Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Indeed. We have difference words for things such as sperm. ovum, zygote, foetus and baby, because they are clearly different things. In Irish legislation we see the word person used extensively, and unborn in relation to abortion. Interesting that there is a need to distinguish between an 'unborn' and a 'person'.

I dunno. Zygote, foetus and baby are not "clearly different things". As far as I can see, they're the same thing, at different stages of development. And we could continue the sequence - baby, infant, child, adolescent, adult. All of these things are the same organism, the same entity, the same genetically distinct and genetically unique individual, at different stages of development.

I don't think we can argue that, because we have different names for the same, um, entity at different stages of development, we are therefore justified in treating it differently. If anything, the different names reflect the fact that we do treat it differently at different stages. But, once you accept that, we can't argue that the different names prove that the different treatment is morally justified; that would be a circular argument.

Of course, this cuts both ways. You can use a single term to embrace the entity at all stages of development, but this doesn't in itself prove that you are morally required to treat it identically at every stage. The use of the single term may show that you do accord it an equal moral status at all points of development, but it doesn't show that you must.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course, this cuts both ways. You can use a single term to embrace the entity at all stages of development, but this doesn't in itself prove that you are morally required to treat it identically at every stage. The use of the single term may show that you do accord it an equal moral status at all points of development, but it doesn't show that you must.

Agreed, it really boils down to an argument over semantics that has very little to do with the substance of the larger debate. For those that consider all abortion to be murder, and equate the right to life of the mother with that of the unborn, what is important is determining at what stage in the life cycle we consider the unborn to be a person. If we assume that no civilised society condones murder, it is interesting to look at where we stand with abortion legislation throughout Europe (source)

We can see that nearly all countries in Europe outside of Ireland and Poland allow for abortion in the early weeks of the pregnancy at the request of the mother;



and that the time-frame for which this is allowed ranges from 10-22 weeks with 12 weeks being the most common cut off point;



From this it seems reasonable to say that the notion held here in Ireland that the freshly implanted embryo is a person that should be accorded human rights is an exception in civilised European society. On a global level, if we look at the Pew Research Centre's article on the subject there does seem to be a correlation with a ban on abortion and strongly Catholic countries on the one hand, and poorer countries on the other.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, it really boils down to an argument over semantics that has very little to do with the substance of the larger debate. For those that consider all abortion to be murder, and equate the right to life of the mother with that of the unborn, what is important is determining at what stage in the life cycle we consider the unborn to be a person . . .

No. What I'm suggesting is that "at what stage to we consider the unborn to be a person?" and "at what stage do we want to ban abortion?" are really the same question, differently phrased. You can't say "we must ban abortion because the unborn is a person!"; that's a circular argument. But, equally, "we can permit abortion because the unborn is not a person!" is just as circular . Defining a starting point for personhood is just another way of choosing the stopping-point for abortion, but it can't prove that you have chosen the right stopping-point for abortion.

As for the rest of your post, it's interesting but I don't think all that persuasive. We already know that Ireland is pretty much at one end of the spectrum of permissive/restrictive legislation as regards abortion. So what? But I don't see how that could either validate or invalidate Ireland's position.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

When the state that sends and young girl who was raped abroad <...> affects the few.

That... definitely reads like the abortion on demand is not in this country, but another country. The UK, from what you're saying there.

veliktom

The "Conservative Catholic Ireland" anthem, all sing along now!

We don't need no terminations
We don't need no birth control
Don't say orgasm in the classroom
People, leave your bits alone
Hey! People! Leave them bits alone!
Cus afterall we still have control of the Dail
Yes thank the Lord we still have control of the Dail.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. What I'm suggesting is that "at what stage to we consider the unborn to be a person?" and "at what stage do we want to ban abortion?" are really the same question, differently phrased.

That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. If the pro-life stance equates abortion with murder, we need to know when we consider the unborn to be a person, as murder is an act against the person.

As for the rest of your post, it's interesting but I don't think all that persuasive. We already know that Ireland is pretty much at one end of the spectrum of permissive/restrictive legislation as regards abortion. So what? But I don't see how that could either validate or invalidate Ireland's position.

