Irish abortion law challenged in European court

[pineapple stu]

But our current law doesn't allow for the cases you say you agree with outlined by endabob, so how is the law spot on?

I was under the impression that the Baby P (Baby X?) case in the late 90s resulted in the law changing so that abortion was permitted in cases where a threat to the life of the mother could be shown. If that's no tthe case, then that's the way I think it should be. (I suppose a case could easily be imagined for rape victims). I don't agree with the idea that an abortion is something you can get just because, and I don't think that that reflects badly on Irish society like some here are making out. I think we're far too quick as a nation to engage in self-loathing.

[endabob1]

Bluebeard

I have tales of family & friends who've either had to take the boat for an abortion or lived with putting a child up for adoption because catholic Ireland in the 1980's had a less tollerant view on teenage mothers;

For the most part I agree with the eight to choose but I know people/friends/friends of friends in London and New York who have had more than 1 abortion and for me I think there are a lot of times when I would feel it's morally justifiable to have an abortion I would think that by the time I was on my 3rd I would think that I was basically using it as a form of contraception.

[Macy]

Pineapple Stu, it is only in the threat to life covered by our current mess, not other (mental or physical) health issues. Personally I don't think that goes nearly far enough in protecting women.

[micls]

I was under the impression that the Baby P (Baby X?) case in the late 90s resulted in the law changing so that abortion was permitted in cases where a threat to the life of the mother could be shown. If that's no tthe case, then that's the way I think it should be. (I suppose a case could easily be imagined for rape victims). I don't agree with the idea that an abortion is something you can get just because, and I don't think that that reflects badly on Irish society like some here are making out. I think we're far too quick as a nation to engage in self-loathing.

Its very very difficult, even with health threat to get an abortion in this country as doctors are afraid to perform one. A doctor can later be charged if it is felt the abortion was unnecessary and most wont take the risk

[peadar1987]

I don't really agree with the argument that it's the mother's right to have an abortion, if she simply doesn't want the baby. If she decided 2 weeks, or even 2 minutes after the baby was born she didn't want it, it would be illegal to kill it. Why should the moment the baby passes into the air suddenly make it unacceptable for it to be killed?

Apparently babies first show signs of neurological activity 5 to 6 weeks after conception. To me, that makes them people, and after that stage, the baby's right to life trumps the mother's right not to be inconvenienced. (And I'm an atheist, so I'm not just regurgitating the Church's line on this)

[jebus]

Bluebeard

I have tales of family & friends who've either had to take the boat for an abortion or lived with putting a child up for adoption because catholic Ireland in the 1980's had a less tollerant view on teenage mothers;

For the most part I agree with the eight to choose but I know people/friends/friends of friends in London and New York who have had more than 1 abortion and for me I think there are a lot of times when I would feel it's morally justifiable to have an abortion I would think that by the time I was on my 3rd I would think that I was basically using it as a form of contraception.

I wouldn't go basing our laws on these people's attitudes though. I also know of a girl who has had at least 3 abortions in her life, I don't find that in any way acceptable but I would never use this as an excuse to deny another person medical care. As another forummer has said in this thread, legalising abortion won't suddenly open up the floodgates for people to go wild, if you were to have one you'd find some way of getting England, whatever the cost. All it will do is bring proper consultation before the procedure (which might actually convince some not to go through with it, I suspect that right now quite a few would be terrified and would jump across to England without fully thinking their actions through), being able to have the procedure closer to home so you have more support and also they could have post-procedure consultations and proper check ups for any arising complications.

I think that's a pretty sensible idea and that's why I'm in favour of legalising it

I don't really agree with the argument that it's the mother's right to have an abortion, if she simply doesn't want the baby. If she decided 2 weeks, or even 2 minutes after the baby was born she didn't want it, it would be illegal to kill it. Why should the moment the baby passes into the air suddenly make it unacceptable for it to be killed?

Apparently babies first show signs of neurological activity 5 to 6 weeks after conception. To me, that makes them people, and after that stage, the baby's right to life trumps the mother's right not to be inconvenienced. (And I'm an atheist, so I'm not just regurgitating the Church's line on this)

All of that still sounds like personal opinion though, I on the other hand don't believe it is a person until it could reasonably be expected to survive independently of the mother

Regardless it's all opinion and I don't think we'd ever resolve that difference in respect of making a law

[dahamsta]

Use of the word "kill" is the kind of emotive stuff I'm talking about. I don't want to see it used in this thread again. Just the facts ma'am, as the fella said.

[Aberdonian Stu]

I genuinely feel that the debate here should not be about whether abortion is right or wrong, it should really be the far more technical issue of where legal power lies. The law in this instance just happens to be on one of the more emotive topics.

To put it mildly this is going to be a messy case but I would expect the court to not support the petition largely because it is generally quite conservative when it comes to over-ruling laws in place in existing member states.

[peadar1987]

All of that still sounds like personal opinion though, I on the other hand don't believe it is a person until it could reasonably be expected to survive independently of the mother

Regardless it's all opinion and I don't think we'd ever resolve that difference in respect of making a law

Oh of course it's just my opinion, I'm an engineer, not a doctor, or a philosopher. Your definition of when life begins is just as valid as mine.

