the case of savita- i am a bit confused

[MrMan]

I'm going to take issue with this MrMan. Ireland does not allow abortion in rape, incest, where a mother's health is in danger or where there are fatal foetal defects. So what is it these women have to do? What do you think these women should do?

What do you think GP's, obstetricians and gynaecologists tell women who are in those situations above to do? Do you think they give them the phone number of a clinic in the UK, and if they do, is that not us being hypocritical.


You realise that there is in Liverpool a room for husband and wife that accepts Irish women, and is known as the Irish suite and that in that hospital they carry out abortions only with the medical records from Ireland. Those abortions are not about abortion as a personal lifestyle choice.

What is hypocritical is that we do in fact export our problem. Do you not think circa five thousand women going to the UK (and elsewhere) is exporting the problem?

If we followed through on basicaly zero abortion we should legislate that no women who is pregnant should have the right to travel to the UK for an abortion, then we could return to women literally trying to self-abort (knitting needles), back street abortions, killing babies after birth and burying them secretly. As we no longer have the Magdalene (for the poor women) and the other birthing centres (for the middles classes), if we didn't have the UK release valve we would be going back to Joanne Hayes and Anne Lovett. Is that what the anti-abortions anytime people want?

Don't you think that we should allow women to choose, to trust that women are in the main life givers, that women mostly want babies, that they love to bring up children, that they hate abortion, that most of us, if not all of us wish that there was no such thing as abortion, that they wish that they too didn't have to choose, that it isn't fair that a women actually is the one who has to choose, but that we should trust them to choose the right option. Are women not to be trusted to do the best thing, for themselves, their baby, their family, their body.

Hi Bronte/Truthseeker, I've no problem with you taking issue with my comment, but you seem to have gone off on a tangent. I have said that calling us hypocritical for not providing abortion clinics even though our near neighbours do is nonsense. People go to prague and amsterdam and use prostituts legally, and drugs in some cases, and it is only a case of getting a cheap flight, but you are hardly suggesting that we should adopt our laws to mirror our european counterparts merely because travel is so free and easy?
I also said that if abortion is to be allowed then it should be because the people want it, so let a referendum decide. I think there is a good chance of the right to choice being passed now, but let everyone decide on the matter.
One final point, a woman can choose to decide on what is right for her, but how can she alone choose what is right for her family? Do you believe that men have no rights in this matter?

 

[truthseeker]

On the quote above, sure we could legalise murder, after all it happens whether its illegal or not, it might make it safer if the gunman didnt have to speed off breaking all sort of traffic laws and endangering those he didnt intend to kill.......

The difference there is that there is universal agreement that murder is immoral and wrong (or at least I hope there is!).

But no so with abortion and many of the most modern and progressive countries in the world have some form of it in place. Women who choose abortion are not imposing their morality on anyone but themselves (I dont believe a clump of cells is a person or a child).

 

[truthseeker]

Hi Bronte/Truthseeker, I've no problem with you taking issue with my comment, but you seem to have gone off on a tangent. I have said that calling us hypocritical for not providing abortion clinics even though our near neighbours do is nonsense. People go to prague and amsterdam and use prostituts legally, and drugs in some cases, and it is only a case of getting a cheap flight, but you are hardly suggesting that we should adopt our laws to mirror our european counterparts merely because travel is so free and easy?
I also said that if abortion is to be allowed then it should be because the people want it, so let a referendum decide. I think there is a good chance of the right to choice being passed now, but let everyone decide on the matter.
One final point, a woman can choose to decide on what is right for her, but how can she alone choose what is right for her family? Do you believe that men have no rights in this matter?

I pretty much agree with everything you say. Its not a black and white situation. For the record I would agree with legalising prostitution and drugs too.

Very hard call on the mens rights, we discussed it a few days ago. I do think men should have an input but fail to see how it would work in practice and ultimately as its the womans body it has to be her choice what happens to it.

 

[NOAH]

we are doing too much rambling, this is the savita case so we should stick to the point. the interview on primetime last is compelling as is the discussion afterwards. the main point was made be a legal person. look at it on rte player. I cant remember the exact words but it along the lines of " the question of abortion did not enter into the decision that had to be made, ie save one life and not lose two"

 

[Betsy Og]

For the record I would agree with legalising prostitution and drugs too.

Apologies for this final tangential point (I think I've said my piece on abortion at this stage), re legalising drugs I couldnt agree to this going beyond spamspamspam. Again its the harm thing - and even on that point I dont think we can be too blase about spamspamspam, modern stuff apparently having far higher THC levels than that of say the 1960's so that its now being closely linked to depression, schizophrenia etc.. So spamspamspam does some harm but I gather its the main volume of trade and profit and to legalise it would take the wind out of the sails of the worst scum the country is harbouring. So on balance I think it would be worthwhile.

