Quite right Ruaidhri.

Abortions are considered for many, many, many different reasons. Whatever the reason, it is never ‘the easy choice’. I loved what Catherine McGuinness said yesterday:

McGuinness said if lawmakers are worried about “opening the floodgates”, then they are afraid of Irish people, Irish society. “We ought to have more trust in Irish people and Irish doctors,” she said. “To say that is to say everyone will be galloping to do something we don’t do already.”

I guess I’m pro choice in the sense that I think the current laws are ridiculous for all the reasons mentioned above and I agree that government should not be able to force a woman to carry an unwanted child to term.

But I still think that abortion is not just “some medical procedure”. I think it’s clear to most people that taking the pill or aborting a month old foetus etc is not murder. But at the same time having a late abortion 7-9 months would probably disgust most people.

At what stage is abortion/terminating a foetus murder? Is it after 20 weeks, why this arbitrary time. If it is based on when a foetus is viable outside the womb then what happens when technology advantages to the stage where a foetus can survive after ten weeks? Or when we no longer need a woman’s womb to carry to child.

I’d love to hear a rational logical argument from someone in the pro choice camp on when a foetus stops being a foetus and becomes a person. What happens at birth that’s so magical. The baby is still not self aware or independent of it’s mother for another few years.

Brian I don’t think any country allows for abortion between 7-9 months and no pro-choice group is advocating that. In most countries where it is legal the timeframe is usually between 5-6 months as the cut off point as, and the reason for the difference between 5 & 6, that is when medically the foetus becomes capable of living independently outside the womb. There is still debate on when that happens though, but none put it below 5 months.

In Britain 77% of abortions take place before 9 weeks, with a total of 91% happening before 12 weeks, so we aren’t talking about abortions at 8 months. Here’s the stats:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales

Google: Abortion statistics for England & Wales if the Journal wish to remove the link to another news source, apologies if it isn’t allowed.

Brian,

” But at the same time having a late abortion 7-9 months would probably disgust most people.” – yes, which is why it doesn’t really happen. The abortion limit in, for example the UK, is 24 weeks. Over 90% of procedures are carried out within the first 12 weeks.

“At what stage is abortion/terminating a foetus murder?” – It is not ever murder if it is carried out within legislated time limits.

“Is it after 20 weeks, why this arbitrary time. If it is based on when a foetus is viable outside the womb then what happens when technology advantages to the stage where a foetus can survive after ten weeks” – it is not arbitrary, it is to do with viability and setience – and a foetus cannot ever survive at the tenth week of gestation. If it was possible to ‘grow’ a child fro, this stage, imagine the costs and dangers involved. Not realistic mate, sorry.

“Or when we no longer need a woman’s womb to carry to child” – what?

“I’d love to hear a rational logical argument from someone in the pro choice camp on when a foetus stops being a foetus and becomes a person…. the baby is still not self aware or independent of it’s mother for another few years.”

Brian with respect, your request for logic and rationality is not really fair, when your questions are wildly irrational and unrealistic. I would suggest that if you are really, genuinely interested in finding answers to the questions you ask, you could use google or read through some of the unbiased medical and scientific findings and articles on the matter. Do your own homework!

@ Niall – jinx!

@Brian

I’m not sure I’m able to answer your question properly but there are two points I think. One is the development rate of the foetus – i.e. all organs have developed and are fully functioning. Secondly, the technology currently and generally available to help early births to survive.

So, it’s not just about being independent of the mother as such.

Oops, I should have refreshed before I replied to Brian!

Hey Niall,

Thanks for you response.

Can you see the problem I have with that? You’re saying that the only reason for the 5 months deadline is that the foetus won’t survive outside the womb after this time? So when technology improves to the point that the foetus can survive after say 3.5 months would you agree that the deadline for abortions should be dropped to match this? What then if technology advances to the stage where a womb is not required past a few weeks to carry a child. Should abortion then be made illegal?

@Dee,

Fair enough I agree that some of my questions are somewhat unrealistic, I was just asking them to see where people stood.

But I still think I’m entitled to an answer on whether the 5 month cut off is based purely on technology science on when the foetus can survive without the mother. Or is it based on some underlying philosophical idea about when a foetus stops being a foetus and becomes a person. What’s the difference between a foetus at 4.5 months and 5.5 months?

Hi Brian,

Technology will never be able to make the baby survive at the 3.5 month stage as the foetus hasn’t developed the proper respiratory system at that stage. It is, to put it bluntly, impossible for a baby to survive outside the womb at this stage. It has always been that way and will always be that way unless you move into the realms of sci-fi, cloning and using embyros to speed up the gestation period.

So the 5 month period is the lowest it will ever go.

Hey Niall,

Thanks again for your clear response. I feel like your making a bit of a leap stating that technology will NEVER advance to the stage where a foetus can survive before 5 months. But sense I’ll probably just sound like some sci-fi weirdo if I argue the point I think I’ll just concede it.

That said I still think the reasoning is a little strange/fuzzy
As in lungs not fully developed->not viable foetus-> not a real human/just a cluster of cells -> abortion is OK.

Our definition of when foetus stops being a cluster of cells and becomes a real person is based on the fact that science has advanced to the stage where premature babies can now be saved. So was it morally OK to terminate a 7 month foetus a hundred years ago when science was more basic, but now it isn’t?

Hi Brian;
Late terminations (when they do happen) are for medical reasons, not usually for “social” reasons.
We pick the 20wk stage as its the earliest point at which a foetus would be capable of being managed to term in a Neonatal ICU. Terminations must (under ethical law) be carried out with the nearby availability of a full NICU, and this is the case in all legal termination clinics in the UK.
Your question of how early may a foetus be viable outside the uterus in the future; we don’t know. Nobody has a crystal ball. It may be 10wks (doubtful, at least not for a very long time), it may be 16wks. When I started nursing it was 26wks, then it was 24wks, now it’s 20wks. That deadline is one that moves, it is not set in stone.
A foetus stops being a foetus when it is born (live or otherwise). There are medical definitions but that’s the easiest one. As long as a foetus is inside the uterus it is dependent on mother for everything, regardless of the gestational age. It is only when baby is born and the umbilical cord is cut that it is independent of the mother.
The difference between a foetus at 4.5/5.5wks is enormous. Foetal development is rapid at this time, there are very few similarities between the two ages.
Niall, just one point; I disagree that 5months is the lowest it will ever go, having nursed a number of 18/19wk preemies. Not alone does technology get better, but staff get better. I would agree with you though that 10wks is extremely underdeveloped and it would be extremely rare (never) for a foetus to survive from this point outside the uterus.

@James, thanks alot for weighing in.

Do you believe that the specifics of when a baby is able to survive outside the womb should be a (or indeed the the main) factor for determining the cut-off point for abortions?

I don’t want to put words your mouth but if your saying that a child is dependent upon the mother until it’s born then do you have anything against late term abortions? You’ve done a pretty good job of undermining Niall and Dee’s argument in favour of the 5 month cut-off.

What’s your personal view? Up to what point should abortions be allowed and what is you reasoning? If it’s not based on when the foetus is viable, then what is your moral reasoning? I’m interested as you seem to be better informed and to have thought about this a good deal more then myself or anyone else here.

