DonabatePortrane.net

Should we leave the abortion law as they are or should they be changed? The currents laws only allow an abortion if the life of the mother is at 'risk'. The problem is defining risk. Opinions can vary and things can change very quickly.

One Doctor could say you are at risk as soon as you get out of bed in the morning and another Doctor might wait until he is absolutely sure you are at risk - but it might be too late by that stage.

My own view is, that it is impossible to objectify risk and impossible to measure with 100% accurately. Complications can happen way to quickly. You could spend 3 years coming up with legislation for every single known medical risk there is and how to assess it and then science could discover new risks.

It is not just about risk, it is also about many other things that people never agree on. So I believe the woman should have ultimate say in the matter. Like every other country in Western Civilization.

I think the law is ok, it just needs to be clarified. The lack of clarification has Doctor's steering clear of implementing it.

It's sad that the woman in Galway died. However, I can't help feel that there are a lot of bandwagon jumpers with pro-abortion agendas getting involved. I don't think any reasonable person would be against abortion if the mother's life is at risk. However, there are those that want abortion freely available which isn't relevant to this case and the clarification that's needed to the law.

It's a real political hot potato. Just what James Reilly needs

But you can't clarify risk anymore. That is why it has been avoided for twenty years.
At the moment it is judgement call for the Doctor. How can legislation help a Doctor assess risk any better?
Also, there are 5,000 women going to the UK every year. What's your solution to that? Pretend it is not happening.

Abortion being freely available is relevant to this case. The woman was in terrible pain and it was her and her husband request for this abortion - even thou they wanted a baby - but a Doctor was able to say ah "but I need to be 100% sure your life is at risk".

It's pretty barbaric.

What about a non-viable pregnancy? There are some cases of an abnormality where it is known that the child will die as soon as it is born. Very hard to go through for a family if they decide to go to term and not to travel to the UK.

It's a disgrace that irish women have to travel to england. The case where the lady had cancer and had to travel despite being in a terrible state was a disgrace.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 52282.html

I went with a friend who was having an abortion in London to support her. There was an irish girl there of about 14-15, who looked as if she was in the irish state care system as she had a 'minder' who she obviously didn't know very well. The girl looked so lost and shell shocked, but she didn't seem to know the minder well enough to be talking or getting comfort from her, and my heart went out to her. that she would have to be made travel on top of whatever other life difficulties she had.

I appreciate if people are against abortion, in which case they are free not to have one. But for any other woman i believe it's her own decision. The government need to grow a spine and face the issue before other woman suffer and die.

i definately agree that a termination should 100% be allowed if the Mothers life is in danger.

i have every sympathy with Praveen on the death of his wife. If what he says is true, then she should have been granted that termination. We do however need to await the outcome of any enquiry as we only have his word so far that they requested a termination (i have no reason to doubt him by the way!)

what I don't agree with however is that someone should be allowed to have a termination just because they don't feel like having a baby.
the solution to that is don't get pregnant. Use protection etc.

Obviously there are other circumstances for people who have been raped etc and I believe that these cases should be treated separately as well as cases of non-viable pregnancy.

Someone mentioned earlier that its a disgrace that 5000 people have to travel to the UK to get a termination. Just because the UK allows termination relatively easily doesnt mean we have to. If the UK made armed robberies legal, would it also be a disgrace that we have to travel over there to rob a bank?
Ok, that might seem silly.

My point is yes I feel that a termination should be allowed in ireland for certain circumstances (risk of life of mother, rape, non-viable pregnancy etc), but I don't believe it should be allowed just because someone changes their mind or made a mistake!

Moomer, the problem with saying "only in these cases" is that it is very hard to define those cases unambiguously.

1. Risk to life of Mother - as I said difficult to calculate risk. By the time you have done that the Mother might be dead. This can happen in miscarriages.
2. Mother is in unbearable pain - again difficult to quantify pain. Doctors could disagree on this.
3. Mother was raped - what happens if in a subsequent court case the man was found innocent of rape?
4. Foetus has abnormality - again define abnormality.
5. Foetus will die very soon after being born - define "very soon"?

You see where all this goes??? It is impossible to legislate for all these complicated cases to differentiate between genuine cases and non-genuine cases.

Ireland has to grow up and face this. If the UK did not accept our problem there would be back street abortions here and way more women would die. The only reason against civilized treatment of women here is the endless religious brain washing. If the "pro life" gang were really against abortions they be handing out free condoms but they don't want you using contraceptives either.