However I dont think you could convince me that highly addictive and destructive drugs like cocaine and heroin should ever be legal - look at how we get on with alcohol - and we're used to that, & a reasonable amount of alcohol is no great harm and maybe even some indirect good (social outlet). Re class A drugs, I couldn't see there being any outcome other than more junkies, more od'ing, maybe not even less crime (more junkies needing a hit, albeit presumably a bit cheaper than now).

 

[NOAH]

why are you hijacking this thead

 

[Betsy Og]

why are you hijacking this thead

Calm bull, that was my final despatch.

 

[MrMan]

I pretty much agree with everything you say. Its not a black and white situation. For the record I would agree with legalising prostitution and drugs too.

Very hard call on the mens rights, we discussed it a few days ago. I do think men should have an input but fail to see how it would work in practice and ultimately as its the womans body it has to be her choice what happens to it.

Maybe it can just be filed under 'life aint fair' I can't see how it can be put into practice either, but it means that a mans ability to become a father rests on a womans decision.

 

[Latrade]

Maybe it can just be filed under 'life aint fair' I can't see how it can be put into practice either, but it means that a mans ability to become a father rests on a womans decision.

Well, in fairness doesn't it anyway, with or without abortion? A man can't decide to be a father and impose motherhood on a woman.

 

[Purple]

I’m against abortion in most cases. I’m completely against late term abortions. I don’t accept the “it’s a woman’s body so she gets to choose” argument. It’s also a child’s life. It’s not ok to kill your child after it’s born and it’s not ok to kill it before it’s born. When does a clump of cells become a child? I don’t know the answer to that but after the first trimester it’s getting close.
My opinion is not based on religious grounds; I’m an atheist and so do not believe in any god, gods or deities.

I think the Indian ambassador and Indian people in general have a bloody cheek getting bolshie about this. Their own country has the cast system, very high levels of abortion of female babies, honour killings and general abject poverty and massive social injustice. It is utter hypocrisy for them to moralise to us about this tragic case.
I find the whole discussion around this sickening. This is a tragic case which should have just been dealt with in the hospital, just as similar cased are dealt with every week all over the country. If anyone thinks that doesn’t happen they are very naive.
We should legislate for the X case, if only to stop the vacuum being filled with the extremists from both sides. The less we see of Youth Defence type people and the extremists on the other side the better.

 

[Latrade]

I’m against abortion in most cases. I’m completely against late term abortions. I don’t accept the “it’s a woman’s body so she gets to choose” argument. It’s also a child’s life. It’s not ok to kill your child after it’s born and it’s not ok to kill it before it’s born. When does a clump of cells become a child? I don’t know the answer to that but after the first trimester it’s getting close.
My opinion is not based on religious grounds; I’m an atheist and so do not believe in any god, gods or deities.

I think the Indian ambassador and Indian people in general have a bloody cheek getting bolshie about this. Their own country has the cast system, very high levels of abortion of female babies, honour killings and general abject poverty and massive social injustice. It is utter hypocrisy for them to moralise to us about this tragic case.
I find the whole discussion around this sickening. This is a tragic case which should have just been dealt with in the hospital, just as similar cased are dealt with every week all over the country. If anyone thinks that doesn’t happen they are very naive.
We should legislate for the X case, if only to stop the vacuum being filled with the extremists from both sides. The less we see of Youth Defence type people and the extremists on the other side the better.

I think you're arguing things that aren't even being put on the table as part of the discussion.

I've rarely seen anyone being supportive of a completely liberal abortion law (i.e. one without any caveats). As such have people actually analysed the statistics on late-term abortions? Even those states where they have the most liberal (i.e. purely on the woman's wish without any need for a medical opinion or confirmation) have limitations on how late you can go. And within those confines, most states record extremely low percentages of women having abortions that late into a pregnancy. I think most states are below 1%, I seem to recall the US is around 1%.

The reasons for the late-term varies and heallth reasons actually features quite low in that. In a lot of cases the issue of stigma of both the pregnancy and abortion meant they just kept delaying the decision.

But, again, where in the debates is there a call to have such late-term abortions? Surely this makes it a moot point purely brought in to colour the debate with images of viable babies being "murdered".

I agree on India, but then who cares what they think, the pressure is comming from Irish Citizens and that was happening long before India reacted.

Abortion isn't the only issue that needs discussing. For example, given it isn't an option here, if the state is imposing this ban, then shouldn't the state have support(s) in place to provide options and assistance for people to go through with the pregnancy? This is a problem in some countries, like the US and the UK (to a certain extent) where lack of viable and effect support through and post pregnancy mean that for some abortion is the only viable option.

It's all well and good to say "tough" and that the individual got themselves into that situation, but that doesn't achieve anything. Countries with good social support and good child welfare systems and have legalised abortion (such as Canada) do not have such an issue with either late-term or excessively high uptake of abortion.

But, they still have it as an option. An option with caveats.

 

[MrMan]

Well, in fairness doesn't it anyway, with or without abortion? A man can't decide to be a father and impose motherhood on a woman.

I meant when a man and woman choose to have a baby together, she can pull the plug on it if she chooses, he can't.
I would have presumed that posters would accept that I wasn't looking for men to impose motherhood on women.