Brian, with due regard, your questions are not simply “unrealistic,” but they are from the area of fiction. To note, when science has advanced to the stage where humans are created in labs and I myself think there is a chance of this happening one day (they are already animals grown in labs), the question of abortion will be absolutely irrelevant because women will have nothing to do there as such. Although, the same groups that oppose abortion will be opposing this developments too lol

Hi Brian,
For “casual” terminations the main cut-off should be the point where it is deemed that after this point the foetus would survive with the help of a nearby NICU. There should be no cut-off point for medically necessary terminations, and this is usually the case in most countries (Where laws on termination exist).
Late term terminations don’t generally happen, at least not for casual reasons, as Dee (I think) said above, in excess of 90% of all terminations (regardless of reason) are carried out by week 20. As I said, the cut off for casual termination should be the point after which the foetus would be capable of survival with the help of a NICU.
In terms of medically necessary terminations, these are carried out as a last resort. The desired outcome after 24wks is always live birth, medically necessary terminations are a last resort. As was said yesterday at the OirHeaCte, approx 30 medically necessary terminations were carried out last year. There were in excess of 80,000 live births in the Republic of Ireland last year.
I didn’t intend to undermine either Dee or Niall, however, the cut-off is a guide point, it moves depending on foetal development. I have worked with 18wk preemies who have survived and are now thriving children, conversely I have also worked with 24/25/26wk preemies who have passed away shortly after birth as a result of not being capable of surviving outside the uterus.
The moral question is a very different question, and as I said above, that’s not up to me dictate to any mother what she should or shouldn’t do. My job is dictated by my patients, and if a patient requests a termination, provided that it is in her best interest in terms of her overall health, I should be able to request a doctor carry one out for her. It doesn’t matter what I think, heck, it doesn’t matter what any of us thinks, as I said above, it happens, and that’s what we need to deal with.

@Ciara

Well Niall and Dee laughed at me when I suggested that foetus could survive earlier than 20 weeks. Then James a medical professional comes on say he thinks that 10 weeks might be feasible in the future and that he as worked with foetus’s as young 18/19 weeks. I think some of the questions I’m asking are pretty reasonable to be honest.

With respect, I was laughing at your 10 week comment, and your comment about not needing women to grow babies, and your comment about abortions being carried out between 7/9 months, which is not done.

In fairness, the questions are realistic. At least Brian asks the questions instead of presuming that women are promiscuous and doctors are butchers.
Dee, terminations at 7/8 months do happen. Not very often, but has to be noted it does happen (for whatever reason!)

‘For whatever reason’ is the important part though.

Yes I have read a lot of Brian’s comments and generally have no objection to his opinion or how he expresses it. I felt, however, that discussing the viability of a ten week foetus outside the womb is not realistic at all, and is a whole other debate.

Aside from anything, if medical advances made a 10 week old foetus viable outside the womb possible, which is highly unlikely, associated costs would be so prohibitive that it renders the point moot I’m afraid.

@Dee,

The point I’m making is that nobody seems able to argue at what point the foetus becomes a person and has human rights. I’ve even had philosophy Phd students argue that the new born child should not have human rights as it it not self aware/sentient or independent as it needs others (usually but no necessarily it parents) to survive.

So if medical science cannot provide a logical cut off what about a moral argument for such a cut off? James has provided lots of useful medical information and has I believe made the case that science does not have a conclusive answer.

Why should it be OK to terminate a foetus at 5 months but not before? I have no idea which is why abortion probably isn’t for me(I know I’m a man etc but you know what I mean). I don’t believe the government should intervene in these cases. But I think it’s morally ambiguous for the author of this article to say that abortion is just another medical procedure. I don’t think it is. There is no other medical procedure remotely like a abortion on demand. It is a very special case and I believe it should be treated as such.

Brian my comment disappeared so i will write it again :( If technology should ever be invented where an ‘artificial’ womb can house a fetus, I would be willing to transfer my unwanted embryo into the Artificial womb until it is ready to be born and given to an infertile couple looking to have children. We are not there, and may never be there in terms of technology, and the ethics of such a thin may be a minefield. But i would consider that instead of an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. The thing is women wont want (some wont be able) to carry an embryo/fetus that they dont want or puts them at risk physically/mentally, people want to stop the pregnancy in its tracks as soon as they can once they decide they dont want to be parents, or that their health or life is at risk.

Hi Brian,

Medicine does provide a cut off point. It’s been highlighted to you numerous times in this discussion. The cut off point is the point after which a child could survive on its own outside of the womb. As has been discussed, this is a gradually moving goal post. The changing nature of this timescale can be taken into account in legislation.

Heres a ‘prolife’ remix for ya’s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW_snRqT5pA&feature=youtu.be

@Kevin O’Brien

Are you saying that the cut off point for when a foetus becomes a person is when the foetus can survive outside the womb?. So a foetus conceived 100 years ago becomes a person at let’s say 7 months as if it was born any earlier it would have died. But a foetus conceived now becomes a persona 18 weeks?

As I’ve stated earlier I’m more or less pro choice, if there was a vote tomorrow to bring in UK like legislation I’d vote in favour of it.

But I wouldn’t personally want to have an abortion if I was the father of an unexpected baby/foetus as I don’t think it’s as clear cut as the author or you think it is.

I’m still to hear someone argue what this cut off as and why all the others have done is talk about at what point a foetus is viable outside the womb, I don’t believe this is the same thing when a foetus stops being a cluster of cells and becomes a person.

Brian, my understanding is that science is out on that one. No one knows, and no one can prove it one way or another. Laws about personhood are therefore informed by opinions and beliefs. Some think it’s at conception. Others at a certain time in the development of the foetus. Some, when the baby is born.

That’s why asking this question won’t get you any real answers.

Brian, I’m not sure how others stand on this but my viewpoint is that it is precisely because it is difficult, bordering on impossible, to decide a legal limit on abortion terms in medical, philosophical and moral viewpoints, that we should not stipulate this limit legally.

This is why parents, and moreso the mother, should be able to decide for themselves what they feel is morally, medically or philosophically correct when dealing with late term abortions. The controversy is so great, the range of opinions on when an abortion should or should not be had is so wide, and the criteria for these opinions is so vague and difficult to determine. This is precisely why there should not be a universally applied law to decide this for any and all women who want or need an abortion.

So true.

Are you for real Fulano?

Are you incapable of considering that men would have an interest in their unborn child? The womans body and the new childs body are two seperate individuals, yes…one needs the other to grow. the child is the unique combination of the mothers and FATHERS dna, so of course the fathers opinion is relevant.

Your narrow extremist view is ridiculous

“Your narrow extremist view is ridiculous”

I think you meant to say that about yourself there, HelloGoogleTracking!

@Eleen

I addressed Fulano’s narrow view that the developing baby is just the mothers “body” which is obviously Narrow.
I expanded it to include the child and the father, self evidently a broader view, and considering more.

Now what point were you making, as what you said makes no sense?

So if I include the grandparents and perhaps the neighbours into the equation, I’m more broad-minded than you?

With respect, Who’s body is used to gestate a pregnancy, wanted or otherwise, who is potentially left “holding the baby” in the majority of situations. Its fine for men to have an opinion about whether a woman’s health should be put at risk in the interests of protecting a fetus but its something that they themselves as individuals will never have to stare in the face. I am yet to meet a pregnant women who doesn’t have some kind of apprehension about the months ahead of her, the risks, the delivery (and I’m talking about planned pregnancies with no identified abnormalities). Fine men’s input is important but they shouldn’t be dominating this discussion. This is a women’s issue.

Yes, unless it effects someone else. If so they and their rights must also be considered.
Like everything else in life

@Hello – what if the life of the woman is in danger? Who’s “human rights” are more important – that of the woman or that of an 11 week old foetus for example?!

@Marion,

In that case the Mothers human rights should be considered first, and in other extreme examples like rape etc.
These instances should and have to be legislated for, and the fact that they have not been is ridiculous.

At what stage (weeks) do you have a cut off point in some states in America you can have a termination up to 6 months.

@Google.. Quick question, in cases of rape – how is it determined?
Will a conviction need to be secured before an abortion may take place? Considering an estimated 90% of rapes go unreported and conviction rates are low – does this not just drag out the process to the point where an abortion *would* be immoral (ie, after the point of viability around 24 weeks, or even birth – our “justice” system can be painfully slow).

