Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Kiwi in IE

It is not possible for a foetus to have equal rights to the mother. It is not possible for it to have rights independent of the mother until it can live independently outside of her body. Ultimately whether or not abortion is legal what happens to a foetus in utero is determined by the mother.

loveisdivine

I dont think the fetus can ever have the same rights as any living human. Then again I would be considered to have quite extreme views on abortion. I am what Youth Defence would call a 'pro abort' and I have no issue being called that. I think its because I dont see every child as some precious little miracle, or every fetus as a cutesy baby just waiting to celebrate its first birthday or some other emotive waffle.

I think abortion should be available on demand. However I dont see this ever happening here. Governments seem too scared to act on the issue at all for fear of upsetting catholic society. Whilst I dont blame the church directly for things like the Savita case, they are indirectly to blame as they are the reason governments fail to act, for fear of upsetting them.

No amount of debate will ever change the pro life views. They see the fetus as a tiny human baby desperate for life, so it makes sense that they see it wrong to abort it. You're never going to get them to think its ok. However, just because they feel that way about it, doesnt mean it should be forced on all of us.

Thats my thoughts on it anyway.

robindch

loveisdivine wrote: »

No amount of debate will ever change the pro life views. They see the fetus as a tiny human baby desperate for life, so it makes sense that they see it wrong to abort it. You're never going to get them to think its ok. However, just because they feel that way about it, doesnt mean it should be forced on all of us.

The same logic applies to the question of whether murder should be outlawed for all, or whether it should only apply to people who elect in advance to be governed by it.

Most countries, and I believe most if not all pro-choicers, accept that some form of right-to-life applies before birth, but start to apply that from some arbitrary point between conception and birth. Far as I remember, the UK decided (roughly) that this time is the point at which a foetus is viable outside the womb which, if memory serves, was 22 weeks. But that date has shrunk by several weeks owing to advances in medical tech over the last 40 years, but this hasn't been attended by any reduction in the point at which a right begins to inhere (for the sake of honesty, I believe it probably should). The "right-to-lifers" simply choose an earlier point of inherence, typically conception.

Both groups agree that a right to life inheres and only disagree upon when (a point frequently lost on both groups). Hence, both sides agree, or should agree, that once a right-to-life inheres, the pre-medicated termination of that life constitutes "murder".

And with respect to the post quoted above, both sides will or should agree that a prohibition of murder should apply to all citizens, and not only to those who choose to be governed by it.

loveisdivine

robindch wrote: »

The same logic applies to the question of whether murder should be outlawed for all, or whether it should only apply to people who elect in advance to be governed by it.

Yes but I dont class abortion as murder. Up to a certain point anyway. I would suggest that abortion should be available on demand up until it can survive outside of the womb, because in reality most people that dont want the child should have made the decision prior to that point. If however an abortion is needed after that time for medical reasons than I would probably be ok with it.

I realise I hold a view that the vast majority wouldnt.

Kiwi in IE

For me once a foetus can live outside it's mothers body is when it is appropriate for it to be considered a separate person. Abortion may be illegal, but the mother still determines what happens to her body while the foetus depends on it. For example she can commit suicide, refuse to eat or drink, drink alcohol and take other harmful substances. At the end of the day, a pregnant woman can do all manner of things that are potentially harmful to a foetus, and it would be difficult to stop her if she were determined. Therefore it is impossible for a foetus to have 'equal rights' to the mother. If a mother behaves in an appalling fashion to a child who is born, it can be taken off her for protection. This can hardly be done with a foetus!

loveisdivine

I agree with this post ^^, but I have a conflict of thoughts too.

If a woman who was past the stage of being able to have an abortion. Did those things you just listed in an attempt to kill it, would you want her chraged with murder?

I really dont think I would. I cant really explain why, but it just doesnt sit right with me.

doctoremma

loveisdivine wrote: »

If a woman who was past the stage of being able to have an abortion. Did those things you just listed in an attempt to kill it, would you want her chraged with murder?

I really dont think I would. I cant really explain why, but it just doesnt sit right with me.

Recent story in UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204471/Sarah-Catt-Eight-years-cheating-wife-used-drugs-bought-online-abort-baby-TWO-days-born.html

Charged with procuring a miscarriage, although the length of the sentence reflects the seriousness of her circumstances. Not murder though.

PS Robin - 24 weeks in the UK. Recent murmurings for a reduction to 20 weeks.

Kiwi in IE

loveisdivine wrote: »

I agree with this post ^^, but I have a conflict of thoughts too.

If a woman who was past the stage of being able to have an abortion. Did those things you just listed in an attempt to kill it, would you want her chraged with murder?

