ECHR rules on abortion

Rev Hellfire

Shenshen wrote: »

Good for you.
I shall start referring to it as "parasite", as I feel this closest describes its behaviour towards the body of its host.

Sod the body, they're a parasite on the wallet !

Zombrex

mohawk wrote: »

I heard this story on Matt Cooper yesterday. Its very relavent to this thread http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/cuh-ethics-forum-did-not-halt-abortion-trip-140088.html

It is disgusting that we sent a very ill woman to England for an abortion. When she was on the radio yesterday she said she has lung cancer.

The article highlights that there is very real need for something to be done.

The ethics commit in Cork are now back tracking, saying they just give advice to doctors they didn't tell them the procedure couldn't happen. The doctors disagree.

This is the sort of problems you get when there are no clear laws. People just pass the buck around and nothing happens.

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's assume the suicide ideation is genuine, the result of intense anguish produced by the prospect of (unplanned) motherhood. The State is faced with a dire situation and must respond in some way or other...

Why not adoption in those circumstances? And counselling with some extra financial support for the mother.
Result = happy mother +happy child +happy (formerly) childless couple

MrPudding wrote: »

I am pro-choice as I believe the option should be there, though I would prefer if there were no abortions.

The option of travelling vindicates this in the sense that no person returning to Ireland gets arrested, so it is not illegal to have an abortion, just illegal to provide abortions. That seems to be the consensus most Irish people are happy with. Its a question of how easy an option you want to make it.

Shenshen wrote: »

Good for you.
I shall start referring to it as "parasite", as I feel this closest describes its behaviour towards the body of its host.

Don't forget, you were one once.

Shenshen

recedite wrote: »

Don't forget, you were one once.

Yes, you know, we all were.
The difference between me and some others seems to be that the thought of someone forcing my mother to keep me inside her body against her expressed wish is quite sickening to me. I have to wonder how many pro-lifers view their mothers...

PDN

Shenshen wrote: »

Yes, you know, we all were.
The difference between me and some others seems to be that the thought of someone forcing my mother to keep me inside her body against her expressed wish is quite sickening to me. I have to wonder how many pro-lifers view their mothers...

....... and find the thought of their mother killing them
to be quite sickening.

Finished your post for you.

Shenshen

PDN wrote: »

....... and find the thought of their mother killing them
to be quite sickening.

Finished your post for you.

To be perfectly honest, I would have prefered it if my mother had had an abortion, but I wasn't asked on the subject.

The thought that some people regard their mothers as apparently little more than incubators who get no say whatsoever in who gets to use their body and who doesn't is rather upsetting.

Zombrex

I wouldn't have minded if my mother had had an abortion because I wouldn't have existed to mind.

It is like asking do you think the kid myself and my girlfriend didn't make last night minds not existing.

PDN

Shenshen wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, I would have prefered it if my mother had had an abortion, but I wasn't asked on the subject.

The thought that some people regard their mothers as apparently little more than incubators who get no say whatsoever in who gets to use their body and who doesn't is rather upsetting.

I've never heard of anyone who thinks their mothers are incubators who get no say in who gets to use their body. Who would approve of their mother being raped?

I know that my mother had a whole lot of say in who used her body - which is how she got pregnant with me. In those days abortion was illegal in the UK, but I would hope she wouldn't have wanted to kill me anyway.

recedite

The legal mess exists because two sets of people voted down sensible referendums in 1992 and again in 2002 which proposed wording changes to the constitution to allow an abortion in case of a life threatening risk to the mother, except in the case of threatened suicide.

A minority of extreme pro-lifers didn't like the former underlined bit, and a minority of extreme pro-choicers didn't like the latter underlined bit. Combined together they outvoted the sensible majority.

Afterwards the politicians in the Dail didn't know what laws the people would accept, so they made none.

Its worth noting that the European ruling was against the first two "lifestyle abortions", but in favour of number three, "C", where there was a real risk to the woman's life. This does not contradict any Irish law. It berates the authorities for not making clearer legislation, and for not being clear enough on defining "the risk to life".