We have to respect the woman's decision and educate both men and women to use contraception.

Moomer wrote:I don't believe it should be allowed just because someone changes their mind or made a mistake!

Fair enough, you are, of course, entitled to believe what you like. But why should your views influence what another grown woman wants to do with her body? How is it any of your business?

paddi22 wrote:Fair enough, you are, of course, entitled to believe what you like. But why should your views influence what another grown woman wants to do with her body? How is it any of your business?

Using that argument you could justify anything that a grown person wants to do.

I'm not religious but don't believe that abortion should be available to accommodate a lifestyle choice. Yes there are certain circumstances where it's the right thing to do, but not because someone decides that a baby won't suit their lifestyle. There are plenty of couples who can't have children that would only be too happy to adopt.

We could rant back and forward for ever about this. Everyone has their own opinion and nobody is entirely right or wrong.

I agree abortion should not just be a form of contraception. But, you have not told us how it is possible to differentiate between cases that are genuine enough for you and cases where people who could just not be bothered to use contraceptives. You have also not told us what we should do about all the Irishwomen going to England. Ten a day. It is a cop out to say ah look we just won't agree. We need to stop sticking our head in the sand and deal with this like a grown up county.

Ken wrote:

paddi22 wrote:Fair enough, you are, of course, entitled to believe what you like. But why should your views influence what another grown woman wants to do with her body? How is it any of your business?

I'm not religious but don't believe that abortion should be available to accommodate a lifestyle choice. Yes there are certain circumstances where it's the right thing to do, but not because someone decides that a baby won't suit their lifestyle.

Having sat with my friend for hours in a clinic, I saw about 25 people come in, and none of them looked like they were popping in for their monthly abortion. They all looked stressed, traumatised and were going through an expensive process that I don't feel they took lightly. And some of them were older, successful, well dressed ladies, but I'd never judge the reasons why they were there. You are making a moral judgement on a sliding scale of when you think abortion is justified, and who has the right to do that? Surely its a personal decision and nothing to do with what YOU feel is aligned to your own moral beliefs.

I struggle to understand why people think abortion is wrong but only in some circumstances. Surely is you believe on some level it's murder, why is it ok on some occasions if the end result is the same?

The other poster is right. It's a complete copout to say 'oh we will never agree' and then another woman dies because of indecision. Some people are pro and some are anti, but the country needs to face up to it.

It is interesting that this issue has a grater potency to divide Irish society and and tear it apart than 4 years of the IMF austerity.

obviously if the mother is going to loose her life, in many instances the baby will too, so we should save the mother if we can. Does anybody actually have the figures as to how many women in Ireland die of pregnancy related issues? I would imagine that it is very small. Does, anyone know the number of people who travel to the UK to have an abortion because their own life is at risk? Until i see these figures i think that the "risk" argument is just the thin end of the wedge. We have a friend who has a health problem and became pregnant, Irish doctors advised her to have an abortion. She refused, and has a healthy baby, and her health is no worse than before the pregnancy.

The basis of a democracy is that the people decide (for right or for wrong) the course that they should take. Society needs to make a choice. In this regard i am pro-choice at a societal level, however in my personal life i am a a pro-lifer all the way.

I have no time for people who say that it is only a woman's choice, as a man was involved in the act and should surely have some say about what happens to his off-spring. If the woman doesn't respect his opinion, well then maybe she shouldn't have jumped in the sack with him without protection.

How would society react if there was an issue that only men's opinion was valued?

Be responsible!! don't have unprotected sex!!, and there will be far less people travelling to England.

Well said MCD.

mcd wrote: Be responsible!! don't have unprotected sex!!, and there will be far less people travelling to England.

Incredibly naive. It is like you want to punish people who have an unplanned pregnancy. "Hey let England deal with it". Even if you have protected sex you can still have an unplanned pregnancy - "heck go to England too". And what then if England said, "hey listen Ireland we don't have to provide this service for you - do it yourself". What then? Back street abortion??

What about people who have a foetus with severe abnormalities where it won't live - "hey go to England as well".

The reason why the woman has a special say is because it is her body which is provides the potential for the foetus to become a human life. Yes,man the man was involved in the initial act of conception but the grandparents always were too and so were the great grand parents and great great grand parents. For if they never conceived the man wouldn't even exist so maybe they should get a say as well???

