To think abortion law is a tough nut to crack?

[chandellina]

so the Telegraph has revealed doctors allowing abortion on sex-selection grounds. I see a couple threads on In the News expressing disgust over this, a view shared by many, I'm sure.

But as far as I understand you can have an abortion on demand for just about any reason - not feeling able to cope, not feeling financially secure, too young, too old.

So even if you were terminating for gender, couldn't you just give another reason? And if you believe in a woman's absolute right to choose - why require a stated reason at all?

My point is that the law seems very flimsy, and why be moral about sex selection and not other things - like terminating because a pregnancy interferes with a desired age gap between children, or it otherwise not being "the right time." I know there are cultural issues involved too with gender selection, but those probably are also in play for women coerced by family not to have a child out of wedlock, etc.

thoughts?

Peppy, if you look up the Irish law you will see that it is permitted where the woman's life is in danger. It is the same in NI.

AThing- why pass any law based on a person's vindictiveness? Why make laws rape/assault/murder at all if we don't think that anyone would/should ever be capable of them?

Athing,

I know it is and it kind of works anyhow from a humanness perspective. If we are agreed that we need a cut off date, then it somehow needs to be set. I am not a fan of viability per se as the sole criterion and would rather have criteria based on how "human" the foetus was. However, it would probably not change things much from where we are.

Bumbley: a few people have actually acknowledged that and have said that not all women who seek abortions now would seek a abortion if they were putting their life at risk.

Actually I have seen no adequate responses from the pro-lifers posting on this thread. Kitchen Roll wrote: Women would not have to have unsafe abortions, they would be making a choice to which implies to me that they deserve what they get as they would be 'choosing it'.

Why not tell me what your own views are on this? Do you think making abortion illegal will wipe it out, or do you think woman will still try and seek them? How do you feel about the tens of thousands of women who die every year from unsafe abortions? Are they just getting their just desserts, or do you feel compassion for them and the families they leave behind? Or would you prefer to just sit on the fence with this and make vague comments like 'not all women who seek abortions now would seek abortion if they were putting their life at risk'. There is evidence from authorities like the WHO which make it patently clear that millions of women are permanently injured by having unlawful abortions every year - the 'lucky' ones, that is: the ones who don't die. Do you think they blithely went into these processes without considering the risks? Can you imagine (or even empathise) with how desperate they must have been to seek a solution that could possibly kill them?

AThing - I think the idea of basing this on a 'medically agreed start of viability' does not make sense when there have been cases of babies surviving earlier than that. It should be below the earliest date that life is viable - not based on statistics/averages.

The law doesn't make the slightest difference when the reality is that you cannot get an abortion. You could ask women who had this problem.....except they are dead, so you can't.

Peppy -

"Abortion is not available in Ireland if the womens life is in danger. Cancer sufferers have been denied abortions in Ireland even when pregnancy will hasten their disease and kill them."

This is a direct result of an attempt by the Irish government, against legal advice, to give equal rights to women and the unborn.

The pro-life movement in Ireland (and funded from the US) spearheaded the campaign to reduce women's rights in this way.

If you give equal rights to life to a being that is dependent for its life on another, you massively curtail the rights of the host.

If it is "murder" to end the life of a foetus, of course you can't perform an abortion that will save a woman's life, because both lives are equal, so legally you just have to let it play out.

If it is "murder" to end the life of a zygote post-conception, then a woman who takes the MAP is a murderer and should face a life sentence.

People who talk about "equal rights to life" might sound reasonable to some, but they are dangerous extremists.

Imagine what the 2ww becomes if a person with full human rights might or might not be living in your body, and you have no way of knowing.

"Peppy, if you look up the Irish law you will see that it is permitted where the woman's life is in danger. It is the same in NI."

It is certainly not the same as NI, which is not subject to the Irish Constitution.

Can you point me at the legislation that has been passed in response to the Supreme Court judgment in 1992?

Irish law on this matter has been unclear for 22 years and doctors are afraid to carry out terminations to save women's lives in case they are prosecuted.

It is a disgusting, shameful situation.

