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?

I am still quite keen to know where the correlation between being pro choice and being a "benefit basher" who doesn't care about or campaign for any other causes that improve people's lives comes from. Is it something all pro lifers believe?

bumbley sees pro-lifers as morally superior to everyone else, bertrand. This theory that prochoicers are benefit bashers has just been made up in her head to goad people on this thread.

In reality, pro-choicers are generally more left wing, and more progressive. More likely to think women's rights are an Important Thing, and more likely to advocate equality throughout society. IME the pro-life viewpoint is more likely to be held by rightwing conservatives, often religious, and far more likely to be benefits bashers. This is, of course, a sweeping generalisation - but one that is prompted by bumbley's very goady earlier post.

One group is advocating for a woman's autonomy over her body, the other group is forcibly imposing their own morality on other women.

I know which I think is the most morally sound.

I agree- but it was a very confident and specific statement. And she got quite stroppy (unlike her) when I challenged it, as if it was a simple statement of fact. So I woild love to know where she got it from. Are there some "statistics" floating around the pro choice world to support it?

Interesting remark about the UK lowering the abortion limit, as well. They've certainly tried a couple of times recently, without success.

The were successful in 1990 in lowering it from 28wks to 24wks - snuck in with the legislation for Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. However, it still has the caveat that an abortion can be allowed if there is "a heightened risk of injury to the physical and/or mental health of the mother, existing children, or family" or "poses as a risk to the mental and physical health of the mother"

Since being pregnant and giving birth have quite a large impact on a woman's physical and mental health, it stands to reason that any woman being pregnant when she doesn't want to be would meet that criteria.

The huge majority of later term terminations are carried out because of foetal abnormalities, however.

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

I know - "oh dear, I'm pregnant and I don't want to be. I know, I'll stay pregnant for the next few months for the LOLs and then I'll go and get an abortion just before I go into labour."

And then "oh no, I didn't suggest that!"

Like shite. If you want to exclude all the "extreme cases" that make up very rare late term abortions, what are you actually talking about?

Based on the infanticide comparisons from earlier, it seems we need the 8th to stop all the evil women who love getting pregnant and then killing a viable and healthy foetus just before birth.

We don't trust people not to drink and drive, so we need to stop them from using their body to gestate foetuses they plan to kill at the last minute.

It's a real problem, and if it wasn't for the 8th Ireland would be full of heavily pregnant women, but there would be no babies.

Does anyone really believe it's fine to terminate a healthy foetus post 24 weeks? I mean really?

I mean I understand the bodily automony argument but in practical terms, are you expecting doctors to kill perfectly viable foetuses which they are saving in the same hospital ?

I personally know of very premature babies who are healthy normal people.

Maybe if a woman post 24 weeks doesn't want to be pregnant they need to remove it and put it in an incubator. But kill it, no.

I've said before, I know many medical professionals. Some of who perform abortions . I don't know of any who'd perform a termination on a viable healthy fetus.

I guess that's where the whole matter between patient and her doctor/s element is important goth.

What is the relevance between foetus' being terminated at 24 weeks and foetus' surviving at 24 weeks? In what way does one impact the other?

Such late abortions on a healthy foetus are, if I understand the statistics correctly, almost vanishingly rare.

And I don't think anyone thinks it's 'fine' - it's just not a legal matter. It's a personal / clinical matter.

I believe doctors and their patients can make the best and most informed decisions when a woman wants an abortion post 24 weeks (or whatever time limit we want to call late). Every case is an individual.

I do not pretend there aren't moral concerns but I don't think blanket legislation is the answer.

Goth, apparently they do. I don't understand why induction isn't an acceptable alternative to them. they haven't answered.

Alis, it's not the point whether it's 'vanishingly rare' (which doesn't mean it could/would never happen) - why support something purely in theory when there is an alternative that allows a woman to remove herself from the pregnancy but also gives the foetus a chance to live.

I didn't think "induce labour and put the babies in an incubator" was a genuine suggestion, because it is ludicrous.

Who will care for these hypothetical extremely premature babies who may well have a life time of health issues and disabilities? The state?

The whole point of abortion is that the does not want a child, does not want to be pregnant. I find it baffling how obsessed with forced pregnancy and labour anti-choice types are.

bumbley I think induction is something the patient and doctor would obviously discuss and decide if it works in the circumstances.

