Abortion Discussion

Morag

mbiking123 wrote: »

As per Irish pro choice campaigners that would advocate after birth abortions.

Who? please link or cite to where any irish pro choice campaigner has said they want after birth abortion.

Morag

So We have had to go to the high court, supreme court, the EU Court of Human Rights
and now Terminations For Medical Reasons are to lodge 3 petitions to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/irish-women-forced-to-travel-for-abortions-to-take-cases-to-un-1.1590008

The UN Committee in 2005, in the KL v Peru case, established that “withholding abortion services in cases of fatal foetal impairments, regardless of legality, constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”.
“Staes arte thus obligated to remove restrictions that prevent access to abortion in cases of sevre foetal impairments such as fatal anomalies.”

The law can't be changed to allow for the ending of pregnancy in cases of fatal fetal abnormality until we have a referendum to repeal article Article 40.3.3 also known as the 8th amendment.

Frito

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't agree. The donation analogy quickly breaks down under scrutiny. In pregnancy, no-one is sick. Physically, everything is as you'd expect it to be. It's just that someone is looking to abort the process. That's quite different to consideration of what rights and obligations exist between citizens in general to extent help in times of trouble.

The foetus isn't a person, yet. It simply has a unique need to stay exactly where it is right at that precise point in time, if it is to achieve its potential. Can I point out, lest this be mistaken by some as some kind of emphatic pro-life statement, I'm only pointing to what seems to be the accepted practice in any country that legalises abortion. Every jurisdiction, no matter how liberal, seems to accept the idea that once a pregnancy has passed a certain threshold - probably at some 20+ week point - any claim based on bodily integrity of the mother can simply be ignored.

Now, once upon a time it was probably popular to believe the world was flat. I'm not claiming majority opinion is right. I'm simply mentioning that the concern I'm voicing isn't outlandish. No legal system seems to include an absolute right to female bodily integrity.

I understand your differentiation between pregnancy as a natural process which is not a malady in an of itself, and donation in which malady is prerequisite. I disagree this invalidates the analogy though, if it were a simple case of ceasing a natural process then why the resistance? It's because the appeal is of the right to life by virtue of the need to reside. This doesn't explain why a foetus has the right to reside when owner of said uterus has withdrawn consent (unless we start arguing squatter's rights?). There are further considerations though, the foetus does not simply occupy space, it uses the organs of another to perform vital functions it is unable to perform itself, this is where donation is analogous, it's a metaphorical placenta.

I understand the special case argument is not necessarily your opinion. I have difficulty in viewing the special case argument as anything other than a statement of the obvious. I continue to maintain it raises the contradiction of why rights associated with personhood are attributed to that which lacks personhood, and do not translate post-partum when personhood is universally recognised. You are right, a foetus is not a person.

mbiking123

Morag wrote: »

Nope the parish priest does not give out the vouchers, each branch committee decides themselves and many branches do have have a parish priest involved.

Guess then it is done different where you live to where I live

Morag

mbiking123 wrote: »

Guess then it is done different where you live to where I live

Far as I am aware it's the case in Dublin, Galway, Mayo, Silgo and Roscommon.
Yes RC priest may suggest to someone to apply to St V de P but they are not the gate keepers, The Society of St Vincent de Paul is after all charitable organisation of lay people.

Nodin

"Three women who were forced to travel to Britain to terminate their pregnancies following diagnoses that their babies would not survive outside the womb will take their cases to the United Nations next week.
The women, members of the Terminations for Medical Reasons group, will hold a press conference in Dublin on Wednesday, with the New York-based Centre for Reproductive Rights (CRR), outlining their cases. They will allege that the fact they were forced to leave Ireland to terminate their pregnancies amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. "
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/irish-women-forced-to-travel-for-abortions-to-take-cases-to-un-1.1590008

Anyone know why they've gone to the UN and not Europe?

MrPudding

Nodin wrote: »

"Three women who were forced to travel to Britain to terminate their pregnancies following diagnoses that their babies would not survive outside the womb will take their cases to the United Nations next week.
The women, members of the Terminations for Medical Reasons group, will hold a press conference in Dublin on Wednesday, with the New York-based Centre for Reproductive Rights (CRR), outlining their cases. They will allege that the fact they were forced to leave Ireland to terminate their pregnancies amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. "
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/irish-women-forced-to-travel-for-abortions-to-take-cases-to-un-1.1590008

Anyone know why they've gone to the UN and not Europe?

Cheaper perhaps... The particular committe they will be talking to has already identified a woman's right to have a termination in these circumstances, so they are a sure thing. Going to Europe might be a bit of a lottery and will take more time. I am not familiar with the cases but they would have to have gone to the Supreme Court in Ireland before they could go to Europe.

