To feel glad/relieved Ireland is voting through Abortion Bill

[ARealDame]

Its only a bare minimum - in the case of a woman's life being threatened - but it is also a massive sea change, on this sensitive issue. The vote in the Lower House was 127:31.

(Mary Kenny wrote very interestingly in the Times about it - saying that although the Church has played a role, much of the opposition was to do with Ireland's fear of "depopulation". Partly because of Ireland's history - famine, mass emigration. But also due to a rural pro-natalist mindset. In agricultural communities another child is "another pair of hands". In cities, another child is "another mouth to feed".)

It sounds like a really poor service :( Surely people aren't happy with that being the reality of abortion in the UK?

Can you still take them up on the counselling offer? It might help you.

Something that strikes me very clearly in this discussion and in the Oireachtas debates on the legislation is that the anti-choice movement is focusing in a very co-ordinated way on late-term abortions specifically. There is a constant striving to divert all debate to a very narrow reiteration of this particular issue. It seems clear to me that these people know the tide is turning, that a large majority of people in Ireland are in favour of abortion in a range of circumstances (though falling short of a majority in favour of abortion on demand). As such, they are trying to sway the middle ground with this odious, pornified repetition of the details of late-term abortions. Ignoring the fact that some 90% of abortions in Britain (Britain - safeguarding Irish women's lives and health since 1967) take place at less than ten weeks gestation.

Ironically, while many people, even those who are generally pro-choice, do indeed have grave difficulties with late-term abortions (and setting aside the reality that only a tiny proportion of all abortions take place post-20 weeks gestation), there is a gross illogicality in the anti-choice brigade focusing on such terminations given that the basis of their whole argument is that life begins at conception; thus a one week old embyro has the same right to life, under their ideology, as a 40 week foetus. Language has ceased to have any meaning in the debate when you have the likes of Peter Mathers uttering the cri de coeur, "Babies are people too". I despair.

Softday, the discussion on this thread about late term abortion was in relation to pro-choicers supporting a woman's right to choose up until she gives birth. It's their insistence that the foetus has no right to life until it is outside its mother that can be called into question by talking about late term abortions where the foetus would actually be able to survive outside the mother. All very well to be ^pro-choice' when you're looking at an embryo in a Petri dish but hold up a newborn beside a 37 week old 'foetus' and the reality of it is a bit different.

Bumbleymummy, be that as it may, you refused to answer the "thought experiment" about who you would save the embryo, or the baby. Why don't you answer it now?
Personally, I find both propositions - that from the moment of conception, a blastocyst has as many rights as a born human; as opposed to the view that a foetus has the same value and rights as a vegetable until it passes through the birth canal then suddenly miraculously gets full rights despite being materially the same as it was a few seconds previously - repellent, for different reasons. Both views might be the most compelling from a black or white view of the world, but the world to me is grey. To me, emotionally and rationally, it seems to me that a foetus, as it develops towards being a human should gain more rights than a blastocyst or embryo or immature foetus. Obviously there are people on this thread who disagree with me, but I would say that v few Irish women think the well developed foetus to have no rights at all. Why is the argument getting derailed into late term abortion? Why don't you answer the question about the embryo and the baby?

Summerrain mentioned the difference between being for the mothers wellbeing or for the mother not really wanting a child at the time. Imo there is no difference - abortion should be available in both cases. Forcing someone to go through a pregnancy when they do not want to do so is wrong in ANY circumstances.

My last post could have been worded better but what I meant was that it is either legal or it isn't - I am pro choice and I don't think the mothers reasons are relevant - I also agree with late term abortions if that is what is needed by thw mother.

Oh dear. You're not actually trying to argue that it was a good experiment are you? what is an answer going to prove really? That you don't value the life of the one that you don't choose or just that you value one more than the other. Start increasing the age of that embryo/foetus and soon it will become hard for even the most stringent pro-choicer will find it hard to stick to their ideals - not least because they won't be able to tell one from the other! (I'm ignoring the ridiculous 'it's inside the mother' that Koba tried to introduce)

I realise you're just going to ignore all that and say 'you didn't answer the question' so here you go - I would choose to catch the baby. Not because I don't value the right to life of the embryo but because it's not going to survive in the Petri dish anyway. HTH

Discussions of late term abortion methods in the Seanad and in this thread are totally irrelevant, the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has pointed out.

www.broadsheet.ie/2013/07/19/obgyn-fyi/

The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists wishes to allay the fears of the public following statements made the Seanad this week during the debate on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013.