What you don't seem able to grasp is that the whole point of being pro choice (to me anyway) is that I am deliberately not trying to tell people what to do on the basis it would be 'acceptable' to me!

I do accept a limited welfare obligation in respect of a foetus once it is scientifically shown to be able to feel pain. But as this and other recent threads have shown - sometimes, for some people, that will indicate rather than preclude abortion.

It's complicated. So many factors and they will all be different in each case. That's why one size fits all approaches don't work IMO.

I guess Alis has answered your question Goth!

Jus, it's the welfare obligation we're talking about here though when we start looking at abortion post 24 weeks.

Yes, I realise that some people think that welfare considerations actually influence people's decision to abort but that kind of brings us back to why we are showing more compassion for the foetus than we would if they were born living people.

And yes, I do agree it is complicated which is why I don't think it's as simple as 'woman's choice'.

Because foetuses aren't born living people and unfortunately as a fact of nature the welfare of a foetus is dependent upon a born living person whose rights cannot be written off. We can try to optimise foetal welfare but only to the point where we are not disproportionately infringing the living born person's rights in pursuit of that aim.

What you and I consider disproportionate infringement is very different, that's the crux.

I can't shrug off women's suffering so easily. While I doubt you do so with ease, you do so with what you consider to be justification because you of your view that as soon as sperm meets egg, that product the moral, physical and personal equivalent of you or me. I don't see any valid basis for that belief. It's not true. And using it as a 'truth' to oppress women is misleading and wrong.

Yes, jus, but we're talking about abortion 24 weeks here where the needs of the foetus and the mother don't need to be in conflict. There are alternatives to abortion at that point but they don't seem to be 'good' enough. It seems that it has to be abortion or nothing in some people's opinion.

I'm also still not sure of the justification for showing the (what many of you consider inhuman/not living ) foetus more compassion than we do for babies/children with life limiting conditions.

Well I suppose it's about do we think there's a justification in forced delivery - greater trauma to the woman and bringing a child into this world at heightened risk of disability and illness, or on balance are the rights of the woman and the limited welfare obligation to the foetus better served in the particular circumstances by termination. The answer will be different in each case. The person best placed to come to the correct answer is the woman in question, having had the best possible medical advice and support.

Re 'more compassion' - ex utero much more can be done by medics to manage pain / distress. Wider debates about euthanasia obviously exist but I don't think they're necessary here.

Entirely in agreement with the grapefruit here. It should be between the woman and her doctor. What I think shouldn't come into it, I don't know why you're arguing that all pro-choice people think it should be "abortion or nothing!", like we're hoping all women will have abortions at 7 months just for the fun of it ("I thought I'd wait until I'd had all the pregnancy complications first!") and should go in demanding their "right". The medical team might recommend induction (suspect probably would if it's late enough), might recommend termination, might recommend something else. I'm sure people regularly have abortions that I don't "approve" of but I respect their freedom to do so.

Also why are we suddenly talking about (incredibly rare) late term abortions? Particularly late term abortions of healthy foetuses, which I suspect basically never happen. Oh, I know, it's so bumbley can go "but I don't understaaaaaand why you want to kill full term babies? Oh, you don't? You're so INCONSISTENT, EXPLAIN TO MY POOR COMPASSIONATE HEAD".

Jus, well at that stage of pregnancy the woman is going to have to deliver the baby anyway so it's not really 'forced delivery'. It's deliverjng a live baby rather than a dead one and iirc, the woman is under GA for abortions at this stage.

That's still 'just' managing pain though.

Bumblymummy-you do know that 90% of abortions take place at 12 weeks or less? And (I think) 2% take place later than 20 weeks? And some severe problems cannot be diagnosed before 18-20 weeks?

"I don't know why you're arguing that all pro-choice people think it should be "abortion or nothing!""

Another straw man argument. I'm not arguing that all pro-choice people think that. I said in some people's opinion. And that's true.

We started talking about them because some of you said you supported abortion being allowed to term - like Canada.

There are alternatives to abortion at that point but they don't seem to be 'good' enough. It seems that it has to be abortion or nothing in some people's opinion.

This is nonsense. You forget, bumbley - we're not telling women to have abortions, we're arguing for the option.

And why are you arguing for that option when there are alternatives that would also allow a woman to end her pregnancy but would also allow the foetus to have a chance at life?

Induction and adoption might not be an option that she can bear