Do you think that abortion should be legalised in Ireland?
What's the point of making everything 100% worse by killing an innocent child on top of everything else? I also have a disability but I went on to have 8 healthy children. Children who are delighted to have been born. And yes, I've been raped too and left down. We all have baggage but a beautiful child can still be born out of any situation. I put my first child up for adoption and while I missed him terribly I'm so glad that I didn't kill him. I couldn't do that to anyone especially because I have been allowed to be born myself. We can all come through difficult situations. All we need is the right people and the right supports and we'll get there. No need to kill at all!
Gabs, I too have known and tried to help good people like the ones you have known who are in great distress. But more violence is never the solution to easing their distress.
Abortion for rape victims leads to double victimization.
Another act of violence perpetrated against a the innocent woman and her innocent little child. It is a totally inappropriate response to offer victims/survivors of violence a 'service' that comprises per se another act of violence, this time an act of violence in which there are two victims, the hurting mother and her own aborted child.
The last thing these distressed mothers need is more violence.
What the distressed mother really wants and needs (and is entitled to receive) is an immediate and whole-hearted acceptance, love and ongoing care and protection for herself and her baby. She needs a firm promise that help will be there for her and her child, a comforting and genuine reassurance that both will be looked after both now and for the long run.
Violence against children is never 'necessary'. All violence against children is preventable.
Before as well as after birth, children should never receive less protection than adults.
Their mothers' personal and social needs can and should be met by non-violent means.
Yes it should be legal. Have you people whom disagree ever dealt with a person with a disability who was raped ; have you ever had to deal with persons of certain religions whom committed suicide because of the fear of beatings , exclusion. Well I have.
Today may be better
Rita J wrote a wonderful piece! Well done! Abortion is just so barbaric and we as humans should have moved past this long ago. Love is the way to go for every human being on the planet. Abortion is nothing but hatred towards our fellow human beings. I will NEVER support it here in Ireland.
Genuine medicine does no deliberate harm to a distressed mother or her little unborn daughter or son.
Lethal violence against children is never 'necessary'. All violence against children is preventable. Before as well as after birth, children should never receive less protection than adults.
Their mothers' personal and social needs can and should be met by non-violent means.
Abortion is inter-personal--it involves the person of the mother, the person of her tiny daughter or son being protected and nurtured in her/his mother's womb, and the person of the abortionist who for a fee is willing to 'treat' a tiny human being as a piece of problematical rubbish, of no value, as 'a problem' to be removed and disposed of.
There is no "choice" to lethally attack another human being who is utterly defenceless and guilty of no crime.
Ultrasound technology, together with biology, embryology, fetal surgery, and examination of the human remains of an abortion, all tell us that the victim targeted for abortion is a human being, belonging to the human family, a human being who can be identified as a daughter or son, a ‘who’ not a generic ‘thing’.
True justice requires that elective abortions be recognized and treated not as harmless, idiosyncratic, personal ‘choices’ but as abusive practices, as human rights violations perpetrated by individuals and involving the complicity of politicians, judges and others.
Both distressed mothers and their unborn children need tender loving care and support not abortion.
Abortion should 100% be legalised in Ireland, it is time that Ireland came out of the dark ages by not letting a church have power over human rights. Every woman has her own opinion on abortion which is fair and has the right over her own choices, I myself had an abortion in England and I know it was the right choice for me, do I feel guilty? Not really because my whole future was at risk, I was only 20 and a student in college, if I had to continue the pregnancy it would have forced me to leave my dream plus I am in no fit position to be a young mother nor my partner who had been so supportive, mistakes were made and we have made sure it wont happen again with proper contraception methods. I go into my local town and see anti abortion protestors displaying horrid graphic abortion images saying how this is morrally wrong, it made me feel sick inside and to also think this was diaplayed in front of children and other individuals is disgusting ( shame on you ) . Simple, if a woman does not want to continue a pregnancy she should have an option there, not leaflets from churches and groups in your ear trying to presuade you to keep away from that option. There will always be people who are anti abortion and for abortion, if abortion was legalised it would be absolutely no ones business if a woman wanted to terminate a pregnancy anyway.