Simply that Ireland's abortion ban is rooted in Catholic dogma from a previous era. Abortion was similarly banned in many countries in the past (e.g. France and Germany until the early 70s) just as contraception was banned in the 70s here. And yet even then, women were availing of abortions by getting on the boat, just as they are today by getting on a plane, so the only effect of the legislation is to penalise the very few vulnerable girls and women who cannot travel for one reason or the other. Ireland's position is a pretence, the care of the unborn it supposes to have a clear nonsense, and the morality it is based on nothing more than a stick with which to beat the people in our society most deserving of our care.

Put simply, the spectrum you see as permissive/restrictive others might view as civilised/barbaric.

Loafing Oaf

smacl wrote: »

From this it seems reasonable to say that the notion held here in Ireland that the freshly implanted embryo is a person that should be accorded human rights is an exception in civilised European society.

You would think if the pro-lifers really believed their rhetoric they would be trumpeting this exceptionalism from the rooftops at every opportunity. In actuality they generally mutter it out of the sides of their mouths, and prefer to celebrate abortion restrictions in other countries like Poland or American states that are usually much weaker than ours. I suspect this is because it would prompt the ordinary uncommitted punter to ask how likely is it, really, that we are in the right about this and every other 'civilised' country is in the wrong...

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. If the pro-life stance equates abortion with murder, we need to know when we consider the unborn to be a person, as murder is an act against the person.

I'm not seeing your point. If we equate termination at any point after fertilisation with murder, then obviously we consider the unborn to be a person from the point of fertilisation. But if we don't equate termination with murder until a later point (say, 26 weeks) then we don't consider the unborn to be a person until 26 weeks. And if we don't equate termination with murder at any point, then we don't consider the unborn to a person at any point.

But, so what? That all seems trite; it does nothing to help us decide when we should equate termination with murder, or if we should do so at any point.

smacl wrote: »

Simply that Ireland's abortion ban is rooted in Catholic dogma from a previous era. Abortion was similarly banned in many countries in the past . . .

\
Well, no. It's a historical fact that Ireland's abortion ban was the same as Britain's abortion ban, and was legislated by the UK Parliament in the 19th century, which was a body not notably influenced by Catholic dogma. We can say that Ireland's abortion ban reflects beliefs and values held in the past, but they certainly weren't distinctively Catholic beliefs and values.

Nor were they held exclusively in the past, since we can observe that many people still hold them. It's fair to say that they are held by relatively fewer people today than was the case fifty or a hundred years ago but, again, that does nothing to show that they are invalid.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. If the pro-life stance equates abortion with murder, we need to know when we consider the unborn to be a person, as murder is an act against the person.

Its possible to kill a person without it being murder. A "lawful killing" in self-defence maybe. Abortion to save the life of the mother can be considered along those lines. The killing of a person, but not a murder.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Its possible to kill a person without it being murder. A "lawful killing" in self-defence maybe. Abortion to save the life of the mother can be considered along those lines. The killing of a person, but not a murder.

The point was made in reference to the pro-life rhetoric which equates any abortion with unlawful taking of a persons life, which is close enough to our current legislature yet very far removed with how the rest of the civilised world considers it.

I personally would not consider a human foetus that has yet to develop any sort of a brain to be a person. This is the position held by most first world countries, but not by this one. That said, we have a significant abortion rate among Irish women, and have had for decades, so what the good Catholics of this country say and what they actually do are quite distinct.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not seeing your point. If we equate termination at any point after fertilisation with murder, then obviously we consider the unborn to be a person from the point of fertilisation. But if we don't equate termination with murder until a later point (say, 26 weeks) then we don't consider the unborn to be a person until 26 weeks. And if we don't equate termination with murder at any point, then we don't consider the unborn to a person at any point.

This is precisely the point. Any moral dilemma surrounding abortion only exists after we acknowledge that the unborn is a person. The stance of the Vatican for example is that this happens at conception. That taken by our current legislature is that it is at implantation. Given that most other first world countries allow abortion at the request of the mother in the first 12 weeks, they don't consider the foetus to be a person until that stage.

I'm of the opinion that considering a freshly fertilised ovum or early stage foetus to be a person deserving equal rights to an adult woman is a position that most typically demands strongly held religious beliefs. One such belief for example might be in the existence of a soul.

