Abortion should be legalised in Ireland

kiffer

Woooh . it's taken me hours to read though the whole theard but i did it ...
(i did'nt want to post till i'd read every other posting.)
ok some of the following quotes are common views some are the views of the people which posted them ... they are drawin from though out the thread, and nothing is ment personaly, just as reactions to veiws comment...

Do you not find it ethically troubling that the baby can have a right to life after a certain point but not before it? Especially given that any date you set will be pretty arbitrary.

the veiw that its imposible to draw an arbitrary line thats not at risk of being wrong is a bitt odd in my mind ...
yes its arbitrary but let me put it this way
at some point between 1 and 100(dont actual times) , the baby becomes self aware / gains the right to life / it is no longer ethically permissamble to terminate the Child ...
but we cann't say exactly when this happens ... but we know it's defenitly happened before, um say 50 and that its defenitly not self aware at um 35 , but at any point in between we dont know which it is ... it can be argued that its either...
well then the arbitrary point 33 is safe as its not yet reached the point of ambiguity.

Now think this .... the state is wanting to say "if she's gonna commit suicide ,.. then let her". This would mean a failure to protect the unborn since the child would die too. What are they going to do. Force the mother to live through the pregnancy when she clearly wants to die?

One of them is at exceptional risk. Which will it be? Problem is, if the mother dies, then both die. SO either choose to protect the life of the mother on mental health grounds, or else fail to, and loose two lives. What does everyone else think on this one?

What are they going to do. Force the mother to live ....
yup . is'nt killing your self against the law?
they put people on suicide watch all the time...
there most be somthing extra wrong if some one is tring to kill them selves ...
nomal unwanted pregnacy is'nt going to cause that, you have to be pretty close to the edge before you actualy try to kill your self...
(actualy now that i think about it history is full of women and girls who've killed them selves over unwanted babys...) so scrap that bit....

- the flaw in your logic is this - I've been where you can never be - I speak from personnal experience, you do not - until you have walked in my shoes please do not suppose you know what is right for me.

I've never been hit by a car/bus I've never ODed on drugs , I've never ...
I will never have to go through the pain of childbirth... and I'll never have a number of things that women can have ... but this does not mean that i can not understand these things , I am a human being, one of the things that human beings can do is understand thing which we have not experianced ...

there was a lot more I wanted to post but as it's taken me so long to read the whole thread i've forgoten most of it and am to tired to think of it....

I've found some points on both sides very interesting and have been pulled back an forth bettween pro-life and pro-choice ... mainly though i jsut want to make sure that little old ladys and loud shouty people dont shove pictures of babys with blenders in their heads in my face as i walk down the road ...
after reading the whole thread . I have to say that I think that if the mother life is in danger , than save the mother. if the mother is not in danger then carry the kild to term and give for adoption, in the case of rape ... well um I think thats harder to answer ...
as for the whole up to when is it ok to abort ... well I dont think that should come in to it a lot of the time ... because if the mother is in danger save the mother ... if not then the child should be carryed to term... oh plus the money that will be save by not performing loads of abortions should then go in to sex ed . plus making sure girls that are likly to getreally drunk and forget to protect themselves should be able to get easy and full access to the pill ( both morning after , and the others [like that 3 month injection thingy.)

right reading this thread has broken my brain ... (which is why i've repeated my self and am talking crap.)(like allways.)


pro-choice not pro-abortion ... if i was pro abortion i'd be running a round with a knitting needle ....

JustHalf

Originally posted by Dustaz
Again, the use of that word. its sickening.

It's an inconvenience. The degree to which it inconveniences the mother-to-be does not matter to the aptness of the word - and it is very apt. She is very inconvenienced indeed, but she is still inconvenienced. What you're doing is going on one specific meaning of the word, one which I did not intend to convey but cannot help.

If you can think of a better single word or short phrase to describe how it effects her, tell me. I'd really like to use it if it exists, because people are going to misinterpret me no matter how hard I try, whether it is by accident (which I think you've done) or just to benefit their argument.

I also don't understand where you got "let those women die" from. Would you care to explain?

JustHalf

Originally posted by Xterminator
What an intelligent argument.