From the ruling;

"The first two applicants principally complained under Article 8 about, inter Alia, the prohibition of abortion for health and well-being reasons in Ireland and the third applicant’s main complaint concerned the same Article and the alleged failure to implement the constitutional right to an abortion in Ireland in the case of a risk to the life of the woman."

fatmammycat

"Why not adoption in those circumstances? And counselling with some extra financial support for the mother.
Result = happy mother +happy child +happy (formerly) childless couple "

I hate reading this kind of mindless tripe. Women who do not wish to be pregnant ought not to be considered bloody incubators for the childless. Who is to say they would be 'happy' enduring an unwanted pregnancy, birth and then delivery of said child into the hand of utter strangers? Fine if SOME women are happy to do so, but the majority of women who opt for abortion don't want to be pregnant at all. Afixing a rosey scenario to it does not alter that.
There are plenty of children languishing in children homes unwanted and unadopted, which a 'happy childless couple' could adopt.

Shenshen

PDN wrote: »

I've never heard of anyone who thinks their mothers are incubators who get no say in who gets to use their body. Who would approve of their mother being raped?

I know that my mother had a whole lot of say in who used her body - which is how she got pregnant with me. In those days abortion was illegal in the UK, but I would hope she wouldn't have wanted to kill me anyway.

Of course you haven't heard about it, it's usually nicely dressed up in a halo and some pastels called "the joy of motherhood".

But what else would you call somebody who refuses women the right to determine who does and doesn't get to use their bodies? Or is it a case of "every woman with the exception of my mommy"?

virmilitaris

Does this mean that Ireland will be forced into the modern era on this issue or is it pretty much just a statement on behalf of the ECHR which is not legally binding to the Irish state ?

PDN

Shenshen wrote: »

Of course you haven't heard about it, it's usually nicely dressed up in a halo and some pastels called "the joy of motherhood".

But what else would you call somebody who refuses women the right to determine who does and doesn't get to use their bodies? Or is it a case of "every woman with the exception of my mommy"?

Well, I'm still waiting to hear who these women are who have no right to determine who does and doesn't use their body. Are you saying that in Ireland there are women who are kept as breeding slaves and get raped in order to produce babies?

If so, then that would obviously be horrific, but I doubt if changing the abortion laws would make much difference since their owners aren't going to let them free from their chains to go to the clinic anyway.

Shenshen

PDN wrote: »

Well, I'm still waiting to hear who these women are who have no right to determine who does and doesn't use their body. Are you saying that in Ireland there are women who are kept as breeding slaves and get raped in order to produce babies?

If so, then that would obviously be horrific, but I doubt if changing the abortion laws would make much difference since their owners aren't going to let them free from their chains to go to the clinic anyway.

As far as I know, Irish women get no say in wether the foetus is allowed to use their body for its life support or not... or was there something I missed recently?
Once they are pregnant, the law forces them to stay pregnant and give their body up as breeding machine, if they want to or not.

But I have to love the idea that to "produce" a baby, all that's required is sex.
Never mind that 9 months the foetus spends feeding of the woman's body, in many cases irreparably damaging her health, sure all that's needed is for some bloke to squirt of inside her, that's that baby sorted.

PDN

Shenshen wrote: »

As far as I know, Irish women get no say in wether the foetus is allowed to use their body for its life support or not... or was there something I missed recently?
Once they are pregnant, the law forces them to stay pregnant and give their body up as breeding machine, if they want to or not.

But I have to love the idea that to "produce" a baby, all that's required is sex.
Never mind that 9 months the foetus spends feeding of the woman's body, in many cases irreparably damaging her health, sure all that's needed is for some bloke to squirt of inside her, that's that baby sorted.

So your argument for abortion is that women, once they have engaged in sexual intercourse resulting in conception, don't have the right to choose the exact identity and characteristics of the child that is in their womb?