Giacomo McGubbin

veliktom wrote: »

The "Conservative Catholic Ireland" anthem, all sing along now!

We don't need no terminations
We don't need no birth control
Don't say orgasm in the classroom
People, leave your bits alone
Hey! People! Leave them bits alone!
Cus afterall we still have control of the Dail
Yes thank the Lord we still have control of the Dail.

Don't tell me you need religion to respect human life ?

Giacomo McGubbin

smacl wrote: »

The point was made in reference to the pro-life rhetoric which equates any abortion with unlawful taking of a persons life

No that's your version of events. Person is an arbitrary and unscientific term. Anyone can claim at any point in your life you are not a person because of some arbitrary reason in order justify extinguishing your life. Whereas what is human life, is a scientifically and biological established fact.

Giacomo McGubbin

recedite wrote: »

Its possible to kill a person without it being murder. A "lawful killing" in self-defence maybe. Abortion to save the life of the mother can be considered along those lines. The killing of a person, but not a murder.

Indeed the law could changed so that in the event you kill someone for organ harvesting to save another's life, it's not murder.

aloyisious

Originally Posted by smacl View Post
The point was made in reference to the pro-life rhetoric which equates any abortion with unlawful taking of a persons life

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

No that's your version of events. Person is an arbitrary and unscientific term. Anyone can claim at any point in your life you are not a person because of some arbitrary reason in order justify extinguishing your life. Whereas what is human life, is a scientifically and biological established fact.

Good point that: Person V Human in respect of abortion....... I wondered if the Pro-life campaign here used the word human to describe the feotus/unborn child in it's campaign releases and checked on the net for an answer.

Though I don't like posting Pro-life or Cora Sherlock statements on that particular point as it might be of an advantage to their campaign, Cora mentioned that specific point in a presentation to the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva in July 2015, as reported in the irish Times that month. So I presume it was raised in their campaign here (edit) and probably will be in their campaign against deletion of the 8th.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiIkp7Iy8nOAhXDJ8AKHWrVBX8QFggsMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fun-told-abortion-link-to-human-rights-treaties-without-foundation-1.2284798&usg=AFQjCNHu_1bmyKskwcilH4LjfF5KJV16TA

Ms Sherlock pointed to the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states children need “special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. She said it was “regrettable” the UN Human Rights Committee had criticised Ireland in the past for its position on abortion.

She said the Human Rights Committee had “a duty to protect life” and should not seek “to pressure countries to remove human rights from certain sections of society”. “The unborn child is a living human being and is entitled to all of the same rights as other members of the human family,” she said.

“It does not make sense to remove the fundamental right to life from an entire group of human beings.

“I hope the Human Rights Committee will reflect on its duty to comply with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which, when properly applied, should act to protect human life especially the most vulnerable.”

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

The point was made in reference to the pro-life rhetoric which equates any abortion with unlawful taking of a persons life, which is close enough to our current legislature yet very far removed with how the rest of the civilised world considers it.

Rhetoric aside, murder (obviously) isn't the only crime that is considered when someone takes a persons life, and there are obviously other parts of the civilised world (unless your criteria for civilised is 'agrees with smacls view on abortion') where it is also a crime to take the life of an unborn person. I think Peregrinus addressed that very well already; Ireland is pretty much at one end of the spectrum of permissive/restrictive legislation as regards abortion, but that neither validates or invalidates Ireland's position. If we drag in the oft touted same sex marriage referendum, we can say Ireland is the only country in Europe to introduce same sex marriage by plebiscite, and one of only 21 countries where it is legal (one of 27 where abortion is similarly illegal), so I wouldn't say being a part of the smaller group of nations is necessarily an indication that our position is wrong....

smacl wrote: »

I personally would not consider a human foetus that has yet to develop any sort of a brain to be a person. This is the position held by most first world countries, but not by this one.

Not really though.... Take the UK for example; it affords personhood to the foetus (the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 which states: 1.-(1) Where property, <...> to the court, or (c) any person unborn) it simply doesn't prohibit abortion on that basis. Similarly, in the US the Unborn Victims of Violence Act the Unborn Victims of Violence Act defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two victims: the woman and the fetus she carries. The American Convention on Human Rights envisages the fetal right to life from the moment of conception, and has been ratified by 25 countries.
Probably more accurate to say most first world countries have varying attitudes to the status of the unborn and varying views on the permissibilty of abortion, with Ireland being amongst the liberal ones with regards to rights, and amongst the conservative ones with regards to abortion.

smacl wrote: »

That said, we have a significant abortion rate among Irish women, and have had for decades, so what the good Catholics of this country say and what they actually do are quite distinct.