The destructive methods described for second trimester termination of pregnancy are currently not carried out in this jurisdiction, nor will they be in the future. The procedure currently practised in the Republic of Ireland is induction of labour using medication called prostaglandins. This will not change as a result of the enactment of this legislation.

If a viable foetus is delivered, all efforts are made to preserve its life where possible.

A fair few Senators have made complete gobshites out of themselves this week.

A fair few posters one, actually has too.

*have too

Bumbley, I agree the experiment is about what you value more. In this case, the baby - or a woman as the case may be. (Btw, you could always implant the embryo into a woman, so it could survive....)
I didn't mean any disrespect btw to koba and others re my views on late term foetuses, that's just my view & it is frustrating when the debate moves onto late term abortion which is not remotely on the table in ireland. It plays into the hands of those waving bloody placards with gruesome images on the streets of Dublin (and in my school).

Bumbley I understand what you are saying about hindsight and a chance of the mother and fetus being saved when Savitta was first admitted but I think it is irrelevant because Savitta asked for a termination. Its not a case of "perform an abortion just in case". The woman should be given the facts and allowed to make the decision herself. If she wanted to continue with the pregnancy in hope the fetus would survive then that would be her choice as well, but she chose not to take that risk with her health and was ignored.

I respect your opinions and I do think you have got a bit of a flaming but I think the Savitta case proved that the law is inadequate and abortion should be available when health is at risk and not life. That would not mean abortions would be performed just in case, but that the option would be available to the woman and left up to her to decide

I do see where you are coming from Bumbley and as I said before I am glad to see that you recognise that a termination was needed as the circumstances unfolded in this case. I agree as I also said before that other circumstances were at play like a lack of monitoring. However I fundamentally disagree with the notion that it is the mothers life and not health that should be at risk this case pointed to the fact that it is almost impossible to tell the difference.

BTW I also think that embryo/baby analogy does not make sense. When I was having a suspected miscarriage early in my pregnancy a junior doctor told me not to worry it wasn't a baby it was only an embryo made up of a few cells he even drew a lovely little picture in case I didn't understand and I was horrified quite rightly I assume and it certainly did not soften the blow.

I respect your opinions and I do think you have got a bit of a flaming but I think the Savitta case proved that the law is inadequate and abortion should be available when health is at risk and not life. That would not mean abortions would be performed just in case, but that the option would be available to the woman and left up to her to decide

^^ this
For the record Bumbley I would probably go down your route when I would want them to exhaust every avenue towards giving the best opportunity to save both me and the baby but I would want them to tell me that best medical practice for these cases would look towards carrying out a termination due to a risk of uterine infection in the mother and I would want them to discuss the likelihood of death and other morbidities. That would be informed consent and I think it should be available to all patients in all aspects of their care especially pregnancy where it is often disregarded.

I guess we are all different. When I had a very long drawn out miscarriage, it was very devastating and traumatic at the time. However, I did get comfort from feeling I had lost a potential human life rather than a baby and it in no way could compare to how I would feel to lose my ds or even how it would have felt to lose him when I was in the second or third trimester (his life was in threat at this time so I had occasion to think about this). However everyone's different & obviously there are a lot of different views, noone feels things the same. Sympathies to all who have had miscarriages or traumatic abortions.

Hold me, I don't remember any one discussing late term abortion methods on this thread. As I've said before ( a few times now) late term abortions are only being discussed in relation to pro-choicers supporting a woman's right to choose until the baby is actually born and insisting that the foetus has no rights until that point. Thankfully very few people actually seem to think that!

