Opinions on whether the 'unborn' have a right to life?

MrYlad

"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right"

Do you agree with the above amendment to our constitution? If yes, why? If not, why?
(If this thread should be elsewhere on boards, feel free to let me know or move it)

Ken.

Mod- Moved to humanities. Please read the local charter before posting. Thank you.

Disgruntled Badger

No. The law is unclear.

I used to be against abortion in almost all circumstances but I have come to accept that terminating an early stage pregnancy is not the same as killing a citizen of the state which is what the law seems to suggest IMO

It's sad that anyone would feel the need to do it but upto 12 weeks is probably the right limit for elective. After that only in the event of rape or incest or on medical grounds Fatal fetal abnormalities etc, and from 24 weeks it should be extraction to give it a chance

I think we also need to seriously look at education around contraception while we are at it, so fewer men and women end up in this horrible predicament of having to make that choice.

We won't come up with something that everyone agrees with but it would be good if we could find a solution most of us agree with. I suspect though, the Irish are not ready for elective abortion.

melissak

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

No. The law is unclear.

I used to be against abortion in almost all circumstances but I have come to accept that terminating an early stage pregnancy is not the same as killing a citizen of the state which is what the law seems to suggest IMO

It's sad that anyone would feel the need to do it but upto 12 weeks is probably the right limit for elective. After that only in the event of rape or incest or on medical grounds Fatal fetal abnormalities etc, and from 24 weeks it should be extraction to give it a chance

I think we also need to seriously look at education around contraception while we are at it, so fewer men and women end up in this horrible predicament of having to make that choice.

We won't come up with something that everyone agrees with but it would be good if we could find a solution most of us agree with. I suspect though, the Irish are not ready for elective abortion.

. The law as I see it does not have to be changed regarding fatal fetal anomalies, if a baby is clearly not viable it cannot have a right to life. We will be getting on to very dodgy ground re rape. If the baby has a right to life, another person's actions (the rapist) can not take away that right.
Under what circumstances would anyone have a 24 week abortion?. Children have been born healthy at this gestation.

rainbow kirby

melissak wrote: »

Under what circumstances would anyone have a 24 week abortion?. Children have been born healthy at this gestation.

The overwhelming majority of people who have abortions after 20 weeks in the UK are for medical reasons - severe, life-limiting and fatal abnormalities. It's incredibly rare that people make the decision to abort at that stage for other reasons.

I am personally of the opinion that the 8th amendment should be removed from the constitution regardless of your opinion on abortion - it is broad enough that it affects miscarriage management, prenatal testing, choices in labour and delivery, treatment of non-pregnancy-related medical conditions and even end-of-life issues in an adverse manner and these issues all need more nuanced legislation.

From a personal point of view - I am currently 7 months pregnant and feel safer having my baby in the UK without the 8th amendment in place.

melissak

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of people who have abortions after 20 weeks in the UK are for medical reasons - severe, life-limiting and fatal abnormalities. It's incredibly rare that people make the decision to abort at that stage for other reasons.

I am personally of the opinion that the 8th amendment should be removed from the constitution regardless of your opinion on abortion - it is broad enough that it affects miscarriage management, prenatal testing, choices in labour and delivery, treatment of non-pregnancy-related medical conditions and even end-of-life issues in an adverse manner and these issues all need more nuanced legislation.

From a personal point of view - I am currently 7 months pregnant and feel safer having my baby in the UK without the 8th amendment in place.

But surely those would be covered under existing constitution. If the baby is inviable it can not live. If the mother's life is threatened this is covered as they have an equal right to life and an unborn baby cannot live if the mother dies. What other circumstances?
Why do you feel safer without the 8th amendment? How would it potentially effect you?
How does it relate to childbirth etc? I'm not interrogating you, just not familiar with this

fits

melissak wrote: »

But surely those would be covered under existing constitution. If the baby is inviable it can not live. If the mother's life is threatened this is covered as they have an equal right to life and an unborn baby cannot live if the mother dies. What other circumstances?
Why do you feel safer without the 8th amendment? How would it potentially effect you?