Well... we've no idea to think anyone (Catholic or otherwise) actually does other than they think, do we? After all, the number of women who seek terminations abroad each year is quite a small percentage of those who give birth in Ireland each year; we've previously looked at 2014 statistics on this thread, so taking those we know that 3,754 abortions performed in the UK on women claiming to be from the Republic, plus 26 in Ireland. So 3,780 abortions versus 67,462 registered births in Ireland; almost 6%. Not exactly enough to claim a disparity between what people say and what they do....

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that considering a freshly fertilised ovum or early stage foetus to be a person deserving equal rights to an adult woman is a position that most typically demands strongly held religious beliefs. One such belief for example might be in the existence of a soul.

Well, I suppose that's an advance on

smacl wrote: »

the notion that an undeveloped foetus, with no nervous function let alone a brain, is a person that should be accorded human rights is a position borne from religious belief, as it requires a notion such as ensoulment

at least. Small steps

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

This is precisely the point. Any moral dilemma surrounding abortion only exists after we acknowledge that the unborn is a person. The stance of the Vatican for example is that this happens at conception. That taken by our current legislature is that it is at implantation. Given that most other first world countries allow abortion at the request of the mother in the first 12 weeks, they don't consider the foetus to be a person until that stage.

No. I think we may be in danger of oversimplifying this.

On the one hand, it’s possible to think that an entity should be regarded as a person, and yet it’s permissible to kill it, or to fail to save it. (Just war, capital punishment, euthenasia, to protect the innocent, to save a greater number of lives. It doesn’t matter whether you or I do countenance death in any or all these cases, so long as we recognise that people can, and some poeple do .)

On the other hand, it’s possible to think that killing is impermissible, or at any rate morally problematic and requires a strong justification, without viewing the entity killed as a person. For example, a lot of the countries referred to in your post above allow abortion up to a relatively early stage more or less on demand, up to a later stage only in stringent and limited circumstances (e.g. foetal abnormality) and after that not at all. During the intermediate period, do they consider the unborn entity to be a “person”? Clearly not, since they allow it to be killed on account of disability, which they would not allow in the case of a disabled person. On the other hand, they afford it a high degree of protection, so obviously they see it as a being with moral significance and a moral claim not only on its mother but on society, despite not being a “person”.

So, I think the pro-life position, fully expanded, has to be this: the unborn entity is a person and there are no circumstances which justify taking the person’s life. But the pro-choice position could be one of two positions:

(a) The unborn entity is not a person and furthermore is not [at this point of development] any other kind of entity which has a claim on our protection.

(b) The unborn entity is a person but [at this point of development] circumstances exist which justify taking the person’s life

The other point to bear in mind is that the discourse in Ireland (and in many other countries) is almost entirely about what the state should do, and hardly at all about what a woman should do. Imagine a situation in which a woman is legally free to have an abortion. Does it follow that her decision to have an abortion, or not to, has no moral or ethical content? Clearly, it does not. We know that many women in that situation find the dilemma an extremely challenging one. (And, I note in passing, our public discourse about abortion is no help at all in equipping her to face that challenge.) It seems to me that “personhood” language is mainly invoked when we are discussing whether the state is justified in intervening in the choices a woman makes with regard to her own pregancy - and, even then, it’s a relevant consideration but not a determining one. I don’t see it being invoked nearly so much with regard to equipping a woman to make a choice.

smacl wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that considering a freshly fertilised ovum or early stage foetus to be a person deserving equal rights to an adult woman is a position that most typically demands strongly held religious beliefs. One such belief for example might be in the existence of a soul.

Honestly, I can’t see why you would be of that opinion. The notion that a humanity has a transcendent moral value is not a particularly religious notion; in fact, it’s the basis of humanism. And you can obviously reason from there to a position the developing human individual has moral significance, regardless of the state of development. You don’t need to invoke any intriinsically religious beliefs to get there.