Anyway what annoys me about 'head in the sanders' -is that they think it is really easy to decide if the life of the Mother is at risk. It is not. No country has been able to legislate for that.

But sure if you live with your head in the sand you don't have to ponder *facts* like that.

mcd wrote:We have a friend who has a health problem and became pregnant, Irish doctors advised her to have an abortion. She refused, and has a healthy baby, and her health is no worse than before the pregnancy.

grand, that personal anecdote obviously is the case with ALL women so..tell that Savitas husband and I'm sure it will give him great comfort.

Some of the rest of your views are incredibly simplistic. Contraception isn't always 100% effective, they are always risks - condoms slip, pills are affected by antibiotics, coils move. Even someone with the best of intentions can find themselves in trouble.

As for the comment " I have no time for people who say that it is only a woman's choice, as a man was involved in the act and should surely have some say about what happens to his off-spring. If the woman doesn't respect his opinion, well then maybe she shouldn't have jumped in the sack with him without protection. " I haven't even a clue where to start with that. What about the wife with the alcoholic husband who forces himself on her. What about the girl trying to break free from an abusive relationship when she finds herself pregnant. What about the woman who finds out the man she has been seeing for month is secretly married and hadn't told her? What about the young girl who is pressurised by an older man who should know better? What about the woman who thought she was with a good guy but he paniced when she got pregnant and left?

Your views are so simplistic and don't allow any grey areas that exist in real life. The situation you described there is of some kind of loose woman who jumps into bed using no protection with a 'good' guy who would support her 100% and happily raise a child with her if she were to have the baby. I would imagine thats a .01% scenario in reality.

And it doesn't even have to involve men. What about a woman who has studied for years to raise herself out of poverty, finally has a decent job interview and finds herself pregnant because a condom split. She lives in a tiny flat in negative equity and knows she will end up stuck on benefits, waste her education and lose her chance at a decent career if she has the baby? The greyer areas are the majority and more complex. To break it into an arguement of slutty irresponsible women vs 'moral' women is too simplistic.

Pent Up wrote: Anyway what annoys me about you head in the sanders - you think it is really easy to decide if the life of the Mother is at risk. It is not. No country has been able to legislate for that.

But sure if you live with your head in the sand you don't have to ponder *facts* like that.

i certainly didn't say it was easy to decide. i don't have a solution.
i said I don't agree with termination just because a woman doesn't feel like having a baby any more.

would you agree that termination should be allowed at 35 weeks pregancy? if not, why not?
i know of two children who were born at 24 and 26 weeks of pregnancy, survived and are happy, healthy children now. do you agree that abortion should be allowed at 26 weeks?
to me that is unlawful killing. nothing religious about my thinking whatsoever.

we had a 4D (think that's what it's called) scan at 21 weeks. the baby had a full set of features, a beating heart (which starts beating at 5 to 6 weeks) and was moving its arms and legs around, could be seen clearly on the scan.
do you believe a termination should be allowed at 21 weeks?

where would you draw the line?

"What about the girl trying to break free from an abusive relationship when she finds herself pregnant. What about the woman who finds out the man she has been seeing for month is secretly married and hadn't told her? What about the young girl who is pressurised by an older man who should know better? What about the woman who thought she was with a good guy but he paniced when she got pregnant and left?

What about a woman who has studied for years to raise herself out of poverty, finally has a decent job interview and finds herself pregnant because a condom split. She lives in a tiny flat in negative equity and knows she will end up stuck on benefits, waste her education and lose her chance at a decent career if she has the baby? The greyer areas are the majority and more complex."

To varying degrees these are all difficult and complex situations involving, I'm sure, a considerable amount of heartache and hardship. But I really don't think they come even close to being in the 'grey' area of life and death situations for the mother. It's that kind of argument that has 'pro-lifers' scurrying away from reasonable legislation for (albeit very rare) 'signficant risk' cases. Grey areas are not nearly as impossible to define as people here are making out. Judges have to make rulings in grey areas all the time - for example, when an attacker is killed by someone acting in self defense (killing someone attacking you is neither always right nor always wrong). In the same way, doctors would just have to be wise in the grey areas. Sometimes they'll get it wrong but we have to trust them.