To be honest it sounds like you have a problem with biology and genetics - but using that to advocate a change in the abortion laws is one of the more, er 'remarkable', pieces of reasoning I have seen on these boards.

sensibleken

virmilitaris wrote: »

Does this mean that Ireland will be forced into the modern era on this issue or is it pretty much just a statement on behalf of the ECHR which is not legally binding to the Irish state ?

neither. Its an order to the government to create legislation to allow an abortion in ireland if the mothers life is at risk. which has been outstanding for 18 years

Shenshen

PDN wrote: »

So your argument for abortion is that women, once they have engaged in sexual intercourse resulting in conception, don't have the right to choose the exact identity and characteristics of the child that is in their womb?

To be honest it sounds like you have a problem with biology and genetics - but using that to advocate a change in the abortion laws is one of the more, er 'remarkable', pieces of reasoning I have seen on these boards.

Where did you get the idea about identity and characteristics?

I'm saying that a woman should have the right to decide who gets to use her body and its resources, and who doesn't.
Every man has that right to deny his body to safe anybody else's life, but women, hey, of course they ought to be forced to give theirs up to keep a feotus alive. Who cares if they want the foetus to be there or not, they don't get a say in that matter.

drkpower

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm saying that a woman should have the right to decide who gets to use her body and its resources, and who doesn't.

An absolute right?

So should they be entitled to have an abortion at 39 weeks?

fatmammycat

Do you honestly think a woman is going to carry on a pregnancy until the 39th week then abort? You must have a really odd view of women if you think that.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

Why not adoption in those circumstances? And counselling with some extra financial support for the mother.
Result = happy mother +happy child +happy (formerly) childless couple

As has already been pointed out, it is not just about the end result of the pregnancy, the child, but it is also about the pregnancy itself. I can't wait until medical technology has advance to a point when an unwanted foetus can be removed and developed artificially. Until that time, it is wrong to force a woman to be pregnant when she does not want to be.

recedite wrote: »

The option of travelling vindicates this in the sense that no person returning to Ireland gets arrested, so it is not illegal to have an abortion, just illegal to provide abortions. That seems to be the consensus most Irish people are happy with. Its a question of how easy an option you want to make it.

This is bullsh1t. Exporting the problem is not a good solution.

In a slightly related note, is anyone else annoyed with the utter contempt the rcc treats women with? You can't use contraception and you can't have an abortion. Your job is to keep churning out kids for indoctrination, or am I being too cynical?

MrP

fatmammycat

You're not being cynical at all, it's all about the precious 'seed' forget about the vessel.

drkpower

fatmammycat wrote: »

Do you honestly think a woman is going to carry on a pregnancy until the 39th week then abort? You must have a really odd view of women if you think that.

I agree that it is extremely unlikely. I also think it is extremely unlikely that a woman would have a baby and then kill it. But I believe infanticide should be criminalised, despite the fact that is also extremely unlikely.

Anyway, I am asking whether people think it should be permissable to have an abortion at 39 weeks (or 38, or 37) or not. Do you have a view on that?

drkpower

MrPudding wrote: »

Until that time, it is wrong to force a woman to be pregnant when she does not want to be.

Wrong in all cases?
At 39 weeks?
Or at 24 weeks?

Shenshen

drkpower wrote: »

An absolute right?

So should they be entitled to have an abortion at 39 weeks?

An absolute right to have the foetus removed from her body if she doesn't wish it to be there, yes.

At 39 weeks, there is no need for an abortion that will kill the child, though. She can have it removed via Cesarian and put it up for adoption if she doesn't want it at that point.

fatmammycat

I don't think you're really asking anything, you're throwing out a pointless emotion driven hypothetical in the hope to obfuscate the issue. If people are worried that oh those crazy women will suddenly decided to rid themselves of a pregnancy that late, there can be laws put int place to criminalise exactly that.

drkpower

Shenshen wrote: »

An absolute right to have the foetus removed from her body if she doesn't wish it to be there, yes.

At 39 weeks, there is no need for an abortion that will kill the child, though. She can have it removed via Cesarian and put it up for adoption if she doesn't want it at that point.

So she should be forced to give birth then. Ok, we are getting somehere now.

What about at 20,21 weeks where the viability of the child is very unlikely. Should she be entitled to kill the foetus then or should be forced to give birth?