I really dont think I would. I cant really explain why, but it just doesnt sit right with me.

No absoloutly not! I was using those examples to point out why it is ridiculous and impossible to grant a foetus equal rights to it's mother. There are those who say you shouldn't eat sushie when pregnant. From the pro lifers point of view where the foetus has equal rights, if something happens to a foetus because the mother ate sushie, she should technically be guilty of manslaughter.

Kiwi in IE

I apologise if that post was confusing. I am 100% 'pro choice'.

I do not believe that a foetus can be considered separate from the mother until it is able to live outside the womb. I do not believe it has equal rights to her until it is born. Up until the birth is complete her survival should be priority unless SHE has requested otherwise.

robindch

loveisdivine wrote: »

Yes but I dont class abortion as murder.

The point I was making above is that once any group asserts the existence of a point in time at which a right to life inheres, then any premeditated termination of that life constitutes murder (leaving aside, temporarily, the issue of medical abortions). And that once it's labelled murder, then all groups will or should agree that a charge of murder is applicable to all citizens, not just those who happen to think it's applicable.

BTW, I'm not arguing for or against abortion here.

I'm simply pointing out that the sentence "because they feel that way about it, doesnt mean it should be forced on all of us" isn't really applicable here. The point of the law is that it should apply to everybody, and not -- as happens, for example, continually with the religious -- that one group or another tries to exempt themselves from the law, simply because they think it shouldn't apply to them.

Morag

just when you think things can't get any werider, they do.


Jackboots for Jesus, to trample over women's rights.

Kiwi in IE

loveisdivine wrote: »

I realise I hold a view that the vast majority wouldnt.

Only in this country. Your views are pretty much in line with the majorities of nearly every other First World Country where abortion is legal.

Tim Robbins

Very good article here regarding history of Church's stance when life begins.

RITE & REASON: The moment of ensoulment has been the subject of debate throughout history

From the vehement assertions of some on the “pro-life” side of the abortion debate, it could be assumed their views have always been Catholic teaching. It is not so.

In fact some of the church’s greatest teachers and saints believed no homicide was involved if abortion took place before the foetus was infused with a soul, known as “ensoulment”. This was believed to occur at “quickening”, when the mother detected the child move for the first time in her womb. In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV determined it at 166 days of pregnancy, almost 24 weeks.

The Catholic Church’s current position on abortion was established only 143 years ago, in 1869. Then Pope Pius IX outlawed abortion from the moment of conception.

This is said to have been influenced by science’s discovery of the ovum in 1827 and the human fertilisation process in the 1830s, neither of which gave any indication as to when ensoulment took place.

Among those who had a different view on the matter to that currently held by the church are some of its most eminent thinkers. These include at least three of the 33 “super saints” – Jerome, Augustine and Aquinas – all of them “Doctors of the Church”.

St Jerome (died 420) wrote, in his Epistle, “the seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs”.

St Augustine (died 430) wrote in On Exodus that early abortion should not be regarded “as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed”.

St Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) held “the vegetative soul, which comes first, when the embryo lives the life of a plant, is corrupted, and is succeeded by a more perfect soul, which is both nutritive and sensitive, and then the embryo lives an animal life; and when this is corrupted, it is succeeded by the rational soul introduced from without (ie by God)”.

This view of Aquinas was confirmed as Catholic dogma by the Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been officially repudiated by Rome. Indeed, in 1974, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith acknowledged that the issue of ensoulment was still an open question.

It is not an impression given by many on the “pro-life” side of this debate. What both sides can agree on is that human life begins at conception. Where there is disagreement is on whether that collection of chemical elements constitutes a person. It has been estimated that up to 55 per cent of fertilised ovums miscarry soon after conception. If it is held that the fertilised ovum is a person why were/are none of these “people” afforded any funeral rites?

But to look at the issue from another perspective, in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life) Pope John Paul II wrote that “no one can renounce the right to self-defence” and that “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty . . .”

He continued “unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason”.

He is referring there to someone who, because insane, is morally innocent.

A foetus is morally innocent and yet can be a direct threat to the life of its mother. Has she “not only a right but a grave duty” to protect herself?

Patsy McGarry is Religious Affairs Correspondent

Tim Robbins

The reality is even if Savita Halappanavar only had a 1% better chance of living if she had an abortion she should have had it. The reality is even if she only had 1% chance of less pain (mental or physical). She should have had it.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts.

May she rest in peace.

I'd would be very worried if I was in Galway region and was pregnant.

UDP

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The reality is even if Savita Halappanavar only had a 1% better chance of living if she had an abortion she should have had it. The reality is even if she only had 1% chance of less pain (mental or physical). She should have had it.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts.