You are right, Emma, when you question who we are to decide who is to live and who is to die. We should not decide that any one should die.
The last thing a victim of rape needs is pressure to abort her child.
What she really wants and needs (and is entitled to receive) is an immediate and whole-hearted acceptance for herself and her little daughter or son. She needs a firm promise that help will be there for her and her child, a comforting and genuine reassurance that both will be looked after both now and for the long run.
As the most vulnerable of all pregnant women, victims of rape need non-ambivalent reassurance, more so than other women.
The very offer of an abortion carries with it a subliminal message that her child is not positively wanted, is not going to be compassionately and lovingly accepted by family, friends and the wider community.
It is indefensible to respond with a lethal act of violence against her child for a crime for which neither innocent victim was not responsible.
The selective abortion of such a child is based on prejudice not justice.
We need to deal with this appalling social climate in which vestiges of public censure of acts of rape spill over quite irrationally to the children being nurtured in the pregnancies that result from these acts. Both the abused mother and her child need all our love and help.
I said before I'm not in a position to decide whether or not abortion should be legal...But I can share my point of view... Everyone should see this issue in different angles or perspective.. But I can't imagine how horrible it could feel or experience to be a victim and carried on the baby of rapist... "Whoever" the human rights apply, everyone is entitled to decide what is best for their health when your helth is at risk, mentally, emotionally, physically and socially... "Now" from a egg to an embryo that take two weeks to fully develope.. Then the little embryo have a form also a beating heart it's have developed to a living life...there in my opinion every living life should have the possibility to express themselves, to live,to flourish into something greater.... Whom are we to decide who can live or not? It's should be legal for those women victim of a extrem situation like (been rape) the abortion should be done immediately.... "Quick question " if abortion was legal in Ireland? Would go out there and have sex with anyone you desire Without any worries? Or you worried that you don't remember what happened last night?
Be responsible for the action around you...
Emma, the last thing needed by any woman who has been through a bad experience is to be subjected to another bad experince--at the hands of an abortionist.
Abortion is the only operation that involves two patients that has for its purpose the direct killing of one of the patients.
Genuine medicine does no deliberate harm to a mother or her unborn child.
In my opinion, before as well as after birth, children should never receive less protection than adults.
I'm not in a position to decide or to judge people's when it comes to a very sensitive topic such as abortion.. However!! In my personal opinion I think who are we to decide who can live or who can't? A baby doesn't choose to be in our lives but we make the decision to have a baby in our lives.. In other case unfortunately some victims get caught up.in the wrong place, wrong time, involved with the wrong people..must of the time alcohol is involved or drug... No woman should carry a child from a bad experience or the obligation to give birth... If the abortion is done within the days,before the embryo is fully developed making it a living life....in that case abortion should be legal.. For special particular cases...and last we all should be responsible for our actions and aware of the world we surround yourself...
Definitely YES. full stop.
(Ireland is one of the last so called developed countries where the old religion based law is still in force.)
NME I think you have summed up the complexities of this issue very well in your post. We have radicals on both sides - one group says that abortion is wrong in all situations which is of course, ridiculous. There will always be "caveats" such as rape, illness etc and we cannot have a blanket ban. The other side tells us that abortion should be freely available for all who were too stupid or drunk to use contraception. This is just as bad. As with most things, the solution (such as it would be) lies somewhere in the middle. The problem is that if it was legalised just for extenuating circumstances, the system would of course be abused (as most systems are). Legalisation without legislation is sadly what we do best in this country. And whereas I do not raise issue with a woman who has been raped undergoing an early abortion or an indirect abortion as a result of medical treatment, I would feel sick to think my tax could pay for the murder of a child conceived through carelessness. Sadly, the radicals from both sides do nothing to promote their agenda - they simply get backs up.