Use of the word "kill" is the kind of emotive stuff I'm talking about. I don't want to see it used in this thread again. Just the facts ma'am, as the fella said.

Sorry, I was a little unclear. I was only using the K word for a baby that has already been born

[dahamsta]

I take your point, but the last sentence in the first paragraph changes the context back.

I think Aberdonian Stu has it it right on the scope that the debate should have here, to keep it on track.

[Cymro]

I don't think the word 'kill' is either overly emotive or innacurate. If you were to say 'murder', perhaps, but.....

A newborn baby is a human life. A sixteen-week foetus is a human life. A fourteen-day embryo is a human life. Human life ultimately begins either at conception or at the appearance of the first signs of the 'primitive streak' at about two weeks after conception, depending on how you interpret the scientific facts. Destroying this life is killing, that's a basic fact.

The question is whether and to what extent you feel killing such life is wrong and where you draw the line.

[dahamsta]

I do think it's emotive, and I don't want to see it here again. I also won't ask again.

[peadar1987]

I don't think the word 'kill' is either overly emotive or innacurate. If you were to say 'murder', perhaps, but.....

A newborn baby is a human life. A sixteen-week foetus is a human life. A fourteen-day embryo is a human life. Human life ultimately begins either at conception or at the appearance of the first signs of the 'primitive streak' at about two weeks after conception, depending on how you interpret the scientific facts. Destroying this life is killing, that's a basic fact.

The question is whether and to what extent you feel killing such life is wrong and where you draw the line.

That depends. As I said before, the first neurological activity occurs at about 5 to 6 weeks after conception. Before that, I don't see a foetus as any different from any other living body part, just because it has the potential to grow into a person.

I just don't think that the current distinction many pro choice people make that aborting a foetus up to birth is okay, but killing it after birth is wrong, is the right one. I think that a foetus achieves "personhood" at some time between being just being a fertilised egg, and a self-aware, living creature minutes away from breathing air for the first time.

Although I still agree with late-term abortions if there is a significant threat to the physical or mental health of the mother.

[jebus]

I don't think you'll find any pro-choice person say abortion is okay up to birth for obvious reasons, also most pro-choice people I know (including myself) think terminations up to 24 weeks should be reviewed as well

[osarusan]

2: Abortion is not simply not provided in Ireland, its a criminal offence to get one, give one or assist in either of the two. Highly unlikely that the ECJ will force the Irish State to allow people to break the law.

I don't really understand your second point.

Surely the whole reason for bringing the case is to force the Irish govt. to legalise abortion by changing the law, rather than "force the Irish State to allow people to break the law"?

[jamie m]

Some interesting survey results on Irish attitudes to abortion in todays Examiner
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland...on-110224.html

[pineapple stu]

Can add that to dahamsta's rubbish reporting thread. "Survey: 60% in favour of abortion". Eh, no they're not. 60% of 18-35-year-olds are in favour. Big difference. The headline seems to imply that an abortion referendum in the morning would pass.

[John83]

Yep.
"The national poll also found almost 10% of 18-34 year olds has been involved in a relationship where an abortion took place."
Then, in the next paragraph:
"Curiously, less than one in seven men said they had been in a relationship that resulted in an unplanned pregnancy. But Dr Stephanie O’Keeffe, research and policy manager with the HSE Crisis Pregnancy Programme, said not all men may know their partner is pregnant."

When you see stuff like that, stop reading. The reporter hasn't a clue what they're writing.

[bennocelt]

Yep.
"The national poll also found almost 10% of 18-34 year olds has been involved in a relationship where an abortion took place."
Then, in the next paragraph:
"Curiously, less than one in seven men said they had been in a relationship that resulted in an unplanned pregnancy. But Dr Stephanie O’Keeffe, research and policy manager with the HSE Crisis Pregnancy Programme, said not all men may know their partner is pregnant."

When you see stuff like that, stop reading. The reporter hasn't a clue what they're writing.

Yeah agree, could also point out that 90% of 18-34 year olds have no experience with abortions - ie, no news story to report , or maybe someone is trying to push an agenda here?

[Bluebeard]

Yep.
"The national poll also found almost 10% of 18-34 year olds has been involved in a relationship where an abortion took place."
Then, in the next paragraph:
"Curiously, less than one in seven men said they had been in a relationship that resulted in an unplanned pregnancy. But Dr Stephanie O’Keeffe, research and policy manager with the HSE Crisis Pregnancy Programme, said not all men may know their partner is pregnant."

When you see stuff like that, stop reading. The reporter hasn't a clue what they're writing.

Ehm, read it closer. You'll see in the leading paragraph it says that one in four women have experienced an unplanned pregnancy, which keeps it actually statistically and factually correct.

And it is also in keeping with the eternal vogue for honing in on one thing for a sensational headline. No real news in the article, just the latest statistics. The biggest thing of interest is that one in seven men realise that they have been in unplanned pregnancies, which of course could also count very early spontaneous miscarriages - some women may not mention them, and I would imagine many men might not count them. I am guessing this is an interview based poll, and therefore not actually any kind of imperical study, which renders this part of it only slightly more useful than the POTM competition won by Jim.