The equal right to life often means treatment is not available to the mother which should be available beacause it might affect the foetus. So yes i would feel safer if that werent there.

rainbow kirby

melissak wrote: »

But surely those would be covered under existing constitution. If the baby is inviable it can not live. If the mother's life is threatened this is covered as they have an equal right to life and an unborn baby cannot live if the mother dies. What other circumstances?
Why do you feel safer without the 8th amendment? How would it potentially effect you?
How does it relate to childbirth etc? I'm not interrogating you, just not familiar with this

A few reasons...

- Miscarriage management: foetus clearly unviable but still a heartbeat, the management would be long and drawn out rather than simply performing a D&C, using the appropriate drugs for a first trimester medical termination or induced delivery if later on.

- Diagnosis of a condition that will severely affect a woman's long term health but may not be immediately fatal: if the unborn has an equal right to life, then she can't consider an abortion to pursue her own treatment even if this condition has been diagnosed very early in her pregnancy. Cancer treatement could have to be stopped in certain cases too as chemotherapy is particularly toxic to rapidly growing/dividing cells.

- Prenatal testing: in the same envelope as my booking-in letter there was an NHS booklet regarding prenatal testing for various trisomies and other conditions, which took place at the 12 week scan and other checks at the 20 week scan. TFMR is stated as a very matter-of-fact option when discussing consequences rather than the pearl-clutching that would take place if similar information was provided in Ireland.

- There are hospitals in Ireland that provide scans at incorrect times because "oh there's nothing you can do about it anyway" - standards internationally are a dating scan at approximately 12 weeks and an anatomy/anomaly scan at 18-22 weeks. On the pregnancy forum here there have been cases in the last month where a poster has referred to her scans being at 14 and 28 weeks (dating scan too late for nuchal translucency measurement to be valid and anatomy scan after the UK abortion limit so if an abnormality is found she must carry to term) and refers to another woman at her hospital only receiving a single scan at 23 weeks - making it too tight time-wise to travel if there are any severe/fatal abnormalities present. There are other hospitals that only provide a dating scan at 12 weeks and no anatomy scan at all. Women are being left without full information about their pregnancies at the appropriate time and that is quite frankly wrong.

- In childbirth, the 8th can be used to force unnecessary interventions and used to deny certain choices (homebirth, VBAC etc) even when these choices would be allowed in other countries. Given that Irish hospitals gave the world the rubbish that is Active Management of Labour and tend to expect women to labour on a very tight schedule this results in the Caesarean rate being way higher than it should be with many of these being a result of forced interventions.

melissak

rainbow kirby wrote: »

A few reasons...

- Miscarriage management: foetus clearly unviable but still a heartbeat, the management would be long and drawn out rather than simply performing a D&C, using the appropriate drugs for a first trimester medical termination or induced delivery if later on.

- Diagnosis of a condition that will severely affect a woman's long term health but may not be immediately fatal: if the unborn has an equal right to life, then she can't consider an abortion to pursue her own treatment even if this condition has been diagnosed very early in her pregnancy. Cancer treatement could have to be stopped in certain cases too as chemotherapy is particularly toxic to rapidly growing/dividing cells.

- Prenatal testing: in the same envelope as my booking-in letter there was an NHS booklet regarding prenatal testing for various trisomies and other conditions, which took place at the 12 week scan and other checks at the 20 week scan. TFMR is stated as a very matter-of-fact option when discussing consequences rather than the pearl-clutching that would take place if similar information was provided in Ireland.

- There are hospitals in Ireland that provide scans at incorrect times because "oh there's nothing you can do about it anyway" - standards internationally are a dating scan at approximately 12 weeks and an anatomy/anomaly scan at 18-22 weeks. On the pregnancy forum here there have been cases in the last month where a poster has referred to her scans being at 14 and 28 weeks (dating scan too late for nuchal translucency measurement to be valid and anatomy scan after the UK abortion limit so if an abnormality is found she must carry to term) and refers to another woman at her hospital only receiving a single scan at 23 weeks - making it too tight time-wise to travel if there are any severe/fatal abnormalities present. There are other hospitals that only provide a dating scan at 12 weeks and no anatomy scan at all. Women are being left without full information about their pregnancies at the appropriate time and that is quite frankly wrong.