Let me ask

Just because other countries have Human Rights why should we?

Just because other countries have assumtion of innocence for defendants why should we?

Just beacause other countries have democracies why should we?

Other similar questions your arguement begs answers to.

Hmm let me think.

1. Because it might be the right thing to do.

2. Because if it causes the moral fabric of society to fall apart, we might just see this in other countries, and decide whether we need it.

3. Because there is a demand for it here.

Do you not realise we picked up most of our laws and practises from other countries. Do we not send our policticians and civil servants to other countries to see how they do it, and maybe bring back some goo ideas?

Well I belive there is a retarded arguement here, and it's yours

X

Dear God.

Read over what you've posted. You've given 3 reasons why, other than the fact that they exist in other countries, such laws should be implemented. Now, remember what I wrote.

Indeed, this argument boils down to:
"it's like this way in another country, so it should be like it in ours"
which is no real basis for an argument. In China, you can't wave your arms in an amusing fashion in public for fear of imprisonment. Therefore, it should be like that over here.

You need to provide a good reason for implementing any new law, and the fact that the law exists in another country is not a good reason.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Xterminator
Futhermore on thing that really Irks me, is that if people dont want to have abortions that can choose not to, even if abortion is made legal under certain circumstances here.

But they wish to enforce this on thousands of others who have found themselves in the unenvyable position of feeing this extreme measure is the best, if not only solution for there particular problem.

You're missing the point.

If abortion is the murder of a child, then to not fight to keep it illegal we are partially responsible for the deaths of these children. It's immoral, under this belief, not to. I'm trying to make sure that the most vunerable section of society is not endangered.

And the best thing is, no-one has yet to prove that the abortion is NOT killing a baby, and in fact it seems that (by extension of the ethical practices of scientists) it is unethical to allow the termination of a embryo/foetus after two weeks (which is an impractical measure of time to allow abortions).

Why don't people just err on the side of caution? By having an abortion, you are risking becoming a murderer - unless you can prove that the child is not deserving of life, which no-one has done.

Sand

The fact that abortion is available elsewhere wouldnt make a difference if Ireland was somehow seperated from these other places. But it isnt and thus it does matter.

As such vote Yes for anti abortion, no for pro-choice. Even if the referendum passes and we imprison women who have abortions and feel all good about ourselves because weve taken the moral stand, it wont make a blind bit of difference because Irish people will simply go to the UK for their abortions.

So whats the point in this debate? Unless someone is arguing for not allowing pregnant women to travel in case they might be going for an abortion? Otherwise there x amount of people who are pro life, and y amount who arent and ive seen very few "conversions" on this board- youve spent 7 pages arguing and it still wont make a blind bit of difference.

Typedef

I couldn't have put it better myself Sand.

This referendum is about making the government look like it is in touch with the people nothing more, the fact that the government now publicly admits that because it has delayed setting up the Referendum comission to three weeks before the Referendum the adequate amount of information will not be diseminated is telling.

I'm not saying I told you so, but I did!

Mills

Sorry if this is a little off topic, I know the thread is about the legalisation of abortion and not the upcoming referendum, but does anyone have a link to exactly what we're voting on in the referendum? It's in a couple of weeks now and so far I've heard absolutely nothing other than tired slogans from either side, I've had a quick look online but couldn't find a list of the changes anywhere, don't really know where to look.

Very good thread so far, very interesting and well carried on debate for the most part.

smiles

Originally posted by Dustaz
Since 90% of the posters are men they will never fully understand that (myself included) just as typedef and justhalf have shown in the sickeningly offhand way of describing how easy it is to carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption.

There are huge amounts of stories published about women "abandoning" their babies after they were born or putting them up for adoption, but its incredibly difficult to say how many changed their mind and kept the baby. From most people I know who have had children, a huge emotional bond is formed when you have a child growing inside you. I cant even begin to comprehend this, and i doubt most of the people here (asides from the women who have had children) could.

As for it _only_ being 9 months of their life. It's a hell of a lot more than 9 months, the emotional and physical consequences of having a baby will remain with someone for the rest of their lives, regardless of whether they give the baby up for adoption or not.

