Do you think that abortion should be legalised in Ireland?

# 3920

Posted: 15/02/2012 15:11

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.

# 3919

Posted: 15/02/2012 12:09

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

# 3918

Posted: 27/01/2012 11:00

I cannot believe this argument is starting again....

# 3917

Posted: 27/01/2012 09:42

Not even if you are a raped adolescent and your life is in danger Jean?

# 3916

Posted: 27/01/2012 07:31

I think it is insane that abortion is still illegal in Ireland.

http://vincedelmonteabout.com

# 3915

Posted: 26/12/2011 16:37

No I dont think women think about the after affects of abortion .... ....no one has the right to abort a baby no matter what ....

# 3914

Posted: 18/01/2011 09:25

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.

# 3913

Posted: 18/01/2011 09:01

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.

# 3912

Posted: 17/01/2011 14:17

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.

# 3911

Posted: 17/01/2011 12:18

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.

# 3910

Posted: 17/01/2011 09:16

I cannot speak for anyone else jo, but I certainly do not feel ashamed.

# 3909

Posted: 14/01/2011 17:54

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!

# 3908

Posted: 14/01/2011 15:21

Y'all pro lifers should be ashamed that our country is once again ousted internationally as a violator of womens rights.

# 3907

Posted: 14/01/2011 14:04

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..

# 3906

Posted: 14/01/2011 11:20

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.

# 3905

Posted: 11/01/2011 14:20

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.

# 3904

Posted: 11/01/2011 13:55

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.

# 3903

Posted: 11/01/2011 11:52

Im not in favour of killing un born children in Ireland or any where else.

# 3902

Posted: 17/11/2010 20:25

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.

jenny

# 3901

Posted: 17/11/2010 13:30

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.

# 3900

Posted: 16/11/2010 09:42

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.

# 3899

Posted: 02/11/2010 13:34

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

# 3898

Posted: 27/07/2010 11:32

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!

# 3897

Posted: 27/07/2010 09:41

"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.

# 3896

Posted: 26/07/2010 13:32

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.

Chris

# 3895

Posted: 26/07/2010 09:41

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.

# 3894

Posted: 23/07/2010 14:12

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.

# 3893

Posted: 21/07/2010 17:58

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!

# 3892

Posted: 21/07/2010 14:49

Oh and Jamie, I am a female!

# 3891

Posted: 21/07/2010 14:48

Jamie there really is no need for sarcasm, unless of course you want to lower the tone of the entire argument. Are you incapable of intelligent debate? Does everything have to get personal with you? Do you realise how tedious and boring it is for everyone to have to stop the discussion so that we can address the lastest posts which you have taken as a personal affront or decided are somehow grounds to insult others? Grow up please.

# 3890

Posted: 21/07/2010 14:03

Rita J as you continue in your ignorance of rudely ignoring my questiosn, that is simply tacit admission of your error, hence rendering subsequent posts baseless and irrelevant.

Chris

# 3889

Posted: 21/07/2010 11:57

Anyway, in case you need any more information on the abortion conditions in the Czech Republic or any contact on the clinic, please do not hesitate to write me.

This is what I saw Blazen, can you provide clarification on the motives behind your posting, if not to encourage women to travel to the Czech Republic for abortions? If this was not your intention, then you dont need to be so defensive.

Citing convenience is, fortunately, not a strong enough argument when discussing matters as lofty as abortion. I could argue that I should be allowed to drive recklessly and endanger other people's lives because it's more convenient for me to spend more time doing chores etc before I leave the house. That does not remove the onus to leave the house on time and drive with caution while adhering to the speed limit.

It's more convenient to steal food than bother taking money out of my account and queueing to pay...that doesn't make it right.

# 3888

Posted: 21/07/2010 11:40

I don't think it's too hard for someone in ireland to get an abortion. Plenty of clinics in England offer package deals for Irish people which include flights, transfers and the procedure and you'll be back in Ireland for dinner that day. Blazen, maybe you should e-mail Buzz your posts first so he can review them to see if they're ok!

# 3887

Posted: 21/07/2010 10:17

Have you seen any advertising in my comment? I can reply in a different way. There are simply countries that already have experience with abortion services. It may be worth to look at how it works in those countries. I know a bit about how it works in my the Czech Republic. And last but not least, ask the Irish women that go for such services abroad..would it no be easier for them to stay in Ireland?

# 3886

Posted: 21/07/2010 09:45

Blazen I sincerely hope you are not promoting travelling to your country for abortion services? Do you realise that these pages are not to be used for advertising?

# 3885

Posted: 20/07/2010 18:15

The law of consent is indeed a good example and similarly, as it is not possible to pinpoint exactly when a foetus is 22 weeks gestated, there will be a medical invovement (as there is in all similar such cases), in deciding whether a feotus is viable at a certain time or not. Therefore your theoretical talking of one second this and another second that, does not arise. However statutary rape is still statutary rape at 15 and 364 days.