And if she should be forced to give birth, and the baby survives with cerebral palsy or some other catastrophic illness, should the mother be forced to care for and finance the healthcare needs of that child, or can she walk away?

drkpower

fatmammycat wrote: »

I don't think you're really asking anything, you're throwing out a pointless emotion driven hypothetical in the hope to obfuscate the issue. .

Is that aimed at me? Where was I engaged in 'pointless emotion '? Im just asking whether you have a view on whether it is permissable to have an abortion at 39 weeks (or 38, or 37) or not. Do you have a view on that?

fatmammycat wrote: »

If people are worried that oh those crazy women will suddenly decided to rid themselves of a pregnancy that late, there can be laws put int place to criminalise exactly that.

Ok, so you do believe a woman should be criminalised for having an abortion at 39 weeks?

What about 38?
or 37?
or 21?

fatmammycat

What if she gives birth to a unicorn! And it had magical powers?? Should she had it over to the government so that they can train it to one day lead us to the magical land of Narswal?

This is why I rarely bother getting into discussions with anti-choicers. Let's just keep our heads in the sand and carry on exporting 5000 or more women abroad every year for a medical procedure that ought to be done at home.

fatmammycat

I didn't say I believed a woman should be criminalised for anything. And I'm done talking to you.

Shenshen

drkpower wrote: »

So she should be forced to give birth then. Ok, we are getting somehere now.

What about at 20,21 weeks where the viability of the child is very unlikely. Should she be entitled to kill the foetus then or should be forced to give birth?

And if she should be forced to give birth, and the baby survives with cerebral palsy or some other catastrophic illness, should the mother be forced to care for and finance the healthcare needs of that child, or can she walk away?

I think the difference ought to be where the baby is perfectly viable, in which case the mother should have it removed, if she wants it removed, by means that won't inflict unnecessary harm.

Until such time, she should of course have the full right to abort.

drkpower

fatmammycat wrote: »

What if she gives birth to a unicorn! And it had magical powers?? Should she had it over to the government so that they can train it to one day lead us to the magical land of Narswal?

This is why I rarely bother getting into discussions with anti-choicers. Let's just keep our heads in the sand and carry on exporting 5000 or more women abroad every year for a medical procedure that ought to be done at home.

Have you not thought about these issues before? If you dont want to discuss it, then maybe you shouldnt have joined the thread.

And for the record, I am not an 'anti-choicer', as you probably mean the phrase to mean.

drkpower

fatmammycat wrote: »

I didn't say I believed a woman should be criminalised for anything. And I'm done talking to you.

fatmammycat wrote:

If people are worried that oh those crazy women will suddenly decided to rid themselves of a pregnancy that late, there can be laws put int place to criminalise exactly that..

drkpower

Shenshen wrote: »

I think the difference ought to be where the baby is perfectly viable, in which case the mother should have it removed, if she wants it removed, by means that won't inflict unnecessary harm.

Until such time, she should of course have the full right to abort.

At what point is a foetus 'fully viable'?
And if the mother is forced/chooses to give birth to a premature child, which is deemed to be 'fully viable', and that child goes on to develop a catastrophic illness as a consequence of that prematurity, does the mother have any duty to that baby or can she just walk away?

fatmammycat

I joined the thread to protest the usual poorly thought out 'oh, but what adoption for all the unwanted babies, see everyone happy' line. I'm 38 years old and fertile, so of course I've thought about all sorts of issues regarding abortion.
And yes I still didn't say the WOMAN should be criminalised.

Shenshen

drkpower wrote: »

At what point is a foetus 'fully viable'?
And if the mother is forced/chooses to give birth to a premature child, which is deemed to be 'fully viable', and that child goes on to develop a catastrophic illness as a consequence of that prematurity, does the mother have any duty to that baby or can she just walk away?

I'm not sure what that question has to do with anything really... the mother can walk away and give the kid up for adoption at any point in life after it's been born, so why would it make any difference what state of health the kid is in?