I am not pro-choice but i'm not completely anti-abortion, I think that there are some cases where abortion should be offered. I just think that someone who gets pregnant should not automatically be offered an abortion.

<< Fio >>

Biffa Bacon

One recurring theme in this thread is the burden of proof that abortion is murder. Why is it up to the pro-choice movement to supply this burden of proof? Surely if the pro-life camp are accusing people of muder, they must proove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aborted foetus is a human life and that it is murder. Otherwise is it not a case of guilty untill proven innocent? (as alluded to by bonkey earlier).

It cannot be "proven" as such, it only matters how you define human life, and if that definition is reasonable. Is it reasonable to place an arbitrary definition on when human life begins?

Biffa Bacon

the veiw that its imposible to draw an arbitrary line thats not at risk of being wrong is a bitt odd in my mind ...
yes its arbitrary but let me put it this way
at some point between 1 and 100(dont actual times) , the baby becomes self aware / gains the right to life / it is no longer ethically permissamble to terminate the Child ...
but we cann't say exactly when this happens ... but we know it's defenitly happened before, um say 50 and that its defenitly not self aware at um 35 , but at any point in between we dont know which it is ... it can be argued that its either...
well then the arbitrary point 33 is safe as its not yet reached the point of ambiguity.

Why is self-awareness important in determining a right to life? And how would you determine this? I think you'll find also that in most countries the cut-off point is set at a point where it is determined the baby could survive independently outside the womb and not at a point where it is considered the foetus becomes self-aware.

Biffa Bacon

As such vote Yes for anti abortion, no for pro-choice. Even if the referendum passes and we imprison women who have abortions and feel all good about ourselves because weve taken the moral stand, it wont make a blind bit of difference because Irish people will simply go to the UK for their abortions.

So presumably, Sand, you have absolutely no problem with this referendum being passed?

Of course it matters. Abortions won't be available here.

Sand

It makes little enough difference Biffa- The UK is only a Ryanair low budget return trip away.

I honestly couldnt care less if this referendum was passed or not for the reason i mentioned above.

Mills i was in the same boat as you. I still havent seen an official description of the proposal but having read the papers etc its apparently proposing to reversing the X case judgement- i.e not allowing mothers to have an abortion should they be suicidal. Also imposes a 12 year prison sentence on anyone who is caught having an abortion, giving advice on one outside a "recognised institute". I might be wrong of course because im working of the papers second hand info. Still theyve done a better job informing people than the government has.

Basically you vote Yes if you want to reverse the X case judgement (i.e make it harder to get an abortion) and vote no if you want the X case judgement to stand (the status quo). Or you just go " eh, what difference does it make?" and not bother voting.

n.catenthusiast

If a woman is suicidal, there's more to it than just a pregnancy. Her suicidal tendancies were triggered by the pregnancy, but the root cause much deeper. Getting rid of the baby will only solve things in the short run, so an abortion in that case is just a a waste of life.
I'm full of sympathy for suicidal mothers-to-be, but abortion is just a quick-fix method.
The real solution is therapy,or soome sort of similar treatment. It helps people to see past their problems, and deal with them properly

n.catenthusiast

The referendum, if passed, will restrict the travelling rights of mothers who are suspected of wanting an abortion. So if it's passed they can't just go to England

Dustaz

If i misunderstood, i apologise. As i said, a lot of posts seemed particularly insensitive.

Originally posted by JustHalf

I also don't understand where you got "let those women die" from. Would you care to explain?

You said you havent heard a single argument where abortion is the only recourse available.
There are cases where the mother will die if she carries the baby to term, thats pretty cut and dried to me.

I wont go as far as hypothisising a 12 year old girl getting violently raped and pregnant as a result, because i dont want to misinterpret any answers

Dustaz

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

It cannot be "proven" as such, it only matters how you define human life, and if that definition is reasonable. Is it reasonable to place an arbitrary definition on when human life begins?

Yes. Such definitions exist already. People dont seem to have a problem with the current genetic engineering cut-off point, yet by some arguments this is already a human life.
By some arguments the morning after pill is murder, but noone seems to be attacking that.

