: »

The being ugly method?

Nah, armpit sex

Nodin

orourkeda wrote: »

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) ..............

I hadn't actually made any, I'm merely pointing out the old 'control the wanton hussy' theme and other such nonsense as it arises.

I'm pro-choice with a full stop after it. I don't think that the 'womans right to choose' really needs any other argument than itself.

ze ruling wrote:

“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.”

...like I said earlier, a totally unnessecary case, defended for five poxy years at christ knows how much cost.

rainbow kirby

It's absolutely ridiculous, and unfortunately nothing unusual for this country, for people to have to go to Europe to fight for something which was already voted for by the people. :mad:

towers

As a British expat of 7 years in Ireland I've watched with revulsion as people's wives, daughters, girlfriends, sisters etc are subjected to the added uncalled for burden of traveling to the UK or Holland for an abortion.

I've borne witness to how the enforced temporary banishment of your women affected by an unwanted/ill advised/accidental pregnancy exponentially increased the harrowing nature of a truly life shattering decision.

Any country apathetic to such wanton misogyny is in the dark ages.

I just wonder if the NIMBYism concerning abortion demonstrated in past referendums would still hold sway today? If so it's a ****ing travesty.

Handsome Bob

curlzy wrote: »

Sorry but you're coming from a very emotional "could have been me" standpoint.

Ah I love this, in other words, she made a fair point and you dismiss it by telling her she's too emotional. There is no "right" way to have this argument, she's perfectly entitled to take part in this discussion in the manner that she is.

Fox McCloud

I think in a lot of cases whether your pro or anti choice comes down to two things; when you believe life begins(and your human rights kick in).

The other I think is a deep seated desire to exist and the total fear of having never existed.. I am pro choice and I respect my mothers right to not have had me. It was her body, and should have been her choice. I'm certainly glad now I'm here now but I can get my head around the fact that I might not have been born.

Total generalisation here but I think a lot of pro-life campaigners have this is the back of their minds. The other thing I dont get about pro-life groups, if its all about the childs survival and not about punishing the nasty loose women why do they never offer services and financial support for those who arent in any possition to raise a child without total state support. I think actions speak louder than words on this one.

hotmail.com

Abortion is legal in this country - you just need to get a plane in order to get one and many thousands of Irish women do. Think of the economic loss to the country with all those women going abroad.

How can someone be in favour of abortion in some cases and not in others. It doesn't make sense - if you find it acceptable in some cases, then surely you must see as acceptable in all cases.

prinz

silverspoon wrote: »

Wow I'd love to have the 100% failsafe contraception you use.

You could always, you know, not have sex. Then again that concept is complete beyond the comprehension of most posters here I would imagine.

Secondly to that you could always educate yourself as to the biological process of the menstrual cycle and ovulation etc and desist from sex for the period when it is possible to become pregnant. Thirdly add in multiple forms of contraception if needs be.

towers wrote: »

Any country apathetic to such wanton misogyny is in the dark ages..

Does the father get a real say in whether an abortion occurs or not?

prinz

hotmail.com wrote: »

... if you find it acceptable in some cases, then surely you must see as acceptable in all cases.

That's bizarre reasoning, even for this debate.

The Waltzing Consumer

An embarrassing issue. I will be very happy when Ireland eventually brings in abortion legislation and we cease to be a laughing stock. You think we would be past this nonsense. I thought America was bad when issues like school prayer and evolution is debated, but this is cringe-worthy.

Come on Ireland, get out of the dark ages.

hotmail.com

prinz wrote: »

That's bizarre reasoning, even for this debate.

What's bizarre about it?

Some people find it acceptable for a woman to have an abortion if she's suicidal or if there is a threat to her life. I'm suggesting that if they see that as acceptable, why can't they see all potential abortions as acceptable. Abortion is abortion after all, no matter what the circumstances of the woman are.

prinz

hotmail.com wrote: »

What's bizarre about it?
Some people find it acceptable for a woman to have an abortion if she's suicidal or if there is a threat to her life. I'm suggesting that if they see that as acceptable, why can't they see all potential abortions as acceptable. Abortion is abortion after all, no matter what the circumstances of the woman are.

You cannot compare giving potentially life-saving medical treatment to a pregnant woman which could/will result in her losing that pregnancy.. and someone who is perfectly healthy and got pregnant "accidentally".

You may as well compare killing someone in self defence and murder.. in both cases someone ends up dead...so what's the difference and the circumstances are irrelevant.

seamus

hotmail.com wrote: »

Some people find it acceptable for a woman to have an abortion if she's suicidal or if there is a threat to her life. I'm suggesting that if they see that as acceptable, why can't they see all potential abortions as acceptable. Abortion is abortion after all, no matter what the circumstances of the woman are.