Yes and No - I don't believe there's a correct answer to this question. Of course it should be available for some of the types of cases mentioned, and definitely NOT for the "unfit" parents to be who will no doubt use it as a form of contraception. But who will make the decisions, what will be the criteria? It's an impossible situation... it is totally wrong to allow an abortion for someone who didn't use contraception or just plain changed her mind BUT it is completely barbaric to expect a woman or child to proceed with a pregnancy having been raped, or to endanger the life of a woman in order to force her to give birth.
Live and let live
I cannot believe this argument is starting again....
Not even if you are a raped adolescent and your life is in danger Jean?
I think it is insane that abortion is still illegal in Ireland.
No I dont think women think about the after affects of abortion .... ....no one has the right to abort a baby no matter what ....
Anon, I agree with you (as stated) re the MAP, as it can only help to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Thank you for addressing the fact that the majority of us who call ourselves "pro-life" would not force a women to continue with a pregnancy if it meant her life was in danger, the distinction of course being "limited circumstances" as opposed to the hundreds of thousadns of abortions on demand that are carried out for other reasons. You might find it hard to believe but I am equally appalled by the pro-life extremists who would see a woman die rather than have access to a termination, and of course I resent the bad name that they generate for those of us who wish to support the rights of the child at it's most vulnerable stage.
Just to correct the end of my post. What I meant was - The European court has now madated that every avenue must be explored to protect the life of the woman, including abortioN where it is needed.The case, in the end was brought to the European Court and after the ruling was made, the women involved in the case in Cork (this was made public in the Independant the week before Christmas) highlighted what she had had to go through. Indeed, the reasonable majority of those who favour abortion in limited circumstances i.e. those we would term real pro-life - as in pro the life of the woman, are somehow being overlooked in favour of the roaring extremist minority of foetus first pro-"life", which is a pity as it is only among the reasonable majorities on both sides that a consensus can be reached. In addition to new rules governing the MAP, what I would like to see is a postive change and openness in the attitudes towards sex, sexuality, contraception and sex education.
thanks for the info anon, thats all I really needed to know, that the two conditions were the same. I did not want to take that as a given. Of course I think it's wrong that these two women were denied abortions, but I still maintain that we should keep the distinction between cases such as these, and others.
Although it was a sham that this case even HAD to be brought to the high court, I think its a pity (though of course entirely predictable) that those of us who are against abortion for socio-economic reasons or multiple abortions when care has not been taken, are now being tarred with the same brush, and are being portrayed as monsters who force women with cancer to continue with their pregnancies. Like I said, predictable, but certainly not true.
Another interesting report I read today that a Red C poll for the Irish Times has revealed some interesting figures. 86% of people polled are in favour of allowing abortion if the mother is at risk (and I dont know what planet the other 14% are living on tbh) and 64% are in favour where the child would not survive beyond birth. However only 38% think that abortion should be available on demand. Looks like most of us have the right idea.
Hopefully with the new rules governing the sale of the MAP, we may see a positive reflection in abortion figures ie; a decline.
Buzz, the condition was the same as the condition, highlighted in the European court, where it was ruled that the woman's rights were breached by being denied access to abortion. In the case in Cork, the woman's medical team agreed that abortion was required as part the treatment to save her life. The hospitals ethics team denied it to her. Her case was highlighted becuase it was another example of of the case brought to light in the European Court.No, no decent person would see a woman denied an abortion where it was ruled by her medical team - as it was in the case in Cork, that it was required as part of the treatment to save her life. But in that case that hopital ethics team did in fact deny it to her. Is it any wonder then that the European court ruled as it did. Clearly as not everyone is decent in this regard, legislation is needed. The court did not rule on abortions which are not done where a woman's life or health is at risk.
I don't think witofire that anyone is referring to abortion a form of contraception.
Contraception, be it pre or post-coital is universally known to be the prevention of pregnancy.
Abortion takes place when the pregnancy is already established.
I agree, resolution will only ever be reached by the moderates on both sides. Extremist pro-lifers or indeed pro-choicers (tho they seem few) will only achieve antagonising each other.The European court has not madated that every avenue must be explored to protect the life of the woman, inclusing abortio where it is needed.
