But that's what's at the crux of the whole debate
. Some people see it as a life and death issue. Some see it as a medical procedure that can be justified under limited or unlimited circumstances.Another abortion referendum?
- Thread starter The_Banker
- Start date
- Status
But that's what's at the crux of the whole debate
. Some people see it as a life and death issue. Some see it as a medical procedure that can be justified under limited or unlimited circumstances.This is always the cheap lazy argument that some pro choice people fall back on. Just because someone is anti abortion does not mean they go around condemning people with an unwanted pregnancy and refusing to give them any assistance or help. What a victorian unrealistic view of life. What about all the grandparents helping to bring up grandchildren in order that their teenage daughters can return to school/college? All the friends who help with babysitting, offer to be at the birth etc? All the workplace managers and colleagues who bend over backwards to accommodate and facilitate a young pregnant colleague with no partner to support them? Are you assuming all of these people are pro choice and none of them are anti abortion?
Yachties post contained some very relevant points, but not all of the relevant points. If your view is so narrow that you can't see why men should have a say, then it really just reinforces why it shouldn't be confined to just women.
Sadly it's not unrealistic. Of course many people will rally around and help but many will gossip and judge and look down their noses.
To an extent, I am bemused by the debates of right and wrong, when does life start, who has what rights etc. – as if it makes any difference to the overall outcome. The reality is that we effectively have the same abortion laws as our near neighbour, the UK, but women have to travel to avail themselves of the service. What would change if we actually allowed abortion in this country? Would there be more or fewer abortions? More or fewer unwanted pregnancies?
I personally think there would be very little change in the number of abortions for Irish women – and I think many of the on-demand type abortions would still be carried out in the UK for privacy reasons as you can be sure that any clinic/establishment brave enough to offer abortions here would be targeted with permanent protests right outside their door. The big difference I would see would be more humane treatment of women having abortions for reasons of foetus viability or for their own medical treatment – they won’t be forced to skulk out of the country to abort a perhaps much-wanted pregnancy.
So to the NIMBY posters – what will be achieved by keeping abortion out of Ireland (other than the obvious ‘keeping abortion out of Ireland’...)? Will pregnancies be saved that otherwise wouldn’t? Do you think there will be many more abortions overall and if so from what source? Does campaigning against abortion in Ireland achieve anything practical (abortions prevented) or is it very much a not in my back yard thing?
I personally think there would be very little change in the number of abortions for Irish women – and I think many of the on-demand type abortions would still be carried out in the UK for privacy reasons as you can be sure that any clinic/establishment brave enough to offer abortions here would be targeted with permanent protests right outside their door. The big difference I would see would be more humane treatment of women having abortions for reasons of foetus viability or for their own medical treatment – they won’t be forced to skulk out of the country to abort a perhaps much-wanted pregnancy.
So to the NIMBY posters – what will be achieved by keeping abortion out of Ireland (other than the obvious ‘keeping abortion out of Ireland’...)? Will pregnancies be saved that otherwise wouldn’t? Do you think there will be many more abortions overall and if so from what source? Does campaigning against abortion in Ireland achieve anything practical (abortions prevented) or is it very much a not in my back yard thing?
A few people will do this, but they are not representative of the general anti abortion sector and it is not a valid argument to basically say that people who oppose abortion are judgmental and intolerant and gossipy. It is lazy stereotyping which some people seem to feel avoids the need for a deeper analysis of their stande on the issue.
People who vote against the introduction of abortion in Ireland are not voting to 'keep abortion out of Ireland'. They are voting in accordance with their conscience. If they feel abortion is the taking of a life then they are not going to vote to make it legal because they feel that would be wrong.
You may play with words but that is still an abortion.
And the labelling of the morning after pill by the Irish authorities does not mean it magically is not an abortifacient.
How do we have the same abortion laws as our next door neighbour? (genuine question)
It's illegal in this country, only in very rare cases when the life of the mother is at risk, isn't it?
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,770
I presume that after 89 posts, you can't have any more light to add to this topic.
Brendan
Brendan
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,770
Reopened in response to request from dereko
Brendan
Brendan
dereko1969
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,046
Surely after the disgraceful treatment of Savita Halappanavar in Galway it is now time to legislate for the X case.
http://www.independent.ie/national-...d-after-hospital-denied-abortion-3293842.html
Would the consultant in this case have had to refer this issue to an ethics committee? It seems to me that in this instance the well being of a foetus that would not survive outside the womb in any event was given priority over a normally healthy woman, this on every possible level is wrong.
The Core Vision of GUH was not met here.
Core Value
"The patient is our core reason for being"
The only patient GUH had was the mother.
http://www.independent.ie/national-...d-after-hospital-denied-abortion-3293842.html
Would the consultant in this case have had to refer this issue to an ethics committee? It seems to me that in this instance the well being of a foetus that would not survive outside the womb in any event was given priority over a normally healthy woman, this on every possible level is wrong.
The Core Vision of GUH was not met here.
Core Value
"The patient is our core reason for being"
The only patient GUH had was the mother.
Nothing that has been reported suggests, to me anyhow, that legislation reflecting the X case judgement would have made any difference in this unfortunate case.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Under the 1992 X Case ruling, the Supreme Court found that abortion is permitted in Ireland under the Constitution in circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. However no government has yet introduced legislation to enact the ruling, creating a grey area for medical practitioners. source
Id say prolonging a miscarriage for 3 days would constitute a real and substantial risk to the life of a mother wouldnt you? Besides being weakened from pain, the cervix would be open during this time, allowing the opportunity for infection.
Should we not wait for all the facts to be disclosed before concluding that the poor woman in this tragic case was treated disgracefully. The hospital has an awful lot of questions to answer but they should be allowed answer them first.
Of course, that would make eminent sense. No surprise, though, to see the usual suspects straight out exploiting this sad case to push their abortion agenda, via our malleable liberal media.
If that is true, then any legislation should go as far beyond the X case as is necessary to ensure this doesn’t happen again. I think there would be a much higher acceptance of legislation (and/or a further referendum if needed) following this case.
The unfortunate aspect of this case is that there was a risk to the mother but it wasn’t substantial enough to warrant an earlier removal of the dying foetus – and I’m sure the doctors followed the medical guidelines and the law. Lots of women go through miscarriages every year and the management is often as reported here – wait for the foetus to die and then remove the uterus contents if necessary. Leaving the uterus open to infection for days increases the risk but in reality it is a very small risk to the mother’s life. In my view, once the foetus is no longer viable, the mother’s life, health and mental well-being should assume absolute 100% priority – even a 1 in a million chance of something bad happening should take precedence over a soon-to-die foetus.
That might be your view, and the view of the Supreme Court, and the EU Human Rights Court, but it is not legislated for.
It's all down to O'Reilly now, and what he does with the Expert Groups report. I do think this tragic case has made the public at large think of this debate in less black and White terms, and there is a growing feeling that 20 years of sitting on our hands is unacceptable.
I think both courts refer to 'real and substantial risk to the life' only. In this case there was no real and substantial risk (there was a real but small risk) so as michaelm points, legislating per the X case may not do enough. As I said above, I would like to see an extension to 100% absolute priority of the mother's life, health and mental well-being when the foetus is no longer viable - so no risk, no matter how small, is acceptable.
- Status