- In childbirth, the 8th can be used to force unnecessary interventions and used to deny certain choices (homebirth, VBAC etc) even when these choices would be allowed in other countries. Given that Irish hospitals gave the world the rubbish that is Active Management of Labour and tend to expect women to labour on a very tight schedule this results in the Caesarean rate being way higher than it should be with many of these being a result of forced interventions.

Has anyone been refused chemo in pregnancy under the current law?
Do we have a high rate of cesarean than countries like America that have abortion on demand?
Why would fatal fetal anomalies be affected by right to life. Fatal means incompatible with life, or am I missing something?

rainbow kirby

Michelle Harte died around 5 years ago as a result of the delays in her cancer treatment due to pregnancy, which she ended up travelling to the UK to terminate after the ethics board at Cork University Hospital ruled it was "not life threatening". The Sheila Hodgers case occurred around the time the 8th amendment passed - she was refused all treatment for her cancer when she became pregnant, delivered a baby at around 7 months gestation who died immediately, and she died 2 days later.

"Incompatible with life" means absolutely nothing under the Irish system. There is no choice but to travel if you do not want to carry to term.

melissak

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Michelle Harte died around 5 years ago as a result of the delays in her cancer treatment due to pregnancy, which she ended up travelling to the UK to terminate after the ethics board at Cork University Hospital ruled it was "not life threatening". The Sheila Hodgers case occurred around the time the 8th amendment passed - she was refused all treatment for her cancer when she became pregnant, delivered a baby at around 7 months gestation who died immediately, and she died 2 days later.

"Incompatible with life" means absolutely nothing under the Irish system. There is no choice but to travel if you do not want to carry to term.

Maybe the system could make it mean something?
Is it usual to not have chemo if pregnant pregnant?

rainbow kirby

Some forms of chemo can be given while pregnant if the risk of not taking it is greater than the risk to the foetus. There was recently a UK case which involved similar issues - the woman chose to try a safer form of chemo rather than terminate in her case, but needed Herceptin, she delivered at 28 weeks and unfortunately the baby did not survive (link). In Ireland her hand would have been forced, she would not have been given the option to terminate to get to the required chemo drug more quickly.

MrYlad

MrYlad wrote: »

"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right"

Do you agree with the above amendment to our constitution? If yes, why? If not, why?
(If this thread should be elsewhere on boards, feel free to let me know or move it)

Disagree. Whatever the constitution or the law states, it should reflect the reality that we live in rather than the ideal that we don't.

We live in a country where a woman can travel for an abortion abroad easily enough. Nearly every country that surrounds Ireland allows abortion so our laws need to reflect that reality.

Even if a woman cannot travel outside Ireland for an abortion then they can get an abortion pill posted to them for free by a very well organized and easily accessible international women's charity that helps women who really want abortions get an abortion. They are shockingly organized at getting abortion pills to women in countries where abortion is illegal such as Ireland.

And in Ireland today, you can head down to a health clinic in Dublin for example and see queues of young girls queuing up for the morning after pill which is legal and which is technically abortion. So the unborn is not as protected even in law as that statement says.

We need a better line that reflects the reality of Ireland today. I'm not sure that the constitution is the best place to be defining the rights of the unborn. Its more complicated than a single statement and considering how ignorant about 99% of the Irish population are on the wide range of issues surrounding the unborn,I'm not sure than the Irish population should be deciding the unborn's ultimate faith.

melissak

melissak wrote: »

But surely those would be covered under existing constitution. If the baby is inviable it can not live. If the mother's life is threatened this is covered as they have an equal

I know two people who found out at 22 weeks that their babies would die at birth. Both of these women had to carry their babies to full term. It's utterly barbaric.

Absolam

MrYlad wrote: »

"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right"
Do you agree with the above amendment to our constitution? If yes, why? If not, why?
(If this thread should be elsewhere on boards, feel free to let me know or move it)

I agree with it. The Constitution is both an aspirational document and a basis from which our governments legislate; that we aspire to extend civil liberties to the unborn is laudable in my opinion. However, the language is not in tune with medical advances which allow us to determine ffa and similar circumstances, so I think it bears reconsidering in that context. I would certainly agree with amending it so that dealing with fatal foetal abnormalities could be tied to how we deal with born people with fatal conditions who do not have the capacity of consent.