Chris

# 3884

Posted: 20/07/2010 14:39

Not only does the constitution outline particular legislation at a poitin time, it is also, clearly, aspirational. For example it states that no mother should have to work outside the home out of econmic neccessity to the neglect of her domestic duties - are we to ban all mothers working now - or just arrest those employing them? It all states that the nation values equally all those children born to the nation - should we therefore arrest all those unwilling to open adoption records and also open a legal enquiry into how children of the poor are not treated the same as the children of the well off? If changes need to be legislated for within the constitution then it is obvious that the constitution needs to be changed. The last referendu refuted the exclusion of suicide as ground for abortion where the life of the woman is at risk - therby makign abortion legal where the life of the woman is at eisk including but not limited to, obviuously) the risk of suicide.  Does a pregnancy continue after an abortion and the the woman go on to have a baby? No. hre will be no baaby, and no borth cert to acknowledge the existence of a person. This does not in least make me uncomfortable. In circumstnaces other them medicla need (or abortion where the women has been abused) it makes me sad.Chris

# 3883

Posted: 20/07/2010 14:36

Hi, once again, apologies for my delay in responding - Summer + end of school year + book lists + uniforms + summer camps + + + - I'm sure you know the drill. On the contrary James, there are laws governing euthanasia, there are laws concerning capital punishment and there are medical regulations surrounding DNR orders and extraordinary measures and interventions. There are also clinical guideliens regrding the transfer and destruction of embryos. Cancer is indeed a disease that a lot of people die of bit their lives are nonetheless prolonged by medical tenchology in a way which would not have been possible 30 or 40 years ago. 

Again, it is biologically impossible for a foetus to have a life sperate from the women prior to about 22 weeks gestation. If you seperate the foetus, does it develop into a baby? Does the pergnancy continue? No. It perishes.

The article of the constitution remains legal is spurious given that the result of the last referendum,  - to include suidice as a risk to the woman's life as grounds for legal abortion, has not yet been enacted - a fact you admitted yourself in an earlier post but have now somehow changed your mind on.

A foetus cannot be otherwise than integrated into the woman's body up to 22 weeks - given that if you seperate it, the pregnancy wll no longer continue and a baby will not result. The vital difference is that after birth - anytike between 22 and 40 weeks, ANY qualifed caring perosn can look after a baby - unlike a foetus, it does not have to be inextricably linked ot the body of an already existing person in order to attain personhood. Additionally, one can consent or not consent to do so - unlike a pregnant women who's consent you wish to remove - regardless of how it affects her health or life. This has everything to do with viability. You cannot remove a foetus at 14 weeks and have someone else take care of it - it; is no viable and so this is biologically impssible But at 24 weeks a women can give birth and the baby can be cared for by medically competent staff and any caring person without needing to inextricably linked to the regnant woman - regardless of the effect on her health, life or the presence of her consent.  Yes obviously as you cannot get pregnant, it cannot affect you as directly as the pregnant woman. Just, as, for example, a vasectomy prostate disease could not affect me directly as would affect a man.

Chris

# 3882

Posted: 20/07/2010 13:06

I am not Irish. I come from Prague, the Czech Republic. Abortion is legal and has been legal for many many years in my country. I worked for a part time in a gynecological clinic and saw many women coming for this procedure. I am personally not in favour of ending anyone's life. However I believe that women should have the option, obviously under strict legal conditions and limited to the first of months after conception. Anyway, in case you need any more information on the abortion conditions in the Czech Republic or any contact on the clinic, please do not hesitate to write me.

# 3881

Posted: 25/06/2010 23:47

The other power play used by pro-abortion ideologues is that every expectant mother owns the child in her womb and that the child’s temporary residence in the mother’s body gives the mother absolute ownership rights over the child.

In effect, abortionists reduce the child before birth to an object, a ‘choice’, a thing of less-than-human status, suspended in a slave-like state between life and death, pending an arbitrary decision by the “owner” to abort or to keep the child.   

Article 8 of the ICCPR codifies Article 4 of the Universal Declaration and explicitly prohibits slavery “in all its forms”.  It is difficult to construe the condition or status of the child at risk of abortion as anything but a form of slavery, in which the concepts of ‘ownership’ and ‘absolute power’ over a dependant are used to violate human dignity and rights.

§         Decriminalization of abortion is essentially an attempt to effect “the destruction of the juridical personality of the victim”, the unborn child; and

§         the concept of a mother’s right to abort the life of her own child is certainly at the extreme end of servitude, the most extreme of “all possible forms of one person’s domination of another.”

To accord mothers the “right” to abort their children is to allow them the most pernicious of all the powers attaching to the alleged rights of ownership and domination—powers of life and death.  The pseudo-right to abortion stands in direct contradiction to the long, hard-won tradition of human rights and freedoms, a tradition forbidding that any one human being should have ownership and disposal rights over any other human being, no matter how small or dependent or troublesome or unwanted.