I cannot speak for anyone else jo, but I certainly do not feel ashamed.
It is surely incorrect to call abortion a form of contraception as conception has already taken place.
Contraception is the intentional prevention of conception or impregnation.
This divisive issue would be better handled by both pro and anti camps calming down and looking sympathetically at the opposite side's problems.
Every avenue should be explored to protect the life of the unborn child before any drastic and irreversible action be taken.
There is no smoke witofire!
Y'all pro lifers should be ashamed that our country is once again ousted internationally as a violator of womens rights.
I am not familiar with the case in Cork - what was the condition that required direct abortion?
re legislation pertaining to suicide risk, I dont think I am alone in my fear that the system would be abused.
Thanks for the info, and I dont think any decent person would see a woman denied an abortion IF it was to save her life. Though these are, of course, distinct from the majority (a given, seeing as only two cases have been cited). That is not to say that they are any less significant of course, but one wonders about (and there's nothing wrong with wondering) the hundreds of thousands of abortions that are NOT deemed to be life saving procedures..
I agree completely with regard to the morning after pill. A welcome move by Boots.
However, you are in fact mistaken when you state that there are no cases as yet where a direct abortion will save a womans life. With regard to the case highlighted in the European court that is exactly why the ruling was given, the woman's life - and she had a rare from of cancer, was being endangered becuase she was denied access to abortion. Similarly with the case in Cork which was recently highlighted. The woman's meidcal team deemed that abortion - direct abortion, was a medical neccessity in her case to save her life, yet she was denied access to it here. These are entirely different cases from foetal deminse as a side effect of treatment, which is Not abortion and not medically or ethically regarded as such. The ruling on suicide has already been dealt with in the 1992 referendum making abortion legal in cases of suicide - legislation to effect this however has not been enacted.
On a related note, I read with interest today that the morning after pill is to become OTC in Boots pharmacies. I cannot understand why people have a problem with this. The media slant is that the pro-lifers will be against this move but I dont understand why. The morning after pill simply prevents a pregnancy, it doesnt undo an establisehed pregnancy and surely in this day and age it is a far better option to be able to access emergency contraceptives than "hope for the best" as some are forced to do, and then terminate at a later date? Studies have shown that in countries where the MAP is otc, promiscuity does not increase (though I would be interested to know how they measured this!)
Re recent media light thrown on our constitution, I think that if a womans life is in danger she should be allowed to access an abortion, but I think (as has been discussed here before) there are no cases as yet where a direct abortion will save a womans life, rather a termination as a side effect of treatment, which is distinct from direct abortion. Unfortunately, every system gets abused, in all walks of life. Once we bring in the "if I dont have an abortion I will kill myself therefore my life is in danger" element...the gates for abusing the system are wide open. All one will have to do is recite the phrase above in front of a GP to qualify. Let us not be naiive and imagine it wont happen.
Due to the recent ruling form the European counrt of Human Rights, it looks liek we may have to finally face up to the legislative mess created and either hold yet another referendum or put in place legislation.
Im not in favour of killing un born children in Ireland or any where else.
I am totally against abortion and hope I never would be tempted if I found myself pregnant as does happen silly tough it may sound contraception is not 100% safe but I do not think I'm qualified to expect others to always agree with me. it is against my religion to have an abortion but we don't all have the same beliefs so I would vote to allow abortion in this country, nobody wants to make it obligitory.
Yes I think it should be legalised. it costs about E2,000 altogether to get it done privately in England and you don't get proper aftercare.
I agree with Sue regarding contraception. Surely prevention is always better than cure. Having been in a situation where I have had to borrow money for the emergency pill from a close friend, I can see the merit in such a scheme. I think claims that freely available contraceptives lead to promiscuity are unfounded. Unprotected sex is not ideal but it IS a reality which cannot be ignored. I often think, if my close friend had not been someone I could go to, or if I hadn't asked him for the loan, where would I be now? Abortion is not something I would EVER contemplate for myself so I would have been left with an unwanted pregnancy. He did joke that he would rather pay for the MAP than be left babysitting for the next ten years! It seems funny now but some people may not have people like this in their lives, especially young girls who might be afraid to ask for help.