As for when it is fully viable, I'll have to leave that decision to the doctors, I'm not qualifies to make that statement. I suspect that it will vary on a case by case basis, and ought to be handled differently depending on the doctor's recommendations.

drkpower

fatmammycat wrote: »

And yes I still didn't say the WOMAN should be criminalised.

....but you dont think a woman should be permitted to have an abortion at 39 weeks? You think she should be forced to continue with the pregnancy?

What about 38?
or 24?
or 21?

drkpower

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm not sure what that question has to do with anything really... the mother can walk away and give the kid up for adoption at any point in life after it's been born, so why would it make any difference what state of health the kid is in?.

When a woman gives a baby up for adoption, she didnt, by her choice, cause that baby to develop a catastrophic illness. Do you think a woman who places their unborn baby in grave peril by choosing to deliver it prematurely should be liable in law to that child for the damage that child has sustained?

Shenshen wrote: »

As for when it is fully viable, I'll have to leave that decision to the doctors, I'm not qualifies to make that statement. I suspect that it will vary on a case by case basis, and ought to be handled differently depending on the doctor's recommendations.

Doctors do everything in their power to ensure, where possible, that babies are not born prematurely (even by a few weeks) because delivery when premature poses significant risks for a baby. So very few doctors are going to reccomend a premature delivery at any point prior to term.

Shenshen

drkpower wrote: »

When a woman gives a baby up for adoption, she didnt, by her choice, cause that baby to develop a catastrophic illness. Do you think a woman who places there unborn baby in grave peril by choosing to deliver it prematurely should be liable in law to that child for the damage that child has sustained?



Doctors do everything in their power to ensure, where possible, that babies are not born prematurely (even by a few weeks) because delivery when premature poses significant risks for a baby. So very few doctors are going to reccomend a premature delivery at any point prior to term.

Which is why I would personally give preference to abortion if the foetus is unwanted, and sooner rather than later.
But as I said, I would leave that choice with the pregnany woman and the doctor.

drkpower

Shenshen wrote: »

Which is why I would personally give preference to abortion if the foetus is unwanted, and sooner rather than later.
But as I said, I would leave that choice with the pregnany woman and the doctor.

I appreciate that is your preference. But I am asking what should be permitted. You have stated that a woman, at 39 weeks, should not be permitted to have an abortion, but should be permitted to deliver the child.

What about at other points?

Should a woman be permitted to abort the child at 35 weeks?
Or at 30, 25, or 20?

Should a woman be permitted to deliver the child at 35 weeks?
Or at 30, 25 or 20?
And if such a baby develop a significant illness as a consequence of prematurity, should the woman be liable to that child in law?

Shenshen

drkpower wrote: »

I appreciate that is your preference. But I am asking what should be permitted. You have stated that a woman, at 39 weeks, should not be permitted to have an abortion, but should be permitted to deliver the child.

What about at other points?

Should a woman be permitted to abort the child at 35 weeks?
Or at 30, 25, or 20?

Should a woman be permitted to deliver the child at 35 weeks?
Or at 30, 25 or 20?
And if such a baby develop a significant illness as a consequence of prematurity, should the woman be liable to that child in law?

Yes, a woman should be allowed to abort.
I don't see why she should be responsible for any illness of any child she didn't want.

drkpower

Shenshen wrote: »

Yes, a woman should be allowed to abort..

But you have sais she should not be allowed to abort at 39 weeks?
Is it just 39 weeks you have a difficulty with, or any other time period?

Shenshen wrote: »

I don't see why she should be responsible for any illness of any child she didn't want.

If she chose to deliver it prematurely, she caused that illness. Do you think she owes no duty to a child, left with a catastrophic illness, that she caused?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

fatmammycat

Take anything out of context and you can make it seem whatever you wish. If you have a problem with my posts or tone report them to a mod.

JimiTime

I think its a dark, dark path we walk when we refer to our unborn children as 'parasites' and facsimile's of. It is sad (As in it makes me sad) that some people 'reason' in such a manner in order to convince themselves that a most unnatural thing, i.e. the killing of our unborn, is actually ok.