I think abortion should not be as easily available as it is. I think that if people were aware that it would be difficult to obtain one then some people would be more careful about having sex in the first place and using adequate contraception. I am not saying that ALL abortions are due to having unprotected sex but please don't argue that none of them are.

I do not think that abortions should be allowed to 24 weeks for 'social' reasons when medical abortions are allowed to term - this date should be reduced. A woman does not need 24 weeks to decide whether or not she wants to keep a pregnancy. 'Changing circumstances' can happen after 24 weeks as well and abortion would not be allowed.

I do not think that abortion to term for 'medical reasons' should be allowed when the 'medical reasons' are not life limiting. This is discrimination and afaiac eugenics.

I think contraception should be better/more reliable/more easily obtainable (how easy is it to get contraception in the countries where illegal abortion rates are high? How expensive is it?) perhaps campaigning for better access and free contraception in those countries would make more sense than campaigning for abortion - prevent the 'problem' in the first place.

I think there should be harsher punishments for rapists and better support for rape victims. Again, I would prefer focus to be on preventing pregnancy through rape rather than just accepting that it happens and using that as an argument for why abortion is needed/necessary.

Of course I feel compassion for the people who find themselves in the situation where they are considering putting their life at risk to end a pregnancy. Being against abortion does not make you heartless you know.

For those talking abour 'viability'. My son (whom the docs recommended I terminate) was born at term and was not 'viable'. He required 10 weeks of neonatal intensive care, open heart surgery amongst others. Should he have been left to die, even though he is now a wonderfully happy 7 year old???

Peppy, how many of these dead women did you know? I live in Ireland, my entire family is from Ireland, my circle of friends covers most of Ireland and I couldn't say that I've heard of a single one. If the law says that abortion is legal when the mother's life is in danger then I'm to sure how it couldn't be enforced. I do know some women who wouldn't have an abortion even if their life was I danger though so perhaps that's what you are thinking of.

Some info for you AThing:

"Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, (as distinct from the health) of the mother. This includes a risk arising from a threat of suicide. The Irish Medical Council ethical guidelines to doctors state that 'it is not unethical if a child in utero should suffer or lost its life as a side effect of standard medical treatment of the mother'.

Women may not be prevented from travelling abroad to get an abortion. It is lawful to provide information in Ireland about abortions abroad, subject to strict conditions. It is not lawful to encourage or advocate an abortion in individual cases."

For those on the thread who wish to defend women's rights in the UK to access safe legal abortion www.abortionrights.org.uk/ is the national pro-choice campaign

"So why bring women's vindictiveness into the argument?"

AThing My point all along has been that there's no such thing as "women's" vindictiveness (against which foetuses must be protected), nor is there "women's" virtue (upon which we can rely to ensure that nobody would ever have an abortion at 39 weeks for non-medical reasons). We are individuals.

In the post that I think you're referring to, I was responding to the previous poster's assertion that "to presume that women will have late abortions... for anything other than a strong reason is both contrary to the evidence and misogynistic by implication."

What I actually said was that women and men have, on rare and sad occasions, killed their children to punish their partner. You are the one translating that incorrectly into "women's vindictiveness". What I'm saying is that the law must legislate for the fact that some people commit evil acts.

I'm a little confused by the fact that you agree with larry that a 24-week cut-off point for abortion on demand is a reasonable compromise, yet you seem to be arguing with me and others for abortion on demand up to term. Which one of these is your position (genuine question)?

In case my own position needs to be clarified, I am in favour of legal abortion (as the lesser evil when contrasted with illegal, unsafe abortions which would happen anyway) only up to the point of viability. I would define the point of viability as the point at which the foetus has a chance of survival with the same intervention that would routinely be given to a wanted baby born at the same stage of pregnancy. So I think that the 24 week limit needs to be revised downward a bit.

I think that abortion at term, for just about any reason other than a real threat to the life of the mother or to minimise suffering where a baby's condition is incompatible with life outside the womb, would be murder.

I believe that a woman's life and a baby's life are equally valuable, and a 39 week old foetus (for example - as stated above, I would apply this to any foetus past the point of viability) is undeniably a baby. So where the choice has to be made between saving the mother or the baby, it's a Sophie's Choice type dilemma that, yes, only the woman can make (or the next of kin if she's not able).