I don't think you're making an equal comparison here.

Imagine a woman and her son are kidnapped and she has two choices - let the son die, or refuse and they both die.
Because it's "OK" to choose the former option and the mother survives, that doesn't mean it's OK in all cases to kill the child for any reason.

The right of the mother to survive above the child and the right of the mother to terminate the child are almost universally recognised as two very different scenarios.

smokedeels

I knew something was up, got home last night and my mother attacked me with a vacuum cleaner. I'll explain to her that this ruling can’t be applied retrospectively.

hotmail.com

prinz wrote: »

You cannot compare giving potentially life-saving medical treatment to a pregnant woman which could/will result in her losing that pregnancy.. and someone who is perfectly healthy and got pregnant "accidentally"QUOTE]

Yes you can compare the two, because the outcome is the same - the fetus is aborted.

So I take it you're in favour of abortion in some cases and not in others. Just typical of Irish hyprocisy.

prinz

smokedeels wrote: »

I knew something was up, got home last night and my mother attacked me with a vacuum cleaner. I'll explain to her that this ruling can’t be applied retrospectively.

That's a good one.

prinz

hotmail.com wrote: »

Yes you can compare the two, because the outcome is the same - the fetus is aborted.
So I take it you're in favour of abortion in some cases and not in others. Just typical of Irish hyprocisy.

I don't have a problem with killing someone in self defence, does that mean I must be ok with murder?

hotmail.com

seamus wrote: »

I don't think you're making an equal comparison here.

Imagine a woman and her son are kidnapped and she has two choices - let the son die, or refuse and they both die.
Because it's "OK" to choose the former option and the mother survives, that doesn't mean it's OK in all cases to kill the child for any reason.

The right of the mother to survive above the child and the right of the mother to terminate the child are almost universally recognised as two very different scenarios.

Nope, abortion is abortion is abortion, no matter what fancy scenarios you come up with. Either you're in favour of it or against it.

hotmail.com

prinz wrote: »

I don't have a problem with killing someone in self defence, does that mean I must be ok with murder?

Self defence? We're talking about abortion.

prinz

hotmail.com wrote: »

Self defence? We're talking about abortion.

I sense you agree that your reasoning can't be taken seriously tbh.

CathyMoran

hotmail.com wrote: »

Nope, abortion is abortion is abortion, no matter what fancy scenarios you come up with. Either you're in favour of it or against it.

It is not that straight forward - the life of the mother is important - in some cases if the pregnancy is not stopped then the mother will die, the pregnancy would die if the mother dies. Having abortions on demand is a totally different thing.

towers

prinz wrote: »

You could always, you know, not have sex. Then again that concept is complete beyond the comprehension of most posters here I would imagine.

Secondly to that you could always educate yourself as to the biological process of the menstrual cycle and ovulation etc and desist from sex for the period when it is possible to become pregnant. Thirdly add in multiple forms of contraception if needs be.



Does the father get a real say in whether an abortion occurs or not?

That's a good question; however the premise of your question is that you're the father of a baby. You're not. You've fertilised an embryo. End of. You're not a father of anything yet.

My position as a realist (note: not father) towards a woman I've helped make pregnant is one of empathy; it's the only one I believe I'm entitled to, and it's this:

"I'll support you in any decision you make".

And I dare say that should be the position of the State as well.

sensibleken

hotmail.com wrote: »

Self defence? We're talking about abortion.

in the case of it being a threat to the mothers life its self defense. Or if the baby has a serated head

hotmail.com

prinz wrote: »

I sense you agree that your reasoning can't be taken seriously tbh.

I'll ask again...do you find it acceptable for women in some cases to get an abortion and not in others? Yes or no.

hotmail.com

CathyMoran wrote: »

It is not that straight forward - the life of the mother is important - in some cases if the pregnancy is not stopped then the mother will die, the pregnancy would die if the mother dies. Having abortions on demand is a totally different thing.

I completely disagree. Abortion is abortion because the fetus is still destroyed no matter what the condition of the mother is.

It's simple logic in my view.

prinz

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'll ask again...do you find it acceptable for women in some cases to get an abortion and not in others? Yes or no.

Yes.

CathyMoran

hotmail.com wrote: »

I completely disagree. Abortion is abortion because the fetus is still destroyed no matter what the condition of the mother is.

It's simple logic in my view.

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

prinz

hotmail.com wrote: »

It's simple logic in my view.