Apache, I think we should take the experiment as it is rather than trying to change it to suit you ie. the embryo is in a Petri dish, not inside a uterus and it's a baby, not a woman. I'm not sure why you would think the latter would be making a new point anyway. A woman's life is already put before an embryo's. If we were going to start changing things then I would just put something soft and bouncy underneath both of them so neither can get hurt/killed :)

Fuzzy, thank you for being polite. Some posters don't seem capable of that unless you share their opinion! I do disagree with you but there's no reason why we can't be civil.

Neun, that is horrific! I'm very sorry for your loss. I have had a miscarriage too. It was a very wanted baby for us and there is no way I could dismiss it as a bundle of cells.

Bumbley, sometimes I forget with whom I am debating - I have just spent an evening hosting may fil who made a 10 hour round trip to protest the recent legislation. To normal people the point that a woman is worth the same as a baby does not need to be made!

Apache, who is saying the woman isn't worth the same as the baby? The current legislation recognises the foetus' right to life unless the mother's life is at risk. That means that the woman is worth the same as the baby, unless her life is in danger in which case the woman's life is more important.

I've been thinking about this a lot and I still come to the same point. Why should anyone have any authority over my body? Bumbley you may consider a foetus a baby,I don't. When does somebody consider it life? For me,its when they take a first breath. You can say about 37 weekers and newborns all you like,that's a moot example because the abortion of a 37 week foetus is extremely rare.
Late abortions are mostly made up of people TFMR.

You might feel comfortable forcing women to remain pregnant,I don't. Suggesting they should've used contraception afterwards is pointless.

And if I may make a slightly off topic point,until the courts make fathers pay for their child/ren (as in enforce it and proper payments,none of this €10 per week for two children crap) then its not fair to put a woman's life on the line by forcing her to remain pregnant and forcing financial hardship on her by not enforcing maintenance orders.

Baby, I have purposely used 'foetus' throughout except in my response to apache because she said 'baby'.

Re talking about 37 week old foetuses , it's got nothing to do with whether or not it happens frequently - do you genuinely believe that it is ok to support the abortion of a healthy 37 week old foetus in principle? So you think that a woman should be entitled to kill a healthy foetus prior to giving birth just because she wants to? Even though it could survive by itself and she will have to give birth anyway? I am asking you if you genuinely support that idea based on your 'it's not really a baby' theory or if you just feel that you have to say that because you want to be considered 'pro-choice'.

There's actually no point in even asking you that question. I very much doubt if you would admit it if you couldn't support that situation in reality even if you do want to support it in theory.

Bumbley - my fil for one - as I said he made the trip to join the protests against the legislation. my dh even tried to argue that it was a difficult decision to choose between the life of the unborn & that of the woman. ( Btw when i said baby i meant born baby not unborn - to me the unborn is not equal to the woman).And maybe as you don't live in Ireland and are unaware of the long history of laws re abortion in Ireland you don't know that there is a significant strand of right wing catholic thought that considers the unborn to take precedence over the woman. In the 1983 amendment to the constitution, which inserted the right to life of the unborn, the wording which recognised the equal right to life of the woman was actually resisted by certain hard line catholic elements.
Anyway I feel I'm twisting myself in circles here, I've brooded over these questions for so many years I would confuse myself trying to write down all that I feel and think.

Sorry apache, I misread your last post. I did post quotes from the bishops office statement in response to the Savita case that clearly stated that the Catholic Church has never taught that the foetus has more rights than the mother. It's a few pages back now. I think most people go for equal rights.

I am pro choice,I don't need to be considered 'pro-choice'. If a woman chooses to abort a 37 weeker then I'm sure she has a very valid reason. To assume a woman would do so lightly is a disservice to women. To assume abortions are had willy nilly by the majority of women who have had them is a disservice to women. There will be those who may use it as contraception so does that mean all women must be denied because of it?

Baby, I'm not talking about assumptions that she has 'valid' reasons. (Does that mean that you consider certain reasons invalid? ) I'm talking about being supportive of the idea that a woman has a right to kill her unborn child right up to the point where she gives birth for whatever reason she chooses. Would you support that in reality or do you simply want to support it in theory because you see that as your duty as a 'pro-choicer'.

By valid I mean by being completely sane and aware of her actions.

Nice try on twisting my words though.

Nice avoidance of the question.