 

[truthseeker]

Maybe it can just be filed under 'life aint fair' I can't see how it can be put into practice either, but it means that a mans ability to become a father rests on a womans decision.

Yeah, I hear you. It is a unfair side effect of biology.

There are also cases where men are not told women are pregnant at all and miss fatherhood even though the child is born, which is wrong too.

I was thinking about some kind of consent form that the father would sign, but sure wouldnt some women just claim it was the result of a one night stand and that they didnt know who the father was etc...

I will continue to ponder it.

Maybe someday the ability to remove a foetus from the womb and fully develop it in a laboratory until it becomes an adoptable baby will render the entire abortion debate redundant and also solve the issue for fathers who can choose to raise such a baby alone without the womans body being needed for the pregnancy?

 

[Latrade]

I meant when a man and woman choose to have a baby together, she can pull the plug on it if she chooses, he can't.
I would have presumed that posters would accept that I wasn't looking for men to impose motherhood on women.

I know, I apologise for being facetious.


There will always be potential situations that no one is entirely comfortable with. But in countries that have legalised abortion, how often do those situations come up? How often do couples in the UK plan a pregnancy only for the woman to "pull the plug" without the concent and or knowledge of the father?

My guess is that it is extremely infrequent. So should the small chance of that situation occurring mean that no woman has the right to choose? In my opinion; no.

But then (as a father myself) I think that my influence has to be proportional. Ultimately if the mother, for whatever reason, is convinced she cannot continue with the pregancy should the decision be 50/50? I don't have to carry the child for 9 months, a child I don't want. What kind of psychological effect would that have? I don't have to have my career put on hold or even effected (maternity and pregnancy discrimination still makes up the greatest proportion of labour court and equality cases).

The impact isn't equal.

 

[michaelm]

I’m completely against late term abortions . . When does a clump of cells become a child? I don’t know the answer to that but after the first trimester it’s getting close . . The less we see of Youth Defence type people and the extremists on the other side the better.

A heart beat from 22 days, brainwaves from 42 days and fully formed @ 13 weeks. Perhaps Youth Defence type people are why we don't have a liberal abortion regime, including the type of late term abortions which you are completely against.

I find the whole discussion around this sickening. This is a tragic case which should have just been dealt with in the hospital, just as similar cased are dealt with every week all over the country.

Unfortunately certain elements within political circles and their media friends have turned a tragedy into an international circus to further their agenda.

 

[Purple]

A heart beat from 22 days, brainwaves from 42 days and fully formed @ 13 weeks. Perhaps Youth Defence type people are why we don't have a liberal abortion regime, including the type of late term abortions which you are completely against.

Youth defence are extremists who see this complex issue in good V bad terms. I find them offensive.

42 days, 6 weeks. After that, for me, it's getting into the unacceptable range. After 13 weeks it's a baby and killing it is, in my opinion, wrong. There are situations where exceptions should be made but they are exceptional.

If it's a case of save the mother or the child then it's save the mother, every time. But that's the situation now. It may or may not be the law but it's what happens.

 

[truthseeker]

A heart beat from 22 days, brainwaves from 42 days and fully formed @ 13 weeks.

How is any of that relevant? A woman has a heartbeat, brainwaves, consciousness and a life that may or may not include having to care for other children. The biology of a forming cluster of cells is an interesting thing to study, but it hardly outweighs the life of an individual who is already in the world, living an independent existence.

Im interested to know what you would like the solution to be where a woman has an unwanted pregnancy.

Should she press ahead with an unwanted pregnancy, have permanent changes to her body, interrupt her career or study, give birth and either (a) give the child up for adoption which no doubt carries a massive emotional impact that may last for the rest of her life (and still doesnt remove the problem of the actual pregnancy) or (b) raise a child that she doesnt want or may not be able to afford (which again doesnt remove the problem of the pregnancy).

What is your solution?

 

[michaelm]

How is any of that relevant? The biology of a forming cluster of cells is an interesting thing to study, but it hardly outweighs the life of an individual who is already in the world, living an independent existence.

Strawmen notwithstanding, it was simply a response to Purple's, perhaps rhetorical, question.

Im interested to know what you would like the solution to be where a woman has an unwanted pregnancy.

Really? Hardly. 1. Have the child. 2. either (a) raise the child or (b) give the child up for adoption.

 

[truthseeker]

Strawmen notwithstanding, it was simply a response to Purple's, perhaps rhetorical, question.Really? Hardly. 1. Have the child. 2. either (a) raise the child or (b) give the child up for adoption.

Ok. But the woman doesnt want to do either of those things. Whats the solution? Are you happy enough to condemn women to doing things they dont want to do?

 

[michaelm]

Ok. But the woman doesnt want to do either of those things. Whats the solution?

You can't always get what you want. The solution is the same.

Are you happy enough to condemn women to doing things they dont want to do?

Indeed, maybe you just can't help yourself.