May she rest in peace.

I'd would be very worried if I was in Galway region and was pregnant.

But not even that doctors should have treated her using using whatever treatment method she chose.
Doctors are there to advise and explain the risks but ultimately it is up to the patient what treatment method is used. They appear to have overruled or ignored what she and her husband requested. I cannot see how they can justify that regardless of opinions of risk etc. and whether it would have saved her.

As you said even if it had just reduced/removed the pain then that would have been justification enough.

Nodin

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has told the Dáil that no consultants from University Hospital Galway will now form part of the team appointed by the HSE to investigate the death of Savita Halappanavar.
Yesterday, the Health Service Executive announced that three such consultants were on the inquiry team.
During Leaders’ Questions today, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin said the inclusion on the panel of three people from the same hospital in which Ms Halappanavar died would not inspire confidence in the inquiry.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1120/savita-halappanavar-inquiry.html
(my bold)

A turn so quick it left rubber on the road....

nagirrac

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The reality is even if Savita Halappanavar only had a 1% better chance of living if she had an abortion she should have had it. The reality is even if she only had 1% chance of less pain (mental or physical). She should have had it.

I'd would be very worried if I was in Galway region and was pregnant.

Why just in Galway? The reality unfortunately for medical professionals in all facilities in the Republic of Ireland and not just Galway is that carrying out a termination based on the justification that the patient is in pain is against the law and punishable by life imprisonment. Even in the case where the patient's life is in danger the only protection a medical professional has is a supreme court decision from 1992 that was never legislated on.

The issue is not with the health system or medical staff, it is with the incompetent spineless politicians who are elected to legislate and failed to do so even after a supreme court decision 20 years ago.

Nodin

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

......

The nationalists are manoevuring also around the legislation demand. Sophistry! The National Catholic Party (aka Sinn Fein) are intimately entwined with the zealots and their priests.

This would be the same Sinn Fein that was the first party on the island to support gay marriage....

UDP

Nodin wrote: »

This would be the same Sinn Fein that was the first party on the island to support gay marriage....

and the same party that voted in favour of Clare Daly's bill to legislate for the X case earlier this year...

Nodin

UDP wrote: »

and the same party that voted in favour of Clare Daly's bill to legislate for the X case earlier this year...

Indeed. As an atheist who has voted for them at every opportunity for 25 years now, I think I would have picked up on a "national catholic party" vibe, meself, slow and all as I am.

recedite

UDP wrote: »

I think it only matters whether the fetus is viable outside of the womb including using whatever medical technology is available to keep the fetus alive.

loveisdivine wrote: »

I would suggest that abortion should be available on demand up until it can survive outside of the womb.

doctoremma wrote: »

PS Robin - 24 weeks in the UK. Recent murmurings for a reduction to 20 weeks.

The problem with only granting rights to the foetus "when it can survive outside the womb" is that it changes with advances in medical technology. The earliest premature baby so far to survive was born at 25 weeks, and abortions in some countries are performed later than that.

Supposing a test tube baby was fertilsed in vitro and grown in an incubator. At what point does the "owner" lose the right to kill it?
Also consider that it is still entirely dependent on its owner long after it starts breathing air.

IMO the idea that we should ascribe full human rights to the foetus at some random point, such as at fertilisation, or at implantation, at 20 weeks, at 24 weeks etc. is unworkable.
It has to be a continuum; from almost none at fertilisation, when the full potential for a human life is present, to almost full rights at birth when the mothers life is more important.

UDP

recedite wrote: »

The problem with only granting rights to the foetus "when it can survive outside the womb" is that it changes with advances in medical technology. The earliest premature baby so far to survive was born at 25 weeks, and abortions in some countries are performed later than that.

Supposing a test tube baby was fertilsed in vitro and grown in an incubator. At what point does the "owner" lose the right to kill it?
Also consider that it is still entirely dependent on its owner long after it starts breathing air.

IMO the idea that we should ascribe full human rights to the foetus at some random point, such as at fertilisation, or at implantation, at 20 weeks, at 24 weeks etc. is unworkable.
It has to be a continuum; from almost none at fertilisation, when the full potential for a human life is present, to almost full rights at birth when the mothers life is more important.

completely disagree. The law should change as medical technology advances. Cannot see how that is not the clearest method. The way you suggest seems completely unworkable. What possible increments of rights could be used for a fetus?
Also a baby is not dependant on its "owner" after it is born. It is dependant on another human which could be even a child.

nagirrac

UDP wrote: »

But not even that doctors should have treated her using using whatever treatment method she chose.
Doctors are there to advise and explain the risks but ultimately it is up to the patient what treatment method is used. They appear to have overruled or ignored what she and her husband requested. I cannot see how they can justify that regardless of opinions of risk etc. and whether it would have saved her.