Do you realise you have people, IIRC, on both sides of the abortion debate seeing a flaw in your simple logic?

common sense brigade

Does the father get a real say in whether an abortion occurs or not?

I think the father should have a say in abortion decision. We are only talking about being pregnant 9 months. If a mother does not want the baby and the father does. I am talking about women who have incoveniently got pregnant and just are not ready for a baby. Of which I think that is a cop out. Put yourself out fopr nine mths and give the baby up for adoption or to the father should he wish. Why not have the baby and let the father raise it or childrenless couples. I was raised by two men and they were amazing parents. I have had a baby. The 9 months is hard but it is only 9 months. For the sake of a little person having a life.

hotmail.com

CathyMoran wrote: »

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

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

seamus

hotmail.com wrote: »

I completely disagree. Abortion is abortion because the fetus is still destroyed no matter what the condition of the mother is.

It's simple logic in my view.

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

silverspoon

prinz wrote: »

You could always, you know, not have sex. Then again that concept is complete beyond the comprehension of most posters here I would imagine.

Secondly to that you could always educate yourself as to the biological process of the menstrual cycle and ovulation etc and desist from sex for the period when it is possible to become pregnant. Thirdly add in multiple forms of contraception if needs be.

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

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

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

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

hotmail.com

prinz wrote: »

Do you realise you have people, IIRC, on both sides of the abortion debate seeing a flaw in your simple logic?

Logic - Abortion is abortion no matter what the circumstances of the woman are

Illogical/Hypocritical Irish viewpoint (possibly influenced by religion) - abortion is only acceptable if the woman is suicidal or her life is in danger. Then sure feck it, it's only a fetus. But no way can an adult woman that's mentally and medically sound have an abortion. How dare she.

It's laughable.

prinz

towers wrote: »

That's a good question; however the premise of your question is that you're the father of a baby. You're not. You've fertilised an embryo. End of. You're not a father of anything yet..

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

Pyr0

hotmail.com wrote: »

Logic - Abortion is abortion no matter what the circumstances of the woman are

Illogical/Hypocritical Irish viewpoint (possibly influenced by religion) - abortion is only acceptable if the woman is suicidal or her life is danger. Then sue feck it, it's only a fetus. But no way can an adult woman that's mentally and medically sound have an abortion. How dare she.

It's laughable.

So if the woman dies as a result of the pregnancy which was predetermined there was a strong chance of it happening, that's okay still?

hotmail.com

seamus wrote: »

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

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

prinz

silverspoon wrote: »

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

Simple reason. Where they experimented in the States with teaching abstinence...they made a balls of the whole thing by teaching abstinence and going home. There's a lot more to it than just saying 'don't have sex', it should ideally be taught alongside a proper in-depth sex ed course and treated as a viable alternative, rather than just being scoffed at as unrealistic.

hotmail.com wrote: »

Illogical/Hypocritical Irish viewpoint (possibly influenced by religion) - abortion is only acceptable if the woman is suicidal or her life is danger. Then sue feck it, it's only a fetus. But no way can an adult woman that's mentally and medically sound have an abortion. How dare she. It's laughable.

Influenced by religion is abortions for some but not all? Wtf?

seamus

hotmail.com wrote: »

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

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

hotmail.com

Pyr0 wrote: »

So if the woman dies as a result of the pregnancy which was predetermined there was a strong chance of it happening, that's okay still?

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

hotmail.com

seamus wrote: »

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

So you are in favour of abortion. Grand.

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

Resi12

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

Pyr0

hotmail.com wrote: »

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

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

seamus

hotmail.com wrote: »

So you are in favour of abortion. Grand.

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

So I see you're not engaging logic in this debate. Grand.

Abortions should be banned because aborted babies are eaten by Jesus.

hotmail.com

Resi12 wrote: »

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

Spot on.

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

curlzy

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Ah I love this, in other words, she made a fair point and you dismiss it by telling her she's too emotional. There is no "right" way to have this argument, she's perfectly entitled to take part in this discussion in the manner that she is.

I didn't dismiss her point, nor did I tell her she wasn't entitled to it. I just think that something that will have such a huge impact on another persons life should come from a calm and rational point of view. I was merely highlighting that she's coming from a biased "could have been me" point of view. Personally I don't think human beings should be able to impact each other's lives to this extent, that's why I'm pro-choice.

silverspoon

prinz wrote: »

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

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

hotmail.com

seamus wrote: »

So I see you're not engaging logic in this debate. Grand.

Abortions should be banned because aborted babies are eaten by Jesus.

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

prinz

Resi12 wrote: »

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

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

The Waltzing Consumer

hotmail.com wrote: »

So you are in favour of abortion. Grand.

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

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

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