Same with incest – how do you prove it in time to secure a medical abortion? (ie, before 10 weeks – where its just taking a pill rather than anything like the stuff pro life groups would have you believe is the norm..)

See this is the problem with attaching conditions – ensuring that they are upheld makes the whole process something the pregnant woman wants to avoid. She will just go to the UK, and if she can’t afford it, hopefully she won’t be stupid enough to try the knitting needle and gin trick..

What an awful article, the way she tries to justify the intentional killing is sickening.

My stomach turns and I get a tinge of sadness every time I have to read an article from the pro abortion lobby groups (and there are a load on the journal). Now before someone says; why read these articles if I disagree so much, well I do so to see if there is any point made that can offer a small justification for position.

My stomach turns when people (men in particular) care more for an insentient formation of cells than the woman it is growing inside of

Very poor article, ignores anything not suiting its point of view, paints everything black and white, refuses to acknowledge any of the many valid considerations any rational person would think of.

Rights of mother – check
Rights of growing child – ignored
Rights of father – ignored
Possibility of some women making terrible decisions – although obvious she thinks it is impossible

Im pro-abortion in limited circumstances, but fundamentalist crazy and nonsensical comments like, “it a womans body, she can do what she wants”, and “all reasons are valid” etc…need to be thought through and shown to be narrow minded and self serving

How can intelligent people not apply critical thought?

Do you not agree it should be a woman’s personal choice? Babies are not cheep and I’m sure your aware they are a massive responsibility. What gives you the right to judge anyone on choices which effect that individuals life!!!

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain#.UO6MAyQt1o8 A fetus cant feel pain until the 20 week because the connections to the thalamus havent been properly formed.

Eric & Hello. Its an opinion piece. The author gave their opinion in an article just as you are giving yours now.

@HelloGoogleTracking!

Are you saying that you back the government forcing women to carry unwanted children to term?

That is the logical conclusion of your argument. If you’re against abortion on demand. What steps should be taken to enforce Irish laws on abortion?

I’m assuming you’re not advocating that we chain pregnant women to beds? So if a woman is determined to have an abortion what in your view should be done to prevent it?

If you’re arguing for government intervention then I feel you need to answer this.

I agree with you that it’s scandalous how few rights fathers have in these circumstances in say the US or the UK
The mother decides whether
A) the father’s child is terminated regarless of how he feels
B) A child he doesn’t want is born and he has to pay child support for 18 years

All the responsibilities and none or the rights

@ hellogoogle,how can you say it is bad article because it so “black and white” or would you prefer it to be full of waffle..I can’t say iv heard much of your journalism

Get a grip!

@BrianCallinan

I understand your point, but cannot agree with the logic, the reason is that abortion being illegal/prevented != forcing unwanted babies to be carried. It is just preventing the termination of a developing person, the state did not make the woman pregnant, there has to be some responsibility. Also the rights of the developing child have to be considered, and the wishes of the father. It just is not as simple as you present……unwanted by who?

A flippant example of the logic follows: Making speeding illegal does not “force” people not to speed”….make sense?

@MVM
What i meant was it needed to be balanced, thought out, considered, intelligent, reaching a conclusion that could be respected. I am not claiming to be a journalist, but an opinion piece should not just be biased propaganda.
If the author believes what they are saying is right, then it should address the situation fairly……
just my opinion….

Myself I think there should be a period of time that could be determined, where the development of the fetus can be simple enough to allow, and beyond which the fetus has human rights, and parental rights to the father as well as mother.
Everyone can understand that occasionally woman can find themselves in crisis situations, and some allowance must be made.
However, responsibility has to be important, how hard can it be to avoid the crisis?? Seriously contraception, morning after pills etc are all available. Except in extreme examples, it can only be the result of irresponsibility, and the death of a person is the result. Shouldn’t we try to avoid this? discourage?

To be fair Dee that’s one of theist ignorant ‘arguments’ that is thrown out, as if by caring for the life of the unborn I don’t care for women, just cos I’m a man, not even worth debating if you really think that.

Jenni, aborting a baby due to financial issues shouldn’t be an issue, if finance was a problem but you cared for the baby inside you would you not consider adoption? The country is full of caring parents having fertility difficulties that would care for any unwanted child.

Matthew are you saying that as the growing baby can’t feel pain until week 20 that it is a valid reason to about it? Debate has raged over the ‘killing’ of coma and locked in syndrome patients, but a key difference is that the unborn baby will develop feelings in matter of weeks.

Correct mark, It is an opinion piece, a lot of pro abortion opinion pieces on the journal, just trying to balance it :)

@HelloGoogleTracking!

I don’t think your flippant example adds much value I@m afraid.

Speeding is illegal and the punishment is a speeding ticket.Abortion on demand is illegal and carries a prison sentence. Your comparison might have value if doctors/mothers involved in on demand abortion faced a fine of 100 euro. But it doesn’t.

I agree we should try to discourage abortion with real education in school, easy access to contraceptives. But accidents happen and if you back the state makes something illegal with the threat of a prison sentence than you are backing the incarceration of people, aren’t you?

hi Eric! If you want, you can read my comment again and notice the part where I say care more for an insentient formation of cells than the woman who hosts it.

If you feel that a woman has no right to abort a foetus despite her wishes, then you do care about the foetus more than the woman. That’s a fact. At least admit it.

@BrianCallinan

I have to agree, my flippant example was rubbish! Apologies
I was trying to illustrate that the use of the word “force” is the wrong description. What I mean is that when an act by a person is banned / legislated against this does not equate to the result being forced on the person. The word “force” is used as hyperbole.

I think we agree mostly on this issue anyway, to answer your questions, yes accidents do happen, and some people will always chose to have an abortion for whatever reason (not all valid, but many are of course). In this case they can go to the UK, we cannot decide on what happens there.

But here we have a say, and I find it personally difficult to accept the death of the child under the banner of “its a womans body”, and “women will make the right choice, its no ones elses business”.
Like you I think its a complicated issue and the child has to be considered, the father, the individual circumstance, the reasons etc.

I don’t have the answers, but it certainly needs to be fleshed out a lot more, again just my opinion

googletracking –

Force

2. make (someone) do something against their will:
she was forced into early retirement

@Dee

Yes that is my point, in this case people want to do something i.e. abortion; and are not allowed. They are not being forced to “do something” but instead it is something they want to do that is illegal.

They are being forced to carry a foetus to term. As in if they attempt to have an abortion on Irish soil, the state will imprison the mother and the doctor. Threatening to put someone in prison is using force.

I think that you are being obtuse here, I must say.

I would say they are being forced NOT to have an abortion, against their wishes, and therefore forced to carry a foetus to term.

It’s a silly semantics argument that has no real bearing on the debate, but you are wrong nevertheless.

Brian – obvs that was directed at googletracker, not you!

Also, thanks for your reply earlier, I thought other commentators had responded quite well by the time I saw it which is why I didn’t reply!

“I understand your point, but cannot agree with the logic, the reason is that abortion being illegal/prevented != forcing unwanted babies to be carried. It is just preventing the termination of a developing person, the state did not make the woman pregnant, there has to be some responsibility.”

Ok, the State did not make the woman pregnant, but what if a rapist made the woman pregnant? Is it right to force a woman to carry a baby to term after rape?!

We should legalise all drugs because its my body and my right to put what ever I like into my body, we should also stop baning foods which have harmful chemicals, and allow the prescription of meds that have not been approved because people can make a choice to eat or used these items, I.E it’s my body it’s my choice to harm it in what ever way I like.

Also there are very few country’s which have aboration on demand, most have some regulation on it.

Canada has zero abortion legislation at all and they do pretty well. They leave the decision entirely up to a woman and her doctor, which is exactly how it should be.