Anyone faced with those kind of impossible decisions has my utmost sympathy. That is not the same as saying that it should be legal for anyone to end a pregnancy at 39 weeks, for any reason.

Peppy and AThing - here is the Irish Medical council's ethical guide from 2004 see section 24.6 and Appendix C

It's disgusting for the same reason that aborting a child on the basis of it's race (such as in mixed race) or aborting for reason of nationality, etc is horrible.

If the child and mother are medically healthy then as parents and humans it's the right of that child to be given every chance.

The law has gone too far in allowing this devaluing of life and allowing an "abortion on convenience" culture to develop. I have yet to hear a good reason for why an abortion should be allowed outside the "danger to mother" argument.

It's a myth you have "right to choose" as your simply choosing to be a dictator and deny the child it's rights. It's usually the persons own irresponsibility that brings an unwanted child in the first case. The "child of rape" argument doesn't wash as few children are actually born of rape to begin with of those who have "legal abortions".

As for abortion on basis of gender then it's laughable to give women rights if they can choose to abort them in the first place.

Good post WavingHand

bumbley, will you stop wittering about the law? It doesn't matter what it says when you can't access it, even if it is your legal right. Answer the real point: that dying women are denied access to abortion even when it would prolong their own lives.
That is the reality. The law is an ass.

The argument about when a foetus becomes human is interesting. Before it is human what is it? It isn't a rabbit or monkey is it? You cannot say a foetus isn't human. You can, and many do, say that at the early stage of human life it is sometimes acceptable to end that life. I never say that abortion is wrong just that those involved should not attempt to either sanitise it with the 'not human argument, oro pretend that is anything other than ending a life.

Peppy, you and AThing are the ones wittering about the law not being clear and abortions not being available if the woman's life is in danger and doctors being afraid of being accused of misconduct and I am simply pointing out that it quite clear that it is not regarded as professional misconduct and that abortion IS permitted where the woman's life is in danger. I'm not sure where all these cases are of women dying in Ireland because they weren't allowed an abortion Peppy - do you know of one in particular?

Haven't read all the thread but I would strongly support any women's right to have an abortion. Abortions are not undertaken lightly by the woman having it and it not the role of others to question whether she is having an abortion for the 'correct reasons' the correct reasons are for the individual concerned to work out.

Also if you don't agree with abortion there is an easy solution Don't have one. But it is not your right to interfere with what another woman chooses to do and I emphasize an abortion is not an easy choice, which prolife campaigners deliberatly choose to make harder.

There are some things that are more important than the emotive and individuals morality and one of those things is a woman's right to autonomy over her fertility, and abortion is one of the basic rights.

Every country and every culture in which women are abused as a norm makes sure that the very first right that is denied to them is the right to dictate how their body is used.

We talk a lot about the right to life, we talk in hushed tones over when it is right to have an abortion, which reason is good enough, in fact, when you look at the judgement factor, it more often than not comes down to what is seen as worthwhile.

This idea that we have had become embedded, that abortion must be carried out if a mothers life is in danger... How can you balance that against the rare person who decides late term that they don't want the responsibility? If a life is a life then there can be no compromise surely?

Personally I would rather that a woman has the right to access abortion without judgement until she gives birth than watch more and more rights eroded due to people's interpretation of religion, morality or idealism.

Wheredidyoulastseeit - does that mean you support the right of a woman to have an abortion to term for social reasons? Or is the current law, which already interferes with what a woman chooses to do, ok?

What do you mean by social reasons, sounds like a term used to minimise the reason for the choice and the consideration that went in to it.
'oh it wasn't a proper reason it was a social reason'. like I said who's to judge what else is going on in a women's life which means that she feels unable to carry a child to term.

Antsy, abortion does not have to be carried out if a mother's life is in danger but it is available. I think in most cases the idea is still to preserve the foetus' life if possible. I think people who are mainly against abortion can reconcile themselves with the self-preservation idea in the same way that someone can reconcile themselves with killing someone in self defence but not murder.