We should also note that many women who are free to choose an abortion, and who have social, economic or other pressures to do so, nevertheless choose not to have an abortion. Precisely because of the focus of our public discourse on what the state should do, we actually pay very little attention to the choices women make or their reasons for making them (and the polarised and toxic nature of our discourse certainly doesn’t encourage anyone to be forthcoming). But I don’t see any reason to assume that all the women who choose to continue their pregnancies are religious, or that any ethical claim which they consider the pregnancy to make upon them is religiously-based.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the pro-choice position could be one of two positions:

(a) The unborn entity is not a person and furthermore is not [at this point of development] any other kind of entity which has a claim on our protection.

(b) The unborn entity is a person but [at this point of development] circumstances exist which justify taking the person’s life

Agreed, I would say that the pro-choice position for many encompasses both of the above, dependant on the stage of pregnancy.

The other point to bear in mind is that the discourse in Ireland (and in many other countries) is almost entirely about what the state should do, and hardly at all about what a woman should do. Imagine a situation in which a woman is legally free to have an abortion. Does it follow that her decision to have an abortion, or not to, has no moral or ethical content? Clearly, it does not. We know that many women in that situation find the dilemma an extremely challenging one. (And, I note in passing, our public discourse about abortion is no help at all in equipping her to face that challenge.) It seems to me that “personhood” language is mainly invoked when we are discussing whether the state is justified in intervening in the choices a woman makes with regard to her own pregancy - and, even then, it’s a relevant consideration but not a determining one. I don’t see it being invoked nearly so much with regard to equipping a woman to make a choice.

If you re-read the above it actually encapsulates the pro-choice argument. I would say that most if not all women faced with an unwanted pregnancy find it to be an extremely challenging dilemma, and need to consider all of their options in the context of their own situation. Like it or not, abortion is one of these options, availed of ~3,500 times per annum at present. In the past, the state worked strenuously to limit access to this option, including prosecuting those who published information about it. A woman has other choices, including carrying the baby full term and putting it up for adoption, or carrying the baby full term and keeping it. Which of these choices the woman should take will be entirely dependent on her own situation and moral stance and is very far from being black or white. For some the dilemma is that great they might choose suicide.

Once we acknowledge that all of these choices exists, that it is not in our power to remove any of these choices, surely the best course of action is to help the individual make the best choice for their circumstances? Suggesting that abortion is not a valid choice in all but the most extreme cases, where it demonstrably is, is clearly nonsense.

For what its worth, I think Ireland should also be working hard to reduce the number of abortions we see among Irish women on an annual basis, as unwanted pregnancy is clearly a traumatic dilemma that can often be avoided. Improved education around contraception, including emergency contraception in the form of the morning after pill, as well as better access to such contraption is clearly important. You have to wonder how many unwanted pregnancies resulting in abortions among Irish women are as a result of Catholic teachings on contraception, and whether the Vatican's statement that use of the morning after pill is a form of abortion (which is contrary to our constitution) also leads to more unwanted pregnancies?

smacl

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Don't tell me you need religion to respect human life ?

Obviously not. Floydian slip maybe?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, I think the pro-life position, fully expanded, has to be this: the unborn entity is a person and there are no circumstances which justify taking the person’s life.

But the pro-choice position could be one of two positions:
(a) The unborn entity is not a person and furthermore is not [at this point of development] any other kind of entity which has a claim on our protection.

(b) The unborn entity is a person but [at this point of development] circumstances exist which justify taking the person’s life

This is a good summary. What you describe above as "the fully expanded pro-life position" the likes of smacl describes as "the pro-life rhetoric". Which is fair enough, but then he seamlessly goes on to misrepresent this as the position of the state, and attributes this position to the state's recognition of personhood in the unborn. Whereas the legislation in this country is actually better represented as the pro-choice view in (b) above.
He wants (a) to be the state's position instead.

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, I think the pro-life position, fully expanded, has to be this: the unborn entity is a person and there are no circumstances which justify taking the person’s life. But the pro-choice position could be one of two positions:
(a) The unborn entity is not a person and furthermore is not [at this point of development] any other kind of entity which has a claim on our protection.
(b) The unborn entity is a person but [at this point of development] circumstances exist which justify taking the person’s life

I'm not sure you can say the pro-life position has to be this.. that falls into the trap of 'If you're pro-life you must xxx or you're not really, or you're really pro-choice' when that is simply not the case.