Hi Jessica,

Good for Canada. This is Ireland. Irish doctors and nurses deserve legislation so they know what their legal rights and obligations are. At the moment these rights and obligations are not clear. No one should be put at risk of prosecution just for doing their job.

Absolutely Kevin, which is exactly why we should repeal any and all abortion-related legislation and constitutional amendments. Criminalise dangerous backstreet abortions while making safe abortion services carried out by licensed medical professionals(not to mention contraception and family planning advice/sex ed) free and easily available.

The many women I personally know who have elected for abortion have discussed the option of abortion with the father, including the alternatives available to them. The idea that women don’t respect their partners in this is on the same line as thinking ‘abortion on demand’ will mean a ‘flood’ of women getting abortions. How about showing some respect to the other half of the human race? Is your opinion of women so low that you think we want this just to end a viable persons life for fun? For convenience? To get an abortion because it’s fashionable?

Read it again without rose coloured glases. It’s not balanced or takes in the views of the majority who are not in favour of abortion.

85%want legislation on X 82% want the health of a woman protected. The four church groups and three anti- abortion organisations ‘giving evidence’ (ie spouting faith based doctrine which is not evidence at all) do not represent the majority. People don’t believe their doctrine any more.

Tom, it’s an opinion piece! Get over it!

Read it again without the blinkers Tom.
You are not the majority.

Same here :D

Even if Tom was correct, the then majority would still be wrong. The bulk of those who oppose a women’s right to choose here and in every country do so because they were brainwashed as children into believing in superstitious nonsense. That’s the issue these people need to address. They can’t think for themselves. Their minds were abused.

Catholics are born sinners. The guilt is a way if control.

Yet when a pregnant woman has a smoke or A drink the world condemns her. her body her choice, right.

@karla,that’s a bad comparison a abortion terminates the pregnancy where drink and smoking harms the unborn possibly leaving it with a long term problems

Anyway we voted on this and pro choice won so really it should be on demand not fg trying to make it hard

Cant pick and choose when it is or isn’t a woman’s body a womans choice. It’s either a womans body a womans choice or it isn’t.

Karla, show us the legal proscription on smoking/drinking during pregnancy. There isn’t one.

People who dislike that choice will be as free to condemn it as people who dislike abortion, even with elective abortion available.

The people who condemn women for smoking and drinking are the same ones who say abortion is a woman’s choice because it’s her body. I think it’s hypocritical.

There is nothing in law against it, yet all you hear is wrong it is for the pregnant woman to smoke or drink. It’s been highlighted by articles here on smoking and drinking while pregnant. I’m pointing out that everyone who agrees that pregnant women should smoke or drink are hypocrites…. After all its a woman body a woman’s choice.

Karla – please provide evidence to support your assertion that “The people who condemn women for smoking and drinking are the same ones who say abortion is a woman’s choice because it’s her body.”

@karla your right it is a woman’s body and her choice the sane as it is for her to have Brest augmentation or anything else with her body..if a woman feels she is unfit or unable to provide for a child she should have a abortion by choice or by your bright thinking make her have a child that ends up neglected or in and out of foster homes..

@MVM – When did we vote and when did the pro-choice side win? Did I sleep through a recent referendum?

@ Aaron,once in 1992 for the right to travel and seek information(like you can be stopped traveling for a abortion)
And in 2002 a referendum for the right to abortion…

Karla, bad comparison. When a woman smokes or drinks during pregnancy it’s irresponsible. However it is not against the law for her to smoke or drink. Legally, her right to choose to smoke is not compromised.
But this is very far removed from the fact that a woman died because she did not have the right to a medical procedure.

Neither of those were referendums to allow abortions in this country. They were to amend the constitution regarding certain aspects of the current constitution with regards to abortion.

I dont like the its her body her choice argument. We all have the power of ‘choice’ irrespective of any law that governs us, I would say our own conscience would play a bigger part in our choices rather than written laws . As for being irresponsible, sure they pregnant woman might be planning on terminating it and sure wouldnt really make any differnce then would it… I think no one can go through life without being irresponsible at some time or another.

Since you brought up thecase, if she was in the process of miscarrying you would think that they would have helped it along. I have no idea if she would have lived, if they had of made things a bit quicker for her. I dont think you could say for certain that she would have survived if they did a d&c or a c-section. The infection killed her, I dont know if the infection would have been avoided. Do you?

what is it that makes one life more valuable than another? Is it because it is easier to end the life of someone who has no say in the matter and can’t object as in the case with an unborn person.

Tom Rooney – A foetus is dependent on the mother’s body at least until it is viable outside of the womb. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy until the foetus is viable is tantemount to slavery and a massive breach of her human right to bodily independence. You are forcing her, against her will, to give birth. What does anyone have to inflict that type of suffering on a woman.

THAT is what makes the mother’s life more valuable then the foetus. She can survive without it, it can’t survive without her.

But listen, if you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one. There, simple.

Slavery and a breach of her human rights? Are you serious? What about the foetus’ right to life and what about the fathers rights? Does he not get a choice on the future welfare and life of his unborn child?

And I’m tired of hearing this ‘if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one’ bullsh*t. How about if you don’t want a child you use a condom, take the pill, use an other form of contraception available, take the morning after pill which is available from all chemists or simply don’t have sex at all. These are all far cheaper and more convenient options to having an abortion but of course that would also mean you have to actual put a bit of thought and planning into your life.

@Tricia I believe you are grossly exaggerating when try to make a comparison with slavery and pregnancy. I can see the reasoning behind women seeking an abortion if a pregnancy might put their life at risk but I think it is.morally abhorent that anyone would consider ending the life of an unborn child for no other reason than they might have been irresponsible with protection before having sex. Society these days is slipping into the abyss, morals are diminishing daily. This has nothing to do with religion, it’s just a sad fact.

Aaron – Abortion myth: Contraception can prevent the need for abortion.

Reality: Better access and use can perhaps lower the rate of abortion, but it won’t make numbers plummet – for the simple reason that people fail to use contraception, and contraception fails people.

Tom – “Society these days is slipping into the abyss, morals are diminishing daily.”
I disagree. Crime rates are down. Fewer people die from war and disease. Life is dramatically better for nearly everyone on this planet, even those in the third world (and I’m not saying there isn’t loads more we can do). But to sweepingly say “Society…. is slipping into the abyss”, that’s just nonsense.

I don’t deny men are entitled to an opinon on abortion, as citizens of this country of course they are. But what does it say when the majority of those commenting here that are “pro-choice” are female and the majority of those that are “pro-life” are male? Does that give any of those “pro-life” males pause for thought at all?

Making abortion illegal doesn’t stop it. The ONLY thing it leads to is women accessing unsafe terminations that results in suffering, proscecution and has been known to lead to death.

Surely that should be taken into account.

@Tricia what feckin planet are you living on? The world is in a disasterous state, crime is up, poverty levels are the highest they have ever been, voilent crime is astronomical compared to 40 to 50 years ago. We’re plagued by corrupt politicians and bankers and We have elderly people being raped and robbed far more often than ever before. Irish Gangland murders are among the highest in Europe. All of which indicatea society is going to the dogs and morals are on the slide across the board.

No Tom, you’re wrong. Just because you “perceive” it to be so, doesn’t mean it’s true.

Whilst I will give you the gangland crime being up in Ireland, violent crime overall has dropped in all 1st world countries.

And you can’t seriously be suggesting that people live in more poverty now then in, for example, 1930’s Ireland.

However, this is moot. This discussion is about access to legal abortion. I don’t accept your premise that abortion is immoral. I believe it is immoral to force a woman to carry a pregancy to term against her wishes.

@
Tom Mooney

Interestingly, your comments on the state of the world can partially be attributed to over-population (particularly your poverty comment).

Also, have a look at crime-rates in New York (for example) since the introduction of legal abortion.