Or another way to look at is; I agree that the unborn should have a right to life, and that right should be as limitable as the right to life we confer on the born.

looksee

There is a staggering irony about a church that only requires children as numbers once they are born, who denied them state medical care as babies (Dr Noel Brownes Mother and Child scheme), mistreated them in mother and baby homes, in schools and orphanages, 'sold' them into adoption, and protected the people within the church who abused them, should be so concerned about them before they are born. And yes, I realise that not everyone who is against abortion does so because of a religious stance, but it is one of the main reasons in Ireland.

melissak

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know two people who found out at 22 weeks that their babies would die at birth. Both of these women had to carry their babies to full term. It's utterly barbaric.

That is so sad. Why did they not go to England?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

There is a staggering irony about a church that only requires children as numbers once they are born, who denied them state medical care as babies (Dr Noel Brownes Mother and Child scheme), mistreated them in mother and baby homes, in schools and orphanages, 'sold' them into adoption, and protected the people within the church who abused them, should be so concerned about them before they are born. And yes, I realise that not everyone who is against abortion does so because of a religious stance, but it is one of the main reasons in Ireland.

I imagine the very same Church would tell you they are just as concerned about children after they are born, it's why they endeavor to be engaged with the education systems for children, and charitable institutions such as those that provide food to the needy, not to mention lobbying governments. All to help shepherd the souls they cherish from to before birth through the trials of life into Gods grace. Of course, they'd be looking at things from a very different point of view than you I'd say.

Just goes to show there's more than one way of looking at things though, doesn't it.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

I imagine the very same Church would tell you they are just as concerned about children after they are born, it's why they endeavor to be engaged with the education systems for children, and charitable institutions such as those that provide food to the needy, not to mention lobbying governments. All to help shepherd the souls they cherish from to before birth through the trials of life into Gods grace. Of course, they'd be looking at things from a very different point of view than you I'd say.

Just goes to show there's more than one way of looking at things though, doesn't it.

What you are saying does not negate what I said. And yes, of course they would tell me about their concern, and of course they would be looking at things from a different point of view than me. And yes, there is more than one way of looking at things, it doesn't make my way wrong and their's right.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

What you are saying does not negate what I said. And yes, of course they would tell me about their concern, and of course they would be looking at things from a different point of view than me. And yes, there is more than one way of looking at things, it doesn't make my way wrong and their's right.

Of course it doesn't... but if we're going to have an off-topic rant we may as well have a couple of points of view on it, eh?

RDM_83 again

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of people who have abortions after 20 weeks in the UK are for medical reasons - severe, life-limiting and fatal abnormalities. It's incredibly rare that people make the decision to abort at that stage for other reasons.

This gets trotted out a lot but its actually not true, I went back on my old posts to find the link but unfortunately its now completely broken.
The study was this one
https://www.bpas.org/js/filemanager/files/bpas_press_briefing_late_abortion.pdf

Which is now inaccessible, looking at the main BPAS page here
https://www.bpas.org/get-involved/advocacy/briefings/premature-babies/
and this paper here
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/pdf/PCF_late_abortion08.pdf has a small reference to it.
The universities page has a press release about the study.
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2007/04/study-reveal-reasons-for-late-abortion.page

None of these imply that fetal health is the most common reason for very late term abortion (which as the first two links by very pro-choice institutions you would expect them to as it makes for a more palatable argument).

This debate has irrationality on both sides, in a way its understandable due to the nature of the questions it forces us to ask, my view is that in a country like Ireland we should strive to put forwards a "least worse scenario", a compelling argument can be made to moderate pro-lifers that as abortion occurs anyway some level of legal abortion (and way more contraception and sex ed) will reduce the number of late term abortions as well as risk to mothers etc.

We should not look to the UK as a model for legislation (and how its applied) as there is major differences in social outlook in the wider area that isn't motivated simply by caring about mothers or children, an example of what I mean is the fact that as off 2015 child benefit will only be paid too the first two children a woman has. Personally I would hope that in Ireland a move like this would be unthinkable because as a society we place less of an emphasis on personal choice and responsibility and more of an emphasis on a "paternalistic" state.