I think abortion should always be the decision of the woman involved and the service for a legal abortion should be in place. The stress of an unplanned pregnancy is so devistating we should not put in on ourselves to judge the decision of the woman involved. I also think their should be an open door for girls whatever age to have contraception available free of charge
The peer pressure on young girls these day outweighs their maturity and knowledge so lets help to protect them while they growup and wiseup
this problem has for too long been packed off to England, while we sit back like the holy hippocrates
Jamie asking you to address the questions put to you on a discussion board is not unreasonable, and if you decide to take such requests as a personal affront then I have very little to say to you.
When you are interested in acting like an adult be sure to let us now!
"Address my previous post please before you try to go off on a tangent and avoid the questions I put to you" Sorry buzz, but I don't reply to person insults on a messageboard, especially on a serious topic like this.
Rita, as I have already stated given your refusal to answer my previous questions and thereby tacit admssion that your post was therefore wrong, this renders all of your subsequent posts as baseless and irrelevant, including your most recent one, so chunks of self-references is both pointless and silly.
Sorry Jamie but that post in no way answers the questions I put to you. Oh and please dont interpret THIS as me "telling you what you can and cannot post"! Address my previous post please before you try to go off on a tangent and avoid the questions I put to you.
Under the European Convention, the European Court of Human Rights can authorize neither the abuse of the human rights of children at risk of abortion in some States nor the removal of legal protection from such children in any State.
The Universal Declaration (1948) and the European Convention (1950) were grounded firmly and inextricably in the deontological approach. The hard truth is that international human rights law cannot be converted now to a utilitarian or consequentialist approach without a catastrophic unravelling of all the human rights protections that have been painstakingly built on principles such as:
§ equal protection before the law of all members of the human family,
§ equal safeguards including appropriate legal protection for the child before birth as for the child after birth, and
§ an equal right to life, development and survival for all members of the human family.
Dr. Charles Malik, Rapporteur for the Human Rights Commission that drafted the International Bill of Rights, wrote in 1948 about the Commission’s implied agreement on the nature and origin of human rights:
Where do they come from? What is their metaphysical status? Are they arbitrarily conferred upon me by some external visible agency, such as my state or parliament or the United Nations, so that this visible power can conceivably one day withdraw them from me at will, without thereby violating a higher law? Or do they belong to my essence, so that the function of any external visible power with respect to them is not to create and constitute them but only to recognize and respect them, and so that if in any way it violates them it will thereby trespass against the natural law of my humanity?
This is clearly the problem of natural versus positive law. If these rights are the mere products of positive law, namely of law as it happens to be at a particular stage in evolution, then clearly, since positive law changes, my rights, and therewith my very human nature, will change with it. But if, on the other hand, these rights express my nature as a human being, then there is a certain compulsion about them: they are metaphysically prior to any positive law, and any such law must either conform to them or else be by nature null and void.
Every human being at the embryonic and foetal stages of life is essentially human, so that when the European Court of Human Rights reinterprets the European Convention to deny these smaller human beings their essential human rights, they are trespassing against the natural law of our common humanity upon which the entire modern international human rights law is built.
Sorry if you think it's personal Buzz, but you're on here telling people what they can and can't post, I thought it was worth pointing out that you have no business doing that. Posts here take a few hours to appear because forum administrators go through the content and filter what's not allowed. They do a decent job, so there's no need for you to tell people what they're allowed to post. Now I shouldn't post here because it's tedius and boring to reply to them? Did you ever think of ignoring them? Blazen was being helpful and you attacked him simply because you don't agree with abortion. Would you attack someone for suggesting a place for eye laser treatment, or dental treatment abroad? Apologies for getting your sex wrong, it was 50/50!
Oh and Jamie, I am a female!