As you said even if it had just reduced/removed the pain then that would have been justification enough.

Yes of course a patient and her doctor should make the decision in any normal country. Unfortunately in Ireland the existing law does not allow this to happen. Why are people having a hard time understanding this and pointing the finger of blame at the medical profession, when the political class that abdicate all responsibility to govern are the one's that need to be held accountable.

Tim Robbins

UDP wrote: »

But not even that doctors should have treated her using using whatever treatment method she chose.
Doctors are there to advise and explain the risks but ultimately it is up to the patient what treatment method is used. They appear to have overruled or ignored what she and her husband requested. I cannot see how they can justify that regardless of opinions of risk etc. and whether it would have saved her.

As you said even if it had just reduced/removed the pain then that would have been justification enough.

You're dead right.

The only way to stop this happening is to legalise abortion.

The problem is if you have to proove the life of mother is at risk she could die by the time you are halfway through the proof.

Most countries in western civilisation have had to legalise abortion because there is no way out of it. The only reason why chicken Ireland has got away with it because it is so easy to go England and get one.

If the English refused to give them to Irish women - it would have to be legal here. We are a disgrace of a country.

Kiwi in IE

The fact England is so accessible is exactly the reason that it has been possible for archaic Catholic morals on the issue to be maintained in law.

eyescreamcone

Why did the UK introduce abortion legislation in 1967??
They introduced it to eliminate back street abortions and protect their women's health.

We should legislate to protect our women as if we were banned from getting abortions abroad.

I laugh when I hear stats about how safe it is for pregnant women here.
Safe when we export unviable and unusual cases that is.

If we had 5000 Anne Lovetts here every year how would we fare stats wise ??

Bannasidhe

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why did the UK introduce abortion legislation in 1967??
They introduced it to eliminate back street abortions and protect their women's health.

We should legislate to protect our women as if we were banned from getting abortions abroad.

I laugh when I hear stats about how safe it is for pregnant women here.
Safe when we export unviable and unusual cases that is.

If we had 5000 Anne Lovetts here every year how would we fare stats wise ??

Legislation to protect women - or give them equal status - has not exactly been at the top of any Irish government's agenda.

Think about it, it was 57 years between the first two female ministers (Markievicz 1919-22 Minister for Labour - Geoghegan-Quinn 1979 Minister for the Gaeltacht).

The Marriage Ban - in 1925 the CnG Govt. attempted to restrict women's ability for promotion to higher grade civil service post but the move was defeated in the Senate. In 1932 a FF govt. introduced a ban on married women working in the civil service - including as teachers.
It wasn't rescinded until 1973 when FF were just delighted at their progressive move in not only removing a ban they had brought in over 40 years previously - they would also 'allow' some women who had been forced out to get their jobs back

Apart from removing the marriage bar the Bill will enable married women who served in the service before marriage to be reinstated in their former positions where hardship considerations warrant this—for example, cases of desertion or where the husband is permanently incapacitated. This type of reinstatement is already available to widows under the Regulation Act.
I have pleasure, therefore, in introducing this Bill, which has been well described as the women's Magna Carta and which will abolish an old injustice while not forgetting the less fortunate members of our society. This Bill represents a new deal for women and is a step in our plan towards abolishing all discrimination against women

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0075/S.0075.197307250005.html

Women's Magna Carta my arse.

In 1935 The Conditions of Employment Act (1935) gave the Minister for Industry and Commerce the right to limit the number of women working in any industry.

It took the Employment Equality Act 1977 , which was enacted to implement the EC Equal Treatment Directive (76/207), to fully deal with the repercussions of that.

I firmly believe that without the EU we would still be debating whether women should be allowed to do 'men's jobs ' never mind have some control over their own bodies.

The Black Oil

Prime Time now...

Galvasean

Sharrow wrote: »

just when you think things can't get any werider, they do.


Jackboots for Jesus, to trample over women's rights.

That kid has a skateboard. Gnarly dude! All that's missing is a guy sitting backwards on a chair saying, "Lemme rap with you kids, yo!"
Also, the view of the underside of taht boot reminds me of what George Orwell though the future would look like...

Bannasidhe

Galvasean wrote: »

That kid has a skateboard. Gnarly dude! All that's missing is a guy sitting backwards on a chair saying, "Lemme rap with you kids, yo!"
Also, the view of the underside of taht boot reminds me of what George Orwell though the future would look like...

I'm amazed that someone thought a 'para' military look is a good idea for a poster for an 'pro-life' event in Belfast...:eek:
Classy.