EDIT: Another point. It is possible that the ECoHR might decide that, once provision for abortion is in place, how and is what circumstances falls in the margin of appreciation given to the states.

MrP

MrP

robindch

Morag wrote: »

The law can't be changed to allow for the ending of pregnancy in cases of fatal fetal abnormality until we have a referendum to repeal article Article 40.3.3 also known as the 8th amendment.

Hmm... anybody up for another abortion referendum?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

GCU continually wishes to discuss the ethics but tends towards the dismissive when others try to interject actuality back into the discussion.

No, you're just to trying to define "actuality" in a way that (actually) ignores the actuality of how this practical issue is addressed in real life.

In real life, does any country that you are aware of recognise an unqualified right to female bodily integrity, such as to include a right to request a termination at any point without limitation?

I'm not talking debating points. I'm pointing out what other countries actually do when they frame laws on this topic.

And I'm not saying those laws are necessarily the last word on the matter. I''m just pointing out that people need to pause before asserting some limitless right to bodily integrity, when the practical reality is that no State recognises this.

It might just be that folk are missing something. And that something is linked to the fact that pregnancy isn't an illness.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Frito wrote: »

This doesn't explain why a foetus has the right to reside when owner of said uterus has withdrawn consent (unless we start arguing squatter's rights?).

Well, the basis of any right evaporates under scrutiny. Including asserted rights of bodily integrity.

What I'd suggest is, again, you have to appreciate the uniqueness of the situation. There's clearly a conflict of rights (if we assume, just for a moment, that the foetus has some right to be protected from arbitrary action). In addition to the balance of rights, the balance of harm is probably also relevant.

Again, addressing practical reality that actually applies in real life, what countries seem to typically decide is that, if you have not terminated by some point at about 20 weeks, the inconvenience of a couple of months more pregnancy is regards as (in the balance of things) a reasonable obligation to place on someone, compared to the loss of a foetus that hasn't that long to go before being a fully-fledged person.

At which point, you'll appreciate, we'll inflict all kinds of obligations on the parents with respect to caring for her child.

robindch wrote: »

Hmm... anybody up for another abortion referendum?

I still think its unavoidable that constitutional change will need to be revisited. Our laws are still incoherent, even if we want to adopt a conservative regime.

oldrnwisr

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, you're just to trying to define "actuality" in a way that (actually) ignores the actuality of how this practical issue is addressed in real life.

In real life, does any country that you are aware of recognise an unqualified right to female bodily integrity, such as to include a right to request a termination at any point without limitation?

I'm not talking debating points. I'm pointing out what other countries actually do when they frame laws on this topic.

And I'm not saying those laws are necessarily the last word on the matter. I''m just pointing out that people need to pause before asserting some limitless right to bodily integrity, when the practical reality is that no State recognises this.

It might just be that folk are missing something. And that something is linked to the fact that pregnancy isn't an illness.

Well, Canada for a start.

Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion. Abortion is regulated (i.e. healthcare etc.) by the Canada Health Act. There are only a few hospitals who cater to late term abortions but they are carried out. Legally.

Canadians for Choice - About Abortion

Now, of course it's not that Canada recognises an unqualified right to bodily integrity, it arises out of the definition of a child under Canadian law, it's just that the practical result is the same.

Let's take America also.

There is no clearcut time restriction on abortion in the United States as such. The only federal law which impacts on late term abortions is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 2003 which bans the use of IDX (intact dilation and extraction) as a method of abortion. However, there are other methods which are still used beyond 20 weeks as evidenced by the UK abortion statistics which have been posted here previously.

Since the original Roe vs. Wade case hinged on a 14th amendment argument, the decision of the supreme court was that the mother had a right to privacy at least until viability. However, they stipulated that legislating for restrictions centred on viability was a state issue and not a federal one.

Indeed, ten years after Roe/Wade during Senate hearings on the Hatch/Eagleton amendment it was commented in the official report that:

"Thus, the [Judiciary] Committee observes that no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy."

Today, there are a number of states who still do not have temporal restrictions on abortion including California, Colorado, Conneticut, Delaware etc. etc.