I think personhood is a nebulous concept; at best it probably describes how we feel about something rather than describing what it is. If we feel sufficient empathy and connection we describe it as a person (which is why some people will say a pet is a person), if we don't, we can't understand why someone would. So legal personhood is a tricky proposition, swayed by what is practicable, sentiment, and neccesity; it's why there is no agreed definition worldwide, and so much variation from State to State.

For what it's worth I consider myself pro life, and I would say the unborn entity is a person and there are circumstances which justify taking the person’s life, just as there are circumstances which justify taking a born persons life. I don't think being pro life requires one to be in favour of life in all circumstances, any more than being pro choice requires one to favour choosing abortion in all circumstances.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure you can say the pro-life position has to be this.. that falls into the trap of 'If you're pro-life you must xxx or you're not really, or you're really pro-choice' when that is simply not the case.

I think personhood is a nebulous concept; at best it probably describes how we feel about something rather than describing what it is. If we feel sufficient empathy and connection we describe it as a person (which is why some people will say a pet is a person), if we don't, we can't understand why someone would. So legal personhood is a tricky proposition, swayed by what is practicable, sentiment, and neccesity; it's why there is no agreed definition worldwide, and so much variation from State to State.

For what it's worth I consider myself pro life, and I would say the unborn entity is a person and there are circumstances which justify taking the person’s life, just as there are circumstances which justify taking a born persons life. I think being pro life requires one to be in favour of life in all circumstances, any more than being pro choice requires one to favour choosing abortion in all circumstances.

Does this extend to absolute disgust at modern clinical practices such as Dignitas' assisted suicide and the Liverpool Care Pathway which recognise the value of 'quality' of life in these discussions?

Absolam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Does this extend to absolute disgust at modern clinical practices such as Dignitas' assisted suicide and the Liverpool Care Pathway which recognise the value of 'quality' of life in these discussions?

Oops. Duly amended.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Well... we've no idea to think anyone (Catholic or otherwise) actually does other than they think, do we? After all, the number of women who seek terminations abroad each year is quite a small percentage of those who give birth in Ireland each year; we've previously looked at 2014 statistics on this thread, so taking those we know that 3,754 abortions performed in the UK on women claiming to be from the Republic, plus 26 in Ireland. So 3,780 abortions versus 67,462 registered births in Ireland; almost 6%. Not exactly enough to claim a disparity between what people say and what they do....

And of those 67,462 registered births, how many of them do you imagine are to women who wanted to have children? I would guess the vast majority. The figure we're more interested in is how many unwanted babies are put up for adoption in Ireland, which is the clear alternative to abortion for an unwanted pregancy. If we are bold enough to trust The Irish Catholic this is about 20 per annum, which would have the abortion rate for unwanted pregnancies at 99.5%. Let's be really generous and go so far as to allow ten times the number of unwanted pregnancies leading to unwanted children being kept by their birth mothers, we're still looking at an abortion rate for unwanted pregnancies among Irish women being of the order of 94%.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

And of those 67,462 registered births, how many of them do you imagine are to women who wanted to have children? I would guess the vast majority. The figure we're more interested in is how many unwanted babies are put up for adoption in Ireland, which is the clear alternative to abortion for an unwanted pregancy. If we are bold enough to trust The Irish Catholic this is about 20 per annum, which would have the abortion rate for unwanted pregnancies at 99.5%. Let's be really generous and go so far as to allow ten times the number of unwanted pregnancies leading to unwanted children being kept by their birth mothers, we're still looking at an abortion rate for unwanted pregnancies among Irish women being of the order of 94%.

That, however, assumes that every unwanted pregnancy is either aborted or given up for adoption... which is a baseless assumption And you're rather speculatively taking ten times the number of adoptions as unwanted children being kept; what if it's ten times the number of abortions? Given that there's as much evidence for one as the other, you may as well. Maybe it's only five times that number... in which case the Constitution saves the lives of 18,400 children a year, and the vast majority of births are still, as you say, to women who wanted to have children. If we're going to speculate wildly with numbers I think we can confidently say we can both make up statistics that do anything we want I'm pretty sure the lack of actual numbers leaves plenty of room for the possibility that Catholics (and others) in Ireland actually do what they say though!