Sand

The referendum, if passed, will restrict the travelling rights of mothers who are suspected of wanting an abortion. So if it's passed they can't just go to England

I doubt that will be enforced. No pregnant woman is going to announce to the guards before she leaves that shes going to england for an abortion.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Dustaz
If i misunderstood, i apologise. As i said, a lot of posts seemed particularly insensitive.

No worries. I still can't find a word that can't be misinterepreted.

Originally posted by Dustaz
You said you havent heard a single argument where abortion is the only recourse available.
There are cases where the mother will die if she carries the baby to term, thats pretty cut and dried to me.

Argh, this is going to cause headaches. Read the leaflet the government sent round to your house about statements made about abortion with regards to this.

Lemming

Originally posted by Sand
It makes little enough difference Biffa- The UK is only a Ryanair low budget return trip away.

Still doesn't account for the fact that you are in a strange place surrounded by strangers for what is no doubt be one of THE most agonising ordeals any woman could possibly face.

its apparently proposing to reversing the X case judgement- i.e not allowing mothers to have an abortion should they be suicidal. Also imposes a 12 year prison sentence on anyone who is caught having an abortion, giving advice on one outside a "recognised institute". I might be wrong of course because im working of the papers second hand info.

I've a word that would sum most of the above criteria up ... "stalinist"

Telling women they can't travel, even if its NOT for an abortion, just because they're pregnant would be a gross violation of democracy.

And since the abortion would be occuring outside of Irish juristiction, we would have no right to interfere. Why doesn't the government prevent all those people from going to Amsterdam?? Arrest them all when they return?? THey're doing something that's illegal in this country too aren't they?

mike65

Originally posted by Sand

---

The referendum, if passed, will restrict the travelling rights of mothers who are suspected of wanting an abortion. So if it's passed they can't just go to England

---

I doubt that will be enforced. No pregnant woman is going to announce to the guards before she leaves that shes going to england for an abortion.

They'll have stethascope weilding pro-life doctors with armed security at every boarding point at the ports and airports.

That'll be some peoples idea of Holy Catholic Ireland.

Mike.

Biffa Bacon

The referendum, if passed, will restrict the travelling rights of mothers who are suspected of wanting an abortion. So if it's passed they can't just go to England

Completely wrong. There will be no restrictions on travel.

Yes. Such definitions exist already. People dont seem to have a problem with the current genetic engineering cut-off point, yet by some arguments this is already a human life.
By some arguments the morning after pill is murder, but noone seems to be attacking that.

Of course they do have a problem with it! Plenty of people are attacking both of these.

Typedef

From the information I have managed to glean from various sources I think I will vote no to this referendum here's why.

For a start as far as I can tell if the life of the mother, progenitor whatever you want to call it is in danger, the state will refuse that person the option of medical treatement, in effect the state will require that person to give up their life or seriously endanger that person's life wether the pregnancy and full gestation be viable or no, in my view this is the remit of a fundamentalist religious and demi police state ethos.

Simply put if the mother's life is endangered in a medical sense outside the normal bounds of a pregnancy then that person should not be compelled by law to endanger their life, it is a right to life issue, the right to life of the mother, you cannot say that a child or a mother has more right to life that is my conviction, similarly you cannot say that person X must give up their life or endanger their life involuntarily, or withhold medical treatment to save the life of one person for the sake of another, and since the foetus depends on the mother but the mother's life does not depend ont he foetus, it seems a pretty clear case of endangering both the mother and child or simply the child, it may be harsh but I believe it to be logical. Therefore I do not believe this ammendement is pro-Life, merely a bill that is being put to the public because the government wants to be associated with a 'populist sentiment' and the government is being held to ransom by Mildred Fox ( or so the rumour goes). Also the fact that the government are dragging their heels on the issue of information disemination makes me think that it has something to hide and therefore I will not vote in favour of their amendment. Simply put the guilty do not hide away from the truth, so obviously the government don't want the issues debated but would rather fight the referendum on slogans which have no grounding in reality.