Abortion in the United States by state


The problem I have in debates centred around bodily integrity is that it invariably degenerates into arguing about balancing bodily integrity against late term abortions. For me, this is entirely unrealistic and irrelevant. Let's say, for example, that you have a woman who experiences a crisis pregnancy. Why would she decide to wait for six months before seeking an abortion? After all, the longer the pregnancy continues the more an abortion becomes more expensive and more dangerous. This is why we don't see this borne out in the statistics. 91% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks. If a woman is seeking an abortion at 26 weeks then there are probably serious non-trivial reasons for doing so. Medical best practice guidelines should determine the best course of action at this point and not an inflexible piece of legislation.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, you're just to trying to define "actuality" in a way that (actually) ignores the actuality of how this practical issue is addressed in real life.

In real life, does any country that you are aware of recognise an unqualified right to female bodily integrity, such as to include a right to request a termination at any point without limitation?

I'm not talking debating points. I'm pointing out what other countries actually do when they frame laws on this topic.

And I'm not saying those laws are necessarily the last word on the matter. I''m just pointing out that people need to pause before asserting some limitless right to bodily integrity, when the practical reality is that no State recognises this.

It might just be that folk are missing something. And that something is linked to the fact that pregnancy isn't an illness.

The vast majority give a time limit during which the option to choose must be exercised. Yes.

Men, when it comes to many medical procedures are often faced with a similar time limit in which they have to make a choice - for example to have this by-pass surgery or not/Will I have this tumour removed or not - but they do have the right to choose even though there is a time-limit. No one, least of all the State, has reserved to itself the right to decide if a man can or cannot have a specific medical procedure that may save his life but that man himself. Therefore, even within a biologically determined time-limit - his right to choose what happens his body is protected.

Women in Ireland do not get this choice. In Ireland we refuse cancer treatment to women who are pregnant.

To be clear - I am not interested in what other countries do or do not do - I am interested in the rights of women living in Ireland to decide, albeit within a biologically determined time frame, what does and does not happen their own body.

mbiking123

Morag wrote: »

Far as I am aware it's the case in Dublin, Galway, Mayo, Silgo and Roscommon.
Yes RC priest may suggest to someone to apply to St V de P but they are not the gate keepers, The Society of St Vincent de Paul is after all charitable organisation of lay people.

I know different from one of the counties you listed

iwantmydinner

mbiking123 wrote: »

its a wonderful thing not an inconvience

My mother, who dearly loves her four children and still mourns the miscarriage of a fifth pregnancy, would disagree. In the strongest terms possible. She would not inflict pregnancy on anyone except those who are ready, physically able, and willing.

What's your solution for women who not only do not want to be mothers, but do not want to be pregnant??

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If a woman is seeking an abortion at 26 weeks then there are probably serious non-trivial reasons for doing so.

Oh, I'm sure you're mostly right. As I see it, the reason this kind of debate emerges is becaue each side wants to assert some kind of absolute principle - whether it's saying that an absolute right to life exists from the moment of conception, or that there's an absolute right to bodily integrity. The significance of the discussion around an age threshold is, simply, that it punctures that absolute right to bodily integrity - which obviously then creates a space for someone to argue for pushing that deadline from 24 weeks to 20 weeks to wherever - because we've established that the threshold is essentially arbitrary and vague.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The vast majority give a time limit during which the option to choose must be exercised. Yes.

Indeed, and the Canadian case seems to be a little bit like the situation we had, before the recent legislation. They had a Court ruling that struck down their legislation, and, politically, they haven't been able to frame a replacement.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Men, when it comes to many medical procedures are often faced with a similar time limit in which they have to make a choice

But, you'll appreciate, the difference is that men don't face a decision that includes the factor of physically dependent foetus. Isn't that the unique complication? Now, we can say the foetus has zero rights. That makes it all square. However, mostly, even people open to legalisation of abortion don't seem to contend the foetus has zero rights. They contend the foetus has a lesser level of right, but one that can still restrict access to abortion at a late stage of pregnancy.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To be clear - I am not interested in what other countries do or do not do - I am interested in the rights of women living in Ireland to decide, albeit within a biologically determined time frame, what does and does not happen their own body.

That is, indeed, the point at issue. I'm only referring to international experience to demonstrate that the points I'm making are not some kind of pro-life dirge. These are simply concerns that arise when we debate the precise matter you describe.

Morag

I don't know how cora sherlock kept a straight face while giving out about international agencies and international money butting into the Irish debate on the issue of abortion while on Prime Time.

Sarky

Link relating to Cora Sherlock being a blatant hypocrite. Uh, again:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/11/13/not-appropriate/

Sarky

And can you imagine the support she recommended? It'd be women sitting around swapping tragedies, reinforcing the guilt people like Cora made them feel. Very Catholic, but not very compassionate.

lazygal

When I was pregnant I had no interest in meeting up with other pregnant women. My pregnancy wasn't something I was particularly interested in discussing with people I didn't know.