@tricia, I’m afraid you are the one that is wrong. The world is in a terrible state morally. wars rage throughout the globe over 300 at any one time. And yes, poverty is worse than ever before, the gap between the haves and the have nots has been so big in all history. You are totally ignorant of these facts because you live in a bubble insulated from the realities of life. Taking the life of any human is immoral and unjustifiable, it makes no difference if that life is in or outside the womb, abortion is far too often used as a fix for people who live an immoral lifestyle and their push for it to be socially acceptable is akin to them easing their own concsience in regard to their personal immorality and carlessness. There are exceptional cases but they are few and far between Abortion on demand for no other reason than a child might be an inconvenience is morally wrong and always will be.

Sorry Tom, hate to repeat myself but just because you perceive it doesn’t mean that is the case: The following excerpt is from A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE by Steven Pinker . I recommend you read it.

“Global violence has fallen steadily since the middle of the twentieth century. According to the Human Security Brief 2006, the number of battle deaths in interstate wars has declined from more than 65,000 per year in the 1950s to less than 2,000 per year in this decade. In Western Europe and the Americas, the second half of the century saw a steep decline in the number of wars, military coups, and deadly ethnic riots.

Zooming in by a further power of ten exposes yet another reduction. After the cold war, every part of the world saw a steep drop-off in state-based conflicts, and those that do occur are more likely to end in negotiated settlements rather than being fought to the bitter end. Meanwhile, according to political scientist Barbara Harff, between 1989 and 2005 the number of campaigns of mass killing of civilians decreased by 90 percent.”

Poverty is not the “highest it’s ever been. That doesn’t even make sense! Social welfare came into force last century and whilst, yes, the gap between rich and poor has widened (and I support legislation to reduce this), the crushing poverty of the early 20th century and before no longer exists. Maternal deaths have dropped. Children live past their 5th birthdays, vaccines, medication even increased empathy has led to the world being a vastly better place then it was just 50/60 years ago.

I suggest you do some research because I think your a bit confined in your bubble there.

Instead if spouting your beliefs Tom, go find proof and come back and back up your statement. Because I can find proof to disprove everything you just said. EVERYTHING.

@Tom

The majority of abortions are carried out for socio-economic reasons, thereby ensuring that fewer unwanted children are born into poverty.

Also, ” abortion is far too often used as a fix for people who live an immoral lifestyle”?

I’m afraid this is sheer fabrication on your part, and only proves how very little knowledge you have on the subject. It is a projection of your own personal beliefs on how women should live.

Karla – a pregnant woman is free to have a drink in pregnancy but please make an informed decision – research agrees the there is ‘ No Know Safe Level’ of alcohol in pregnancy. The mum can have that drink as long as she accepts that here new born runs the risk of a life long disability . I personally do not believe that any woman would want to take that risk. Sadly Ireland is not empowering women with the information so that they can make a safe choice. Drinking & Smoking in pregnancy is not a blame game but one of education.

So your saying she should make an informed choice regarding the well bring of the life that is growing inside her. To take its health and it’s life into consideration. To give it the best start to life and the best prospects.

I don’t see that happening when one chooses abortion because a baby would be an inconvenience to them.

The issue with the referendum is that the only ever offer the option of restricting it further not liberalising it or removing the 8th amendment. Political cowardice.

In a civilised country we don’t kill baby’s on demand!i know there are exceptions but It isn’t a take out pizza that you can call up to cancel!

And it’s none of your business. Funny you use the term “on demand” after reading the article. I’m not pro abortion and if I got someone pregnant I would not want her to get an abortion. But I’m pro choice and it shouldn’t be up to me or anyone else other then the person that’s pregnant.

@NIall In a civilised country we shouldn’t force women to give birth surely?

If it ever happens you will have a different opinion, trust me!

If myself and my girlfriend decide to have a baby it still won’t alter my opinion to believing that women should be forced to have children against their wishes. Trust me!

Niall, I am a mother. I had a planned pregnancy, I love my child more than I ever thought humanly possible, and I would lay down my life without a second thought to save him from harm.
However, I would never, ever, EVER in a million years force a woman to bear a child that she did not 100% desire. That is truly barbaric. In fact, having the experience of pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood has only reinforced my pro-choice stance. It is the most extreme life changing event physically, mentally, financially, emotionally. And no woman should be forced through that against her will.

@Duchess – beautifully put x

Niall you say it should not be up to you to have an input into the decision as to if a termination occurs or not, but of you got the girl pregnant they why should you have no say.

Men in this country have very little say when it comes to children. If said woman decided not to have a termination you then have no choice again over maintanance etc, and from the time that child is born you would have hoops to jump through to have any rights to your child.

I believe that aboration should be provided but only in certain cases, as I believe that there are so many forms of contraception people should be able to fine one which they can use, or two to decrease the chance of an in wanted pregnancy.

Im a non theist and I think abortion is wrong. Nothing to do with Catholic church.

Well then you might want to confront why you think you should have the right to bar women from choosing whether they can access abortion in Ireland or not?

If you don’t want one, don’t have one, but *nothing* gives you the right to force them overseas for procedures or to make that decision for them. What makes you think you do?

Abortion on demand – no apologies.

When does an embryo become a human being or at what point do they obtain a right to live like the rest of us?

When it is able to survive outside of it’s mother’s body, of course.

It’s too late for that. The freedom to travel & advice is now in our constitution. does it mean we now want it in our country? No!

The bit that really doesn’t make sense is that to reduce the number of crisis pregnancies what the state actually needs is free and easy access to contraception for all people in Ireland, a contraceptive campaign that realistically recognises the reality of Irish sexuality now and more supports for women who choose to progress with an unplanned pregnancy. But the anti-choice lobby and the church are idealogically opposed to those also, because the underpinning dogma is a right wing ultra conservative one, linked to a near fundementalist interpretation of christianity, and a sexist, traditionalist view of the role of women in society.

Clarification I mean simple choice in abortion should be allowed none of the bs that is currently happening.

I have donated to this excellent charity. They do sterling work helping women who would otherwise be forced into a lifechanging situation that they don’t want.

And anyone in the UK who can, please volunteer your time or some help with accommodation, to help some of the THOUSANDS of Irish women who are forced to seek safe abortion outside their own country.

Caroline, again you are giving advice that is not necessarily easy to follow. You must take into account the different mental states and physical situations of every single rape victim.

Yes, you are right – getting to a doctor for the MAP IS essential in preventing unwanted pregnancy. But often the trauma of rape means that rational thought and damage control is not the first thing you think of. Often you are too busy being completely torn apart about the fact that you have just been raped. Sometimes you are 14. Or physically disabled. Or unconscious. Or too poor to go to the doctor. Or too scared to admit out loud what has happened. Maybe your husband or boyfriend has raped you and is watching every move you make.

Blanket advice is just not good enough, unfortunately.

Good man Stuart.

If men had the responsibility of carrying a child around in their bodies for 9 months, there would be an abortion clinic on ever street corner!

It is impossible to weigh in on the matter with any degree of authority when you cannot ever have any real personal experience in the matter, or ever truly understand.

It will affect the murdered child

Hyperbole fail

How about in cases of rape? Or if it is shown that foetal abnormalities will curtail the baby’s life at an early stage? If it will be born with severe disabilities and the parents feel they can’t cope with that?

Where do you stop? What does the definition of severe disability cover? Many people with disabilities can lead meaningful (difficult perhaps) but happy lives like everyone else. Reminds me of eugenics.

It stops, I would imagine, where medical professionals says it stops.

If they say the child would have close to zero quality of life would you agree with abortion in that case Darren?

Well think about it (I preface this comment by stating that it is a terrible thought, and one that I am not especially comfortable with – but it needs to be addressed in relation to this question).