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

If we're going to speculate wildly with numbers I think we can confidently say we can both make up statistics that do anything we want

Indeed, my starting point was your 6% figure given on the basis of rate of abortions per live birth, which was clearly wrong. Mine was based on number of adoptions versus number of abortions at < 1%, also wrong. Searching for some harder information, the best I could come up with was a HSE study on Irish Contraception and Crisis pregnancy, which makes for interesting reading. As of 2010 in this study, it would appear that the abortion rate for crisis pregnancies in Ireland stands at 21%, so while we were both wrong your guess was rather better than mine (mea culpa :P )

The rest of the document makes for interesting reading, particularly with attitudes towards abortion, with 45% of the sampled group of the opinion that the choice of abortion should be allowed in any circumstances, and >85% in the case of rape, incest, or the woman's health being in danger. (95% if the woman's life would be in danger). Makes for interesting reading, particularly with regard to the ongoing effort to promote contraception and significantly reduce the overall numbers of crisis pregnancies.

PopePalpatine

I posted this a few moments ago in t'udder forum:

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Between 2010 and 2014, the rate of deaths due to complications as a result of pregnancy have doubled in Texas. This dramatic rise in deaths due to pregnancy - which leaves Texas with a maternal mortality rate unseen elsewhere in the developed world - coincides with the 2011 slashing of the Texan family planning budget by 66%, along with drastically reducing the number of women's health clinics within its borders.

aloyisious

Today's Indo ran a story that George Sorus is funding groups (IFPA and Amnesty Ireland) which favour the repeal of the 8th in Ireland, with a statement from Cora Sherlock on the story. RTE news also ran with the story. Hopefully the revelation of the external funding source will be copied by other groups with opinions on the monolith standing in the path of choice of Irish women.

Unfortunately for women here and in the UK, one of the UK's regulatory (the CQC) authorities has "found" a problem with the Marie Stopes UK operation which has caused a temporary cessation of some of the services it provides to women. I reckon that there will/must be a knock-on effect for Irish women travelling to the UK. The halt in operations is in respect of under 18-year old women (ref signature of Op forms) and women more than 12 weeks pregnant with an apparent fear that there is a risk in the M.S. clinics anaesthesia routine. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service charity is working to provide the service shortfall. Marie Stopes story source:telegraph.co.uk

Hopefully the clinics will be able to resume provision of service as usual for women of choice.

Edited George Sorus funding line wording......

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I posted this a few moments ago in t'udder forum:

Me too!

Absolam wrote: »

Also interesting to note that whilst (according to the article) Texas' mortality rate increased from 17.7 to 35.8 per 100,000 births, the US overall increased from 18.8 to 23.8, and the journal the article is based on says that the mechanism used to collect the information has changed and is incomplete, muddying the data. Ireland in the same timeframe increased from 7 to 8 (worth pointing out that the Worldbank date shows the US stayed at 14 from 2010 to 2014, and the CIA world factbook says the US went from 21 in 2010 to 14 in 2015). Like the authors of the quoted article, I don't think I'd go further than saying this is more than coincidental, and I would definitely be wary of saying it implies causation. But certainly, it's a good indicator for those posters who have said they don't feel safe carrying a child in Ireland due to the existing legislation; statistically Ireland offers a better chance of survival for pregnant women than both the UK and the US. Personally I'd ascribe that to our much maligned but underrated public health service rather than abortion legislation (and the fact that in Texas health services such as birth control, cancer screenings, well-woman exams and preventative healthcare for poor people were cut, rather than abortions), but since it was introduced in an abortion context.....

I did mention it a little earlier on this thread; Ireland ranks 16th best out of 184 nations on the CIA World Factbooks worldwide maternal mortality rate (the annual number of female deaths per 100,000 live births from any cause related to or aggravated by pregnancy or its management (excluding accidental or incidental causes); 33 places ahead of the US. As I said on the other forum, I'd look more towards our public health care system than our abortion legislation for the reason behind that; I think the article probably says more about just how bad it is to be poor in the US than anything else.