I know if I had received a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality, or other diagnoses, I would also have no interest in discussing my pregnancy with other pregnant women and/or their families in a hospice setting, as the so called prolifers seem to suggest is an appropriate 'solution'. I would have not a jot of interest in a perinatal hospice to talk about my experience.


I would however support the women who choose that option. I would like the choice to be available. Much like I would choose to have such a pregnancy terminated as early as possible. To suggest all women would want to deal with such a scenario in exactly the same way, while surrounded by others in the same boat, reminds me of the Magdalene 'solution' to difficult pregnancies. Its grossly insulting to suggest I would be 'talked around' to Cora's solution.

iwantmydinner

lazygal wrote: »

When I was pregnant I had no interest in meeting up with other pregnant women. My pregnancy wasn't something I was particularly interested in discussing with people I didn't know.

I know if I had received a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality, or other diagnoses, I would also have no interest in discussing my pregnancy with other pregnant women and/or their families in a hospice setting, as the so called prolifers seem to suggest is an appropriate 'solution'. I would have not a jot of interest in a perinatal hospice to talk about my experience.


I would however support the women who choose that option. I would like the choice to be available. Much like I would choose to have such a pregnancy terminated as early as possible. To suggest all women would want to deal with such a scenario in exactly the same way, while surrounded by others in the same boat, reminds me of the Magdalene 'solution' to difficult pregnancies. Its grossly insulting to suggest I would be 'talked around' to Cora's solution.

Will they ever, ever recognise the importance of choice? I feel so, so frustrated.

lazygal

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Will they ever, ever recognise the importance of choice? I feel so, so frustrated.

No. Their way is right and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be shouted down or go abroad.

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-un-1173633-Nov2013/

Amanda Mellet is filing a petition with the UN claiming the government here violated her human rights by refusing to allow her to terminate her unviable pregnancy in Ireland.

I hope she wins this case, for all women's sake.

Sarky

I see everyone's favourite group of creepily-divorced-from-reality religious loons Youth Defence is lying through its teeth in an attempt to undermine the women at the UN:

"FACT 3: No doctor can tell a parent with absolute certainty that a child 'will not survive outside the womb'."

What a bunch of despicable c*nts, eh?

lazygal

Facts and Youth Defence are two very different concepts.

Delirium

Sarky wrote: »

I see everyone's favourite group of creepily-divorced-from-reality religious loons Youth Defence is lying through its teeth in an attempt to undermine the women at the UN:

"FACT 3: No doctor can tell a parent with absolute certainty that a child 'will not survive outside the womb'."

What a bunch of despicable c*nts, eh?

Yeah, the lack of brain really isn't that big a hurdle:rolleyes: (although YD almost prove that sarcastic remark to be true :P)

they're also stating that 90% of women where the foetus has terminal illness/fatal foetal abnormalities carry the pregnancy to term

The say that the number of 1500 on primetime is over-inflated, and should be about 700. I'll leave that aside and just see where they go with the 700.

They say only 36 women aborted out of the 700. They use the number of women with Irish addresses who aborted for Ground E as recorded by the HSE to prove their case.

That assumes that all 700 women, 1) gave Irish addresses.

2) went to England or Wales (don't know if all hospitals are recorded in those countries in HSE number, e.g. private hospitals or abortion clinics).

3) Had the abortion recorded under Ground E when they had the abortion.

There are supposedly 4,000 Irish women having abortions per annum. Are we really expected to believe that only 36 out 700 in the group outlined above had abortions?

and they have the cheek to complain that RTE treat the public as idiots! :rolleyes:

lazygal

Even if only one woman wants to terminate a pregnancy because the foetus won't survive she should be allowed to do so in her own country.

robindch

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Will they ever, ever recognise the importance of choice?

In the "pro-life" worldview, life itself begins at the moment of conception, hence any abortion is equivalent to premeditated murder.

I'm not arguing for or against any position here, but just pointing out that the "pro-life" position has its axioms and rules, just as the "pro-choice" side does. And I'm not always sure that both sides appreciate that of the other.

Sarky

"Life begins at conception" is a really, REALLY poor axiom. It might have held water a century ago when nobody really knew how embryos develop, but it's just not good enough today.

The Black Oil

I get why the more vocal pro-life advocates stick to their guns. What I don't get is how they seem rather heartless at times.

lazygal

Its simple. When you force a woman to remain pregnant, regardless of any other considerations, compassion goes out the window in the pursuit of enforcing that mindset. When one's goal is birth at any cost, one doesn't have room for any niggly doubts or grey areas.