IF a mother discovers a disability that she does not feel she will be able to cope with – besides abortion what are the options?
Adoption I hear the pro life side say, well that’s a lovely idea, but is it really going to work out as ideally as we would all hope it would? Would adoptive parents be less likely to want the child if it had a terrible deformity or disability? It’s a tough question but it is the reality. Some kids have horrific abnormalities / disabilities and even their own parents who love them very much, have to send them away to be cared for professionally at some point.

In this sense, would carrying the child to term so that it spends most of its life in state care be the fairest thing to do to them? Deprive them of any sort of chance in life, resign them to the most difficult, painful and lonely existence you could?
We cannot guarantee they would get adopted. There’s thousands of kids living in orphanages all over the world who desperately want parents, this puts any disabled kid at a huge disadvantage in a lot of cases (certainly not all). It’s awful, it’s tragic and it’s heartbreaking – but it’s something that needs to be borne in mind.

Hi guys, Niall, sorry, I wrote a reply earlier for you but I don’t think I submitted it properly. This is a very difficult issue. For massive chromosomal abnormalities such as patau syndrome and Edwards syndrome where chances of survival are nil I would find that some justification for abortion. However If the route of expected quality of life is used to justify abortion, how do we decide what is an acceptable level? For example in the uk 9 out of 10 women in the uk abort children with Down syndrome. That’s 1100 abortions per yer. That is the reason why this suggestion reminds me of eugenics because it is de facto eugenics whether we like it or not. Down syndrome is a life altering condition for sure, however People with this condition can still have happy and worthwhile lives. My point is, how can someone measure quality of life, or better still, estimate it at the beginning of life as a justification of ending it. I don’t like to draw evidence anecdotally but i seen the most incredible girl on the late late show, with no arms or legs. See has every obstacle in front of her in life, but she gave me a lesson in positive outlook.

Now i understand that This is a very real and painful problem Shanti, but I believe that life should be given a chance. the best solution in these marginal cases should be to support the parents and child in every way possible. I know the worlds not black and white but if one believes in the inherent value of human life it makes sense.

Well I certainly will not argue with you that we need more appropriate supports in place for parents of disabled children – and single mothers (the amount of scorn poured on these women is horrific in this society that supposedly values women), hell parents in general.. On that front this country is appalling.
Perhaps another reason why a woman who finds herself pregnant in this situation may lean toward abortion..

The supports SHOULD be there, as should factual sex, relationship and emotional education from a relevant age. And free access to contraception – because really the aim is to have as few abortions as possible anywhere. No one of sound mind thinks that abortions are inherently good things – no one wants to see all babies or even most babies aborted – but those on the pro choice side are willing to be open and say that it will still happen, with all the best will in the world – there will still be needs for abortion in the real world.

We all want to work toward reducing the need for them, but having them deemed illegal doesn’t stop them and can lead to some dangerous situations. So how about we allow for them and then pro choice AND pro life can work TOGETHER to reduce the need for the service to ever be accessed?

Every sperm is sacred…sing it!

It’s only because your side manage to do the opposite without once mentioning the health, well-being, or wishes of the mother… Bloody foetal-fanatics you are!

An embryo is not a person. I suggest you read more biology.

Do you eat fertilised eggs biology teacher

When does an embryo become a person so? 1 month? 2 months?

I don’t eat eggs period. And let’s try to stay on topic.

An embryo doesn’t become a person, it goes through foetal development as a foetus, not a person, a baby, a child, a kid, a human.
A foetus.

what is it then, a kangaroo?

Matthew, it is generally accepten, in every country in the world where women can access safe abortions, that the point of viability outside the womb is the point at which the foetus could be considered a person. Access to abortion is legislated around this scientific, medical information.

Do you enjoy being deliberately obtuse? It’s a human foetus. A foetus is not a sentient being, it is not aware of it’s existence any more than an amoeba is. It has the potential to become a person sure, but technically so do most human eggs and human sperm. Preventing it from becoming a person is not the same as killing a person. The value of a foetus is dependent on the value attributed to it by the woman in who’s body it is developing – no one else has any right to ascribe value to it (except perhaps the father but ultimately the decision rests with the mother – it’s her body after all). If she ascribes value to it then it is valuable and that is the only source of value it will have until it becomes self-aware and can ascribe value to itself. And please folks, don’t give me any crap about god ascribing value to it because such a being most likely does not exist and even if it did there’s little reason to think that ANY religious organisation has any claim to speak for it’s views – certainly not the the scribblings of ignorant men writing thousands of years ago. Religious arguments, unevidenced and unjustified as they are, have no place here (or anywhere in fact).

I don’t mean to be sexiest, but can men ever fully understand what it is to be pregnant? An unexpected pregnancy can be a very destructive thing to a woman’s life. You say it’s murder, but what if that baby is born into an abusive family and is then neglected. Left for the state to care for him or her, that is no life for a child!!!

Why would you? To get such an egg would involve violating the physical integrity of a woman. Not only would you have to impregnate her against her will or through some pretence (because there’s not a woman in her right mind who’d become pregnant to provide a fertilised egg for someone to eat) which is rape, but you’d also have to preform an operation to extract said egg…. but didn’t that occur to you when you were making your wise-ass remark did it?

Keith you have a superb attitude towards women, it makes me love you a little bit! Really though, I appreciate it so much.

Thanks Dee :-)

Dee I agree with you. Keith that is one of the best comments I have read on this subject.

If i read you correctly, you’re criteria for being a person is based on the notion of self awareness and by extention, a foetus is not a person because it is not self aware… Would you extend this to a grown adult with such mental developmental delay that they are not self aware – would you justify killing/terminating developmentally delayed adults?

Intended the sbove post for keith m

A fair question, but if you read my comment again you’ll see that there were two criterion I used in establishing the value of someone’s life and that included the extent to which such a person is valued by others, in such a case their family. In fact we already routinely leave it up to the family to decide in cases where a patient is brain dead (for example) to decide whether or not to keep said patient alive. There is also a world of difference between a fully developed human individual, albeit with a lack of self-awareness and a developing foetus. There is really no comparison especially in terms of how valued that individual may be by his/her family. Don’t get me wrong though, I’m not pretending there is no ambiguity about just when a person becomes self aware, my point is that clearly, a foetus is not comparable to a grown person, or even a newborn baby, in terms of it’s ability to feel pain and to be aware of it’s own existence. As far as I’m concerned equating abortion to murder relies on making such a false comparison.

Ok so, the value of the person to those around him/her is the other point – lets assume that the developmentally delayed person’s parents believe that their child is too burdensome, they don’t want them – would you argue that they could terminate, no matter what the age of the person?

(For example, the dd person could be intheir thirties, the parents have very old and are struggling to look after themselves never mind their dd son/daughter)

If that person is in such a state that they are not self aware – i.e. have no concept of their own existence – and those charged with caring for them decide that waiting for them to develop such (because you state that the arrival of self awareness in this person is delayed… however that could be determined) is too great a burden, causing them too much suffering then yes I think they would be justified in that instance because who is harmed here? Think about it, if the person is not self-aware they are not aware of their existence and the implications of the loss or inhibition of that outcome. There’s no one there to care… apart from the parents and I can tell you that there is hardly a parent in the world who would take such a decision lightly and those that would take it lightly have there own problems. The burden of caring for such an individual would take it’s toll in terms of suffering on the parents, suffering that – by definition – the individual lacking self awareness simply cannot experience (even if it was potentially possible for such a person to eventual experience suffering at some point in the future were they to be kept alive.) The loss of that life would affect no one but the family of that individual and so it’s loss the is theirs to bear. The individual wouldn’t know it had lost anything for two reasons: a) It doesn’t know anything at all b) It has nothing at all to lose anyway, and on top of all that wouldn’t suffer for it.