I don't believe voting no will bring in stealth abortion, voting no will keep the status-quo, namely an abortion is an option to a woman if gestating the baby will put her life in extranious risk, ie risk not usually associated with pregnancy. Voting yes will deny abortion for ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus dies in the womb and a whole range of unnecessary draconian measures that do not protect the life of the foetus but endanger the life of the mother and endangering the life of the mother (outside the normal pregnancy risks) is not compatible with really being Pro-Life, therefore voting no is the real Pro-Life response. I am a person with Pro-Life convictions, those convictions do not end as soon as that person is born, those convictions also apply to progenitors.

Wost case a Doctor, a medical professional has to decide if an abortion should be made available to a woman based on his/her medical opinion as to wether that woman's life is in (1) Medical jeopardy (2) Risk of suicide. Now you may say that the suicide clause will be abused, but if that were the case then since the X case ruling the suicide clause would have been abused, also as I 'trust' a medical professional to conduct themselves in a professional manner when dealing with my medical aliments I would also trust their professionalism when deciding if a mother's life is in jeopardy because of pregnancy and therefore because I, you, everyone who trusts and uses doctors relies on their professionalism I do not find reason to suddenly call that professionalism into doubt.

To put it even more simply I don't believe that abortion should be used as a kind of retro-active contraception or (abortion on demand) I do think that if the life of a mother to be is in jeropardy that she should have the choice as to wether she will gestate that life and put her-own in serious risk as no one can be forced to give up their life for another person. This does not mean I accept that ordinary pregnancy is a serious threat to the life of a mother, I say that in cases of ectopic pregnancy, the death of a foetus or other extranious medical reason that abortion should be available as a method of treatment to save the life of a woman and only in circumstances where there is a serious and grave threat to the life of the mother.

Drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life

JustHalf

Typedef you muppet. You should probably read about the referendum before talking about it. If you vote "Yes" then doctors will be allowed to take medical action to save the mother's life that, as a consequence of this action, will result in the death of the baby -- which is the exact opposite of what you claim it will do.

Up until know you've, for the most part, argued reasonably. Please, don't keep posting crap like: in my view this is the remit of a fundamentalist religious and demi police state ethos.

Typedef

Oh come on JustHalf the Pro-Life group Mother and Child is calling for a no vote on this one it's not some cloak and dagger conspiracy to get stealth abortion in Ireland, it's simply the government making good on promises to independants like Mildred Fox while rehashing the Fianna Fial politicians pulpit politics and association thereof.

It is as wrong to force a woman to gestate a child if the act of so doing will put her life in more risk medically than a 'normal pregnancy would' as it is to use abortion as retro-active contraception or to use abortion except in cases where it is a choice between ending two lives or ending one life. So right now an ectopic pregnancy or a pregnancy where the foetus develops in the fallopian tube of a woman can be removed, if this referendum passes that will no longer be the case. The sad fact is that ectopic pregnancies cannot gestate properly and will place the life of the mother in significant and unnecessary risk, therefore it is illogical and draconian to force this kind of gestation.

I reject abortion as retro-active contraception, but it should be available to the medical profession as a method of treatment to save one of two lives, there is little to no ambiguity for me on this and to argue you argue that it is sometimes ok to force a person to place themselves in unnatural risk so that some etheral moral ethic can be espoused even if it means both the mother and baby die as opposed to just the baby or if given the chioce the the mother could decide to gestate despite the medically exponenciated risks.

Read what I said, unnatural medical risk, ectopic pregnancy, the death of the foetus in the womb are legitimate grouds for abortion as forcing for example ectopic pregnancy will only put the life of the mother in grave danger to gestate a foetus that can never develop in the fallopian tube, ever, look it up.

Xterminator

I would refer each reader to the poll which shows (as i suspected) that the vocal 'pro life' (except the mothers life when medically endangered, of course) are in the minority.

They are fanatical, well financed, and wield a disproportionate amount of power and influence.

I fear that not enough 'ordinary' fair minded people, who actually have not been swayed by the blanket of tactics employed by those people, (from displaying obscene pictures in public, if fullview of everyone, such as my 3 young children, to picketing politicians houses, who dare to have a different opinion than the fanatics) will make it to the polling station to prevent this slide into 'state moralism' where the state decides what id right and moral, not the individual!