As for exporting the 'problem', I don't consider it as such. We as a state, can only govern what we have a sovereign power over. The laws differ from nation to nation on a multitude of things. I'm glad Ireland still defends the life of the voiceless unborn children. If people go elsewhere to kill their unborn, then so be it, the guilt falls on that person and not the state. I do think its only a matter of time before its here though unfortunately.

And another thing, I am not 'anti choice'. I am very much pro-choice. However, I don't believe that people should have the right to kill unborn children, just as I don't believe they should have the right to kill children who have been born.

cavedave

JimiTime

It is sad (As in it makes me sad) that some people 'reason' in such a manner in order to convince themselves that a most unnatural thing, i.e. the killing of our unborn, is actually ok.

What evidence do you have that it is unnatural? Abortion has very old roots.

Infanticide from the evidence I have seen has always existed. I presume they would have carried out abortions if the medical technology existed rather than waiting for birth and abandoning the baby on a mountainside. I have seen animal mother abandon their young (usually when they believe the young is sick and will not survive). If a sheep would do this that makes infanticide natural.

You can argue abortion is immoral but my issue is with you claiming it is unnatural. Do you have any evidence that abortion is unnatural?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I think its a dark, dark path we walk when we refer to our unborn children as 'parasites' and facsimile's of. It is sad (As in it makes me sad) that some people 'reason' in such a manner in order to convince themselves that a most unnatural thing, i.e. the killing of our unborn, is actually ok.

While I don't agree with the definition of a fetus as a parasite since it fails a number of the characteristics of a parasite (different species, benefits at the determent of the host etc), your logic only works if someone thinks that killing a parasite is ok because it is a parasite?

This reminds me some what of Festus's objection that atheists were trying to make out that humans were animals because (to his mind) it is ok to kill any animal because they don't have immortal spirits, a position that a lot of atheists some what ironically would strongly disagree with.

JimiTime

cavedave wrote: »

What evidence do you have that it is unnatural?

It is part of the sadness in me, that you would even ask such a question. (just to note, I'm not trying to patronise with the whole sadness thing. this whole topic, and the fact that it even needs discussing can bring me to tears. I really don't use such language willy nilly)

Abortion has very old roots.

Infanticide from the evidence I have seen has always existed.

So has murder. I certainly don't see murder as natural though.

If a sheep would do this that makes infanticide natural.

And dogs eat their own sh1t. Black widows eat their mates etc. I don't see animals as my equal, so its moot to me. Second of all, if we take your path, you are saying its natural for a mother to leave her 'born' child to die is that right?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

While I don't agree with the definition of a fetus as a parasite since it fails a number of the characteristics of a parasite (different species, benefits at the determent of the host etc), your logic only works if someone thinks that killing a parasite is ok because it is a parasite?

Its a disdainful term for a growing child. Only those who wish to defend the right of mothers to kill their unborn use it in relation to children. They use it because of its negative connotations, and what we usually would do with a 'parasite'.

This reminds me some what of Festus's objection that atheists were trying to make out that humans were animals because (to his mind) it is ok to kill any animal because they don't have immortal spirits, a position that a lot of atheists some what ironically would strongly disagree with.

Festus has his opinions, many of which I would vehemently disagree with.

cavedave

JimiTime wrote: »

It is part of the sadness in me, that you would even ask such a question. (just to note, I'm not trying to patronise with the whole sadness thing. this whole topic, and the fact that it even needs discussing can bring me to tears. I really don't use such language willy nilly)


So has murder. I certainly don't see murder as natural though.



And dogs eat their own sh1t. Black widows eat their mates etc. I don't see animals as my equal, so its moot to me. Second of all, if we take your path, you are saying its natural for a mother to leave her 'born' child to die is that right?

Yes I am saying that in nature many mothers leave there infants to die. I will also say the vast majority of human pregnancies are aborted by nature.

If you want to call infanticide or abortion inhumane do that. If you want to call them unnatural please present some evidence that they are.

liamw

JimiTime wrote: »

...i.e. the killing of our unborn, is actually ok.

Are you classifying every stage of the developing human as 'unborn'? From the moment of conception?

How far do you take it... are you against the morning after pill? Against condoms?