For me, the issue of convenience is what troubles me the most with abortion on request… (Euthanasia the same) … I think we could argue lots of logical reasons to kill ‘undesirables’ …

I’m conflicted though, the humanist in me wants people to have as much self determination as possible but the right to life is also fundemental… I dunno, should the right to a (potential) life of another (however meaningless/invalid you might think it is) trump my right to have a convenient life…

Cavanbythesea;
It doesn’t matter what any of us thinks about termination, whether good bad or different. What matters is that it happens. We can argue over the rightness, wrongness or whateverness of it all until kingdom doth come and the cows come home, however none of that is going to help the 4,500 women who will travel to the UK this year regardless of whether we think termination is right or wrong.
The moral question is one for each person to ask themselves, and for each one to answer for themselves, the point is to make it available. If you feel the moral obligation to not have a termination is too great, don’t have one. However if you feel that your life (for whatever reason, not necessarily convenience, or coldheartedness) is not ready for pregnancy or parenthood, then a safer option is available to you.
The only thing that changes when you allow termination to all the public is that the death rate arising from termination reduces.
We can close our eyes and say “lalalalala” and stick our fingers in our ears and turn our backs as women pass to the UK for termination, or we can allow them safe, verifiable, trusted services.
As long as we are displacing our problem to the UK, it really doesn’t matter a damn dancing fiddlers what any of us thinks about termination.
Hope that helps!

And as usual the pro-lifers come out not really caring about the mother at all!

Abortion isn’t or shouldn’t be used as a contraception. That’s just wrong

Tom, who are you making this point in reply to?

Tom, that is a straw argument, because abortion (termination of a pregnancy), by definition, cannot be contraception, which is the prevention of pregnancy. Let’s at least make an attempt to base the debate in reality

Good one Tom. I didn’t realise you could prevent getting pregnant with an abortion. And to think of all the money I spent on condoms over the years. And considering the time traveling and dimension altering properties such a procedure must involve it is surprisingly cheap!
Your comment might actually be the dumbest comment I’ve read on this subject.

An embryo is not a person so Abortion is not murder. Most bookshops will have a selection of biology titles to help you understand this.

Martin. If abortion is murder why has nobody been charged? Oh yes. That’s because it’s not except in your own mind.

Well then, without the thin veil of religion, you might want to confront why you think you should have the right to bar women from choosing whether they can access abortion in Ireland or not?

If you don’t want one, don’t have one, but *nothing* gives you the right to force them overseas for procedures or to make that decision for them. What makes you think you do?

Martin what’s with a the reference to the murder of a toddler? We are talking about an embryo that is totally dependent on it’s hosts body not toddlers.

also, a toddler would feel physical pain and would have an idea of loss of life (probably wouldn’t understand it though). Embryos don’t share those feelings so Sarah’s comparison is apt

Does a fetus not feel pain?

Does a white or red blood cell feel pain?

No a fetus does not feel pain

how do you know?

Saying something is a fact does not make it a fact, dear.

@Seanus, we know because science and research says so. The only argument is when the required nerve pathways that allow a human to feel pain form in a foetus, with the earliest theory coming in at the 20th week but with newer research saying it doesn’t happen until the 28th.

There’s a few links on this subject, one was already posted in this thread as a comment, check it out and see what you think. Google for the subject too but I’d advise sticking to credited scientific websites/research papers. You’ll find a lot of insanity on Christian websites regarding this subject.

Stick to the middle ground of scientific research and you’ll be okay though, which is something those in the Oireachtas should keep in mind as well

“Murder” is a legal term. It means unlawful killing. In those countries where abortion is legal, it is not murder. Saying “fact is fact” doesn’t change that fact. Your argument is ludicrous.

What if they just don’t want to put their health and life on the line with a pregnancy they don’t want? What if they’ve been raped and can’t face carrying their rapist’s child?

There are many other questions that need to be accounted for by our legislators

Caroline I appreciate your rational and unemotional post, however I would have to say that the option of giving a child up for abortion is not as easy to do as it is to suggest. It is not really taking into account the physical and emotional trauma of pregnancy and childbirth, nor the trauma and guilt of then giving the birthed child away.

Yes many people want to adopt – I am one of them! But I will adopt a child from one of the many countries where there are already orphanages full of unwanted babies. The reality of the situation is that there are always going to be abortions and there always have been – this is about making them accessible and safe, and a little less traumatic for Irish women.

That’s great Caroline. You get to make your choice. Now allow other women the same courtesy.

And suggesting that women considering or decided on an abortion haven’t “educated” themselves about the subject promotes the view that its something they decide on a whim. I’m sure that’s not what you meant.

I personally have no interest in ever being a mother, should I be forced to carry a pregnancy to term with all the risks and impacts on my body that entails? Not to mention the fact that pregnacy is FAR riskier then an abortion? Of course not. That would be a huge infringement on my civil liberaties and my right to self determination.

Don’t want / need an abortion, don’t have one, it really is that simple. But please don’t presume that your situation is the same as the thousands of women that are forced to travel out of their country to avail of the human right that is access to safe and legal terminations.

I came across the following on an exhibit in the Stockholm national museum.
“Midsummer eve is associated with love and erotica. However not all pregnancies are planned for or wanted. Free abortion was introduced in Sweden in 1975. Two thirds of the women in the world do not have access to a free abortion service and around 70,000 women die every year from illegal abortions”

‘I know lots of couples who want to adopt.’

But not you, right? It’s always ‘there are lots of people out there who want to adopt’ but I’ve never met a pro-lifer who said ‘Listen, I will very gladly step in and raise a child if you don’t want it.’ Funny how you try to take responsibility for making sure a foetus is born but once it’s an actual baby..meh.

You state that 66 babies survived abortions in 2008 in the UK. Looking that up on Google I see that it is only Christian websites that carry that story. It originated in the Daily Mail but was removed for factual inaccuracies it seems so no longer exists on their website.

Do you have any supporting, impartial links so I can read about these cases?

Niall, here is the source. It is on page 28 and falls under the heading ‘neo natal births’ as the babies were born alive. http://www.erpho.org.uk/Download/Public/16203/1/CEMACH%202007%20report.pdf.

I believe that these instances involved foetuses with such severe congenital defects and abnormalities that survival outside the womb beyond a matter of hours was not a possibility.

Just to further that point Niall, this is not an unusual statistic. According to Statistics Canada, 491 babies survived the abortion procedure between 2000 and 2009 and were subsequently left to die. It’s CANSIM table 102-0536, the code in the add/remove data tab is P96.4.

Thanks for the link Pr.

Looking at it, however, I do not believe that the phrase ‘surviving abortion and being left to die’ is apt here. Many of these were past the 22 week gestation period and had congenital anomalies, so were merely removed from the womb as it was believed that they would not survive to term. They subsequently died within hours as the medics believed they would.

I only read pg 28 as you directed though and haven’t read the full report, but I don’t believe that backs up your claim and is a misrepresentation on your part.

Many may have had congenital abnormalities but not all as abortion is legal up to 24 weeks without any abnormalities in the UK, and there is no statement about abnormalities in the Canadian data. The point is that it was ok for the doctors to end the babies’ lives when they were in the womb but they were not allowed to intervene to end their lives outside the womb once they survived the abortion. They could not give them a lethal injection for example because that would be seen as murder. I do not accept that being inside or outside the womb should determine a right to life.

You also say that they would not survive as the medics believed but they were not given any medical assistance. Any baby born at 22-24 weeks would require medical assistance to survive, regardless of congenital abnormality. The fact that they died without medical intervention does not prove they were going to die anyway.

Fair enough Pr, we have a disagreement on that point but I see now where you are coming from.

Thanks again for the link as well, always interested in research into topics like this.

That’s not what she was saying. Read it again.

That’s the same techniques of the Youth Defence facebook page, so!!

Are you suggesting that the J is to pro abortion, as youth defence is to pro life?