Does this simply come down to when you think a foetus is a person? Pro-lifers (of which I'm one) think there is a mini person in the mother's womb! I hope we all recognise the pain of the woman going to England and the pregnant woman with an an alcoholic husband and no money, or the adjustment for a couple with a foetus with Downes Syndrome (btw 90% of which are terminated in the UK). But are they really so bad that it's okay to kill that little person? Life is messy, hard and complicated. Living by values rather than insisting on our rights has got to be a better way for us to navigate through the complexity.

acdublin wrote:Living by values rather than insisting on our rights has got to be a better way for us to navigate through the complexity.

But what sort of values do you have if you think you can impose your subjective opinions on other people?
That sounds more like fascism to me.

It is entirely subjective when life begins:

* at conception
* at 12 weeks
* at 26 weeks
* at birth

There is no objective, scientific answer. We are all essentially "pro-life". But, the truth is there is no agreement when life begins. The term is nothing more than a rhetoric trick. It would be far more honest for these people to stop using it and refer to themselves as "life begins at conception" or something that is a true reflection of their believes.

Grey areas are not nearly as impossible to define as people here are making out.

Usually areas are called "grey" because they are very difficult to define objectively. Perhaps you
could you name a country that has been able to provide "reasonable legislation" which cover all cases when the life of a mother is at risk?

We've gone from having our heads in the sand to being fascists. PU, I don't mind you attacking the post, but you're too close to attacking the posters.

I was attacking the post, I even quoted the exact part of the post I was referring to. It is a characteristic of facism to expect a nation state to adopt values that are only derived from a very subjective opinion regarding when life begins.

Could you answer the questions I have asked several times:

• How is it possible to legislate to cover all the medical complexity regarding risk? Perhaps you could reference another country that you think has been able to do this to your satisfaction?
• Could you also tell us how we should deal with the 4,000 Irish abortions every year if the UK decided to stop providing that service?
• Could you tell us if a woman is raped and wants an abortion immediately how we should handle that?
• If a couple know there is going to be a very painful miscarriage and wish to have an abortion in a case where it not clear if there is a life risk to the Mother how we should handle that one?

You see, if you don't even try to answer complex questions it vindicates that you are simplifying the issue.

Pentup, would you answer the questions I put to you in my last post?

I personally don't have the answers to your questions. It's not easy at all.
However I don't agree that a blanket opening up of abortion to be used as a form of contraception should be adopted either.

Moomer wrote: I personally don't have the answers to your questions. It's not easy at all.
However I don't agree that a blanket opening up of abortion to be used as a form of contraception should be adopted either.

That's over simplifying the issue. No reasonable person thinks abortion is a form contraception. The point I have been trying to make is that it is impossible to legislate for all the complexity, the grey areas, the caveats. Hence, where you end up is is to provide abortion. That doesn't mean you believe abortion is a valid form of contraception. And it is a straw man tactic of the "pro-life" to claim that so many "pro-choice" are that simplistic about this tragic issue.

I have answered your question. It is entirely subjective when life begins. I used to believe it was conception. Now, I think there is no reason to believe that is any more logical than say 10 weeks, or 12 weeks.

The best answer I could give you is if you believe life is based on sentience, well then the level of sentience could guide you to an answer of somewhere after 10 weeks but before 16- 18. Another reasonable attempt at answering this question would be later on 26 weeks as then the baby is not as contingent on the Mother. But what is most importance, sentience, contingency on the mother, a fully developed brain, a beating heart - it is just subjective.

Either way, I answer the subjectivity of this by allowing choice on the matter.

but we cannot allow choice in every aspect of life.

why not allow people the choice to commit armed robberies, murder etc?

i think you're misguided if you truly believe it won't be used as a form of contraception.

I agree we can't have choice in every aspect of life. You can't just choose your own speed limit when you drive your car. That is because there is objective, scientific, empirical evidence which shows it is very dangerous to drive at a fast speed and there is no debate on the matter. However, on other matters marriage breakdown for example it is not so simple. You have to allow people the right to wrestle with their own conscience and make the tough decision without casting your own subjective morals on them.

But the philosophical question of when life begins is only one aspect of all this.

Even if you believe life begins at conception, you still have to come up with a solution to how to deal with back street abortions, how to deal with women who are having agonising miscarriages, women who are claiming they are suicidal or who are claiming they are raped?

So you can win the philosophical debate that life begins at conception (which is impossible but let's just pretend) but then you have to figure how you are going to deal with all the above situations?

I have never heard any good answer to these questions from anyone in the "pro-life" campaigns. They usually just ignore them.