Irish abortion laws

[crumpet]

In all the publicity about the gay marriage referendum Aibu to wonder why there hasn't been mention of the abortion laws? Have I missed discussion on this?

Well again, it's not the same as euthanasia, because you're not just removing the foetus from the mother (life support). You're actively interfering to stop the foetus' heart.

Also, some people are arguing for abortion to term here when the foetus doesn't actually need the woman for life support. So if the case is that she should be allowed to 'withdraw herself as life support' why is it necessary to terminate the foetus?

"Well again, it's not the same as euthanasia, because you're not just removing the foetus from the mother (life support). You're actively interfering to stop the foetus' heart."

So if you just induced birth at 20 weeks after anencephaly or whatever was diagnosed, with no chance of survival outside the womb, you'd be fine with that, because that would be "turning off the life support"? It's only any situation involving stopping the heart you object to?

We're not discussing this in that context leery. I didn't say I was 'ok with it' I'm asking about terminating in cases of FFA and why it's ok to offer more 'compassion' to a foetus with a life limiting condition than a born baby. This has led on to discussions about whether or not removing life support is equivalent to euthanasia (it isn't in the UK) but the original question hasn't been addressed. I think it's worth thinking about.

I didn't argue that "women should have abortions up to birth", I said there shouldn't be a legal time limit. Also if someone can't or doesn't want to be pregnant at term with a healthy pregnancy, then they can be not pregnant any more (which is the whole point of terminating a pregnancy) by having a C-section or an induced birth (as indeed I did when it was dangerous for me to continue a pregnancy at 37+ weeks). Nobody is like AND THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KILL IT AS WELL BECAUSE THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT. Cases of late term terminations that don't result in a live birth are situations where the most likely alternative is both mother and foetus dying.

You haven't actually answered my question, though. Given that these are cases where there is almost no chance of survival outside the womb, do you consider just inducing the birth early (and hence hastening their demise) to be like euthanasia? Or just "turning off the life support"?

What I said was "some people are arguing for abortion to term here"

If there's no legal time limit then that would allow women to have abortions up to term. It seems that you actually think it should be abortion to a point and then induction instead?

(though I don't know why I bother, given that most of my questions are met with answers to a completely different question, or "we're not talking about that", or "that's an extreme case, we're not talking about those"...)

Well that's a bit of a lie. I've answered most of your questions on this thread. You still haven't answered mine about considering euthanasia for babies/children with life limiting conditions. Why should we show the foetus more compassion that what you consider to be a 'life'?

Hard question I guess.

"If there's no legal time limit then that would allow women to have abortions up to term."

Well, except it wouldn't, because it would still be a medical decision - it's not like you can rock up to a clinic in Canada at 7 months gone and go "hi, I've just suddenly decided I don't want to be pregnant any more" and the doctor goes "righty ho, here's your abortion that you're legally entitled to".

Also for all your talk of how "extreme cases" aren't relevant, you bring up "abortions to term": NOBODY ACTUALLY HAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS FOR "SOCIAL" REASONS. Even in Canada. It's a total straw man. Having no legal time limit and respecting women's bodily autonomy doesn't mean everyone suddenly starts rushing out having abortions at 8 months because they just don't feel like having a baby any more.

Well technically they could if they used 'mental health concerns'. I get the impression that you don't actually agree with this principal in practice - only if it remains in theory. I don't really see the logic/point in that.

principle*

And the idea that it should be a woman's choice up to birth isn't one currently supported in UK law and that is unlikely to change and it's incredibly unlikely that it will ever get in to Ireland regardless of whether or not you think it should.

I disagree. I believe that Ireland will repeal the 8th Amendment at some point, sooner or later.

I'm well aware of the current abortion law in the UK, thank you. I never said that I thought the UK would adopt the Canadian, I said I would like it to.

"You still haven't answered mine about considering euthanasia for babies/children with life limiting conditions. "

Insofar as children with the conditions that people TFMR for actually survive for more than a few hours past birth, well yes, people do show compassion to people with life-limiting conditions by saying they don't want heroic medical interventions made to prolong their life, they just want them made comfortable while they die. I consider keeping a pregnancy going when you know the foetus can't survive similar to those heroic medical interventions. Some people want everything possible done to have another few hours, some people don't.

"I believe that Ireland will repeal the 8th Amendment at some point, sooner or later."

That doesn't mean that they will introduce 'woman's right to abortion up to birth' though does it? You don't think the UK will adopt it but you think Ireland will?

No, leery, allowing the pregnancy to continue when the foetus is going to die is the same as not making medical interventions to prolong life - you're basically 'doing nothing'. Actively terminating a pregnancy isn't the same - you're not actively ending the life of a baby/child by not medically intervening. If you're going to medically intervene to show 'compassion' to the foetus then why not medically intervene and actively end the life of the baby/child? Surely, as you consider them to be actual living people, they have more right to that compassion?

"Well technically they could if they used 'mental health concerns'. I get the impression that you don't actually agree with this principal in practice - only if it remains in theory. I don't really see the logic/point in that."

No, I completely agree with it in practice, I think a woman's choice to have an abortion is between her and her doctor, I just don't think it would ever have the consequences you think it'd have - agreeing with it in practice doesn't mean I want women to just have late term abortions. As I have said umpteen times now, there is no legal time limit in Canada and there are very few late term abortions (and those there are are for medical reasons).

Also I love how you put quotes around 'mental health concerns' because hey, that's how we get around those silly abortion laws, eh, girls - just pretend you're mad when you want to abort at 7 months! And I sincerely doubt even in Canada you'd get abortion of a healthy pregnancy at 8 months for "mental health concerns", I suspect they'd induce instead.

So you only agree with it because you don't think it would ever happen? Why say you support no limit for abortion and not just say you support the idea of induction past a certain point?

I quoted 'mental health concerns' because that's one of the reasons from the legislation.

"you're basically 'doing nothing'"

No, you're not doing nothing. You're letting your body be used. You're prolonging a grieving process. You are being a human life support system. You're risking your own life and health. Some people want to do that and fair play to them if that's their best way of dealing with the situation. Some people don't.

Your bizarre focus on "action" and "forcing" and how only active medical intervention counts as "doing something" - "I'm not forcing you to stay pregnant, I'm just LETTING you be pregnant and NOT letting you stop it" - is mind-boggling.

"So you only agree with it because you don't think it would ever happen?"

No I agree with it and I don't think it would ever happen. I'd still agree with it otherwise.

That doesn't mean that they will introduce 'woman's right to abortion up to birth' though does it?

No, I think Ireland will repeal the 8th Amendment, at some point.

I live in hope that in an enlightened future, both will adopt a similar stance to Canada, though.

Not really mind boggling - it's logical. Active means doing something.

Well then, if you do agree with termination up to term - why termination and not induction at a certain point. Woman would still have control of her body - foetus has a chance to survive.

Sabrinna so you don't actually disagree with my original statement as you said then?

I really think the Canadian way could work in Ireland. Take the law out of the equation.

Pmsl at the idea if abortion were permitted to term that all the woman who just can't be arsed being pregnant would arrive at the clinic heavily pregnant looking to terminate FFS

Do you think Ireland will repeal the Eighth then, Bumbley?

PMSL at the idea that you think I was suggesting that Lucy.

Whether you think it could work or not doesn't mean it will be adopted. It wouldn't be adopted in the UK. In fact, I reckon they will probably reduce the limit.

Sabrinna, I don't know.