Paddy how has your account been restricted? I see you comment on here a lot, so I can’t see how its been restricted?

Can’t comment using my normal account. My submissions appear for a few seconds and then vanish. Emailed the J, but no reply.

Pro choice, not pro abortion.

Pro choice is pro abortion. Being willing to accept the destruction of the child equates to being willing to destroy the child, the counter argument is just semantics.

No it’s not. I’m not pro abortion, I don’t like it and I don’t want everyone going around having abortions left right and center. But I firmly believe that the decision, for whatever reason, should be up to the woman in question. I don’t like pop music but I’ll defend and fight for people’s right to listen to it!

@ Gearóid Ó Murchadha
Gerard what you are saying is you are not for abortion, but you are for abortion. Do you really believe that facilitating abortion for someone else, keeps your decision blameless. There is no one dead after pop music, usually, so the comparison is irrelevant.
When our politicians vote in favour of abortion for suicidal presentation, they are as guilty of an abortion as the wretched mother who chooses it, indeed perhaps more guilty than the mother who may be experiencing any number of external pressures. The only pressure the politician is under is the party whip, and the frothy pieces of silver he may loose if he doesn’t tow the party line. What a glorious way it would be to exit politics, by doing something that is right for the most disenfranchised, the baby in the womb.

Who the hell are these women using abortion as a form of contraception! Do you have any idea how insultingly it is to suggest that’s what women will be doing!

i know three women who have done.

and have done so more than once.

Women do it so deal with it. It’s far from always to save their own lives

I suspect (if this is even true) there are far greater problems in those women’s lives then access to abortion and bringing children into such an apparent caotic lifestyle would not have helped the situation.

Has it occurred to you that your opinion – as a man – on what cannot be good for women, is not necessarily as informed as the many women disagreeing with you?

@tricia i agree it is insulting, there is no easy way to say it. but i find unsettling when people can say it is a simple medical procedure that be done when wanted, when the process and results of it can be hugely traumatic and painful for everyone involved.

i do think an important aspect was at the end of my initial comment and that should be legislated for.

@annie and dee, true it is just my opinion, true it is a widely held belief i am a man (a necessary evil of biology!), i am a member of society with a mother, sister, wife, niece etc and most importantly an expectant father.

If abortion is equivalent to murder and you would stop someone going to the UK to kill another adult, why aren’t you doing the same with the right to travel for an abortion? Do you believe we should stop women travelling?

I think the most important reason should nobodies business but the person making the decision. If the state wants to get involved it should be support for women seeking or recovering from abortions! I came across the following on an exhibit in the Stockholm national museum.
“Midsummer eve is associated with love and erotica. However not all pregnancies are planned for or wanted. Free abortion was introduced in Sweden in 1975. Two thirds of the women in the world do not have access to a free abortion service and around 70,000 women die every year from illegal abortions”

@connor, wtf! i dont know where you coming or going with your. not going to comment further except to say abortions in certain circumstances need to legislated for.

Hi Paddy,

Yes it is your opinion and you have a right to it. What you do not have a right to do is to force your opinion on anyone else, which is really the crux of the pro-choice argument. It is about allowing each individual woman the agency and autonomy to choose what is right for her, even if that includes terminating a pregnancy that would result in an unwanted child.

One more thing about what you said – abortions on demand cannot be a good for women.

Women are not a homogenous blob, and nobody should postulate on what is good/bad for an entire gender – especially when it is the opposite one. What is good for women is recognising that each one is an individual who is capable of free thought, and allowing each one to choose what they believe is best for themselves and the foetus inside them.

My point was that the pro-life argument against any form of legislation is hypocritical. Either you want no form of abortion regardless of circumstances in which case women should be stopped from travelling to get one or you are in favour of abortion in very limited circumstances in which case it should take place here for better care etc. either way the situation we have now pro life should not be happy with either but they don’t want anything changed so I say again hypocritical argument.

@dee, i’m not pro choice and i’m not pro life. i dont seek to ram my opinions home on anyone. i meant to say woman kind i’m not sure if that matters.

i’m an average joe with an opinion which i dont think is extreme etc. it might not be liberal but we all cant be one of this that or the other! can we?

See, like in all pro-life statements, there’s a hidden message here. When we read “A babies life is as important as the mothers.”, what he really means is “A babies life is as important(but probably so much more important that, you know what… f**k the mother! Like we give two s**ts! But we better pretend like we do…) as the mothers.”

Brian, you’re on the same side of this argument as the catholic church! You don’t get a vote on what’s best for children!

…or on what’s best for women either!

Its a foetus Brian not a baby. Sure why dont ya throw in a few more positions espoused by the roman catholic church into your statement while you are at it.

It appears to me the church are so concerned with a life in formation than a life that already exists. They dont seem to care about the children once they are born and indoctrinated via baptism into their organisation in order to keep their numbers up.

A baby’s life indeed is important. But a little collection of cells or a foetus is not actually as important as a living breathing human woman.

If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, it is because she had sex with a man. But the woman bears the final responsibility for this unwanted pregnancy, the man can walk away. Not all do, but I think it’s fair to say a lot do. Irish law now is anti women. Women have to carry the consequences for a joint problem or mistake. Legalised abortion is about a step towards equality.

And besides, a change in the law wouldn’t be the start of Irish women having abortions, just stop it being a right that only women with the means to pay have.

Abortion is not murder because an embryo is not a person. I say that not from any bias but simply as a fact.
It is January 10th today and an embryo is not a person.

John you are saying that as if it is fact. Fact is, it isn’t. There is no absolute definition on when a developing human becomes a person, just philosophical argument. For example in Asian cultures the believe that personhood begins after birth. It is the philosophical belief that is different. If there was an absolute scientific definition we wouldn’t be having this argument.

Darren you are completely right when you say there is no consensus about when personhood begins, but I do not know of any any accredited scientist who states that an embryo has the same characteristics as a person.

That is because deciding when a human becomes a “person”, is in the realm of bioethics and philosophy. Yes there obviously are developmental differences between a foetus and a baby, as there are between a baby and an adult, adult to elderly etc. Adults and a foetus do share important common characteristics, such as their own genome, epigenome, distinct from the mother. They are both different stages of human life. Again science cannot answer the question of where personhood begins, because personhood is not a quantifiable thing, so it would astound me if any scientist published a absolute definition of when personhood begins.

There are lots of women who have abortions who don’t regret it. Trust me, and you need to consider the trauma inflicted by a forced pregnancy. For the most part I suspect that even those who experience some grieving or regret about their decision, would not want that choice to be taken away from other women. The fact that Irish abortions happen outside of Ireland may mean that people are unduly stressed with logistics, financing and time frames to have proper time to reflect on their decisions. It’s not an easy situation but 12 women every day travel to access abortions in the UK. We should be looking after and providing all the wrap around care we can for these women in crisis, not demonizing them. Personally, now if I were to fall pregnant I probably wouldn’t opt for a termination but there are definite times in my life when that decision was differnt. And we need to remember that each woman life and set of circumstances is different. Middle class, white women will have a completely different set of concerns to women from other demographics.

But what you allow to happen or what you restrict, ie. the actions we evaluate as carrying more value and consequently, more moral “charge” or obligation reflect the freedoms in society. It isn’t good enough to say “I value a woman’s choice” without providing the freedom to exercise this. Otherwise, you value a woman be obligated to play the role of a mother, even when for whatever reason she may not be able or wish to do so.
Morality is derived from the discussion about what it is we consider appropriate, or from being backed up by an objective view often supported by religion. So if you are to say, “let’s not throw away basic human morals”, under the rational discussion, it seems that polls show quite a high number of people support abortion even if it is in restricted circumstances, meaning the “basic morals” have been re-evaluated.

Please provide factual sources to back that claim up Joe