I hope that the fear of such a state will motivate the majority to get out and make there vote count.

I suspect the majority of these 'pro lifers' are the same people who opposed the legalisatuion of homosexuals, who indeed would see them persecuted for dring not to conform to the same morals.

And i hope we get a similar result this time.

X

Biffa Bacon

Now you may say that the suicide clause will be abused, but if that were the case then since the X case ruling the suicide clause would have been abused...

The reason for this is that the Medical Council has declared such abortions to be unethical and thus any doctor who was to carry out an abortion in those circumstances would be struck off.

also as I 'trust' a medical professional to conduct themselves in a professional manner when dealing with my medical aliments I would also trust their professionalism when deciding if a mother's life is in jeopardy because of pregnancy and therefore because I, you, everyone who trusts and uses doctors relies on their professionalism I do not find reason to suddenly call that professionalism into doubt.

No doctor or psychiatrist can ever say for sure that someone is going to commit suicide. And I believe that some doctors would definitely abuse that loophole. Also, can you imagine the uproar if a pregnant woman was refused an abortion because the doctor didn't think she was suicidal and then she did commit suicide?

So right now an ectopic pregnancy or a pregnancy where the foetus develops in the fallopian tube of a woman can be removed, if this referendum passes that will no longer be the case.

Where are you getting your information from Typedef? That isn't true.

Biffa Bacon

I fear that not enough 'ordinary' fair minded people, who actually have not been swayed by the blanket of tactics employed by those people, (from displaying obscene pictures in public, if fullview of everyone, such as my 3 young children...

What I don't understand is why pro-choice people object to pictures of aborted foetuses being shown. Does it not represent the truth? If you find those pictures "obscene", does the thought never occur to you that the practice is obscene?
There is an anti-vivisection group that often demonstrates outside the Bank of Ireland on College Green and they show gruesome pictures of animals that have been experimented on, but no one ever complains about them. Why?

...will make it to the polling station to prevent this slide into 'state moralism' where the state decides what id right and moral, not the individual!

Do you not understand the nature of the objection to abortion? That it is the intentional destruction of human life? If you believe this is true then the State should make provision for the protection of unborn life. Also, it is the people that decide, not the State.

chernobyl

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

What I don't understand is why pro-choice people object to pictures of aborted foetuses being shown

I dont, but i do have a high tolerance to what would be deemed "icky".

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Also, can you imagine the uproar if a pregnant woman was refused an abortion because the doctor didn't think she was suicidal and then she did commit suicide?

Possibly something along the lines of ....

Ireland vs. EU/UN on Human Rights.

Which would needless to say bring the country to its knees internationally speaking and anhilate the government of the time (and I can actually see that one happening unforunately ).

Just a thought though on the "12 years jail for abortion" farce. Lets say a woman goes to the Uk or wherever whilst pregnant, and she has a miscarriage. A very traumatic experience no doubt.

Will the government haul her(the mother) up before the courts to prove that she had a miscarriage and not an abortion? Will they force her(and the father) to relive the agony of loosing their child whilst accusing them of being criminals?

Typedef

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Where are you getting your information from Typedef? That isn't true.

I have asked people, ostensibly my mother who works as a secretary/pa to a TD where the law stands right now. I have gleaned the impression that ectopic pregnancy will not be treated if the referendumm is passed which in my view is an anthema to the human rights and right to life and security of the mother.

Of course some Doctors will abuse the suicide clause if it is retained, of course people will 'fake suicidal' tendancies, but physicians, psychologists and other medical professionals are bound by an oath that requires them to act in a certain way, now I'm not saying that this oath is prefect, but if the same oath is applied to every other medical instance I do not find compelling reason to suddenly second guess the professionalism of these people. I'm not saying all this because I support abortion on demand, nor because I think that a suicide appendation to grounds of abortion will enable stealth abortion, but because I really do think that there are medical instances where the practice of medicine to save the life of the mother should not be impeded and I propose to leave the ultimate decision as to the appropiatness of the instance to the Doctor a person who's profession it is to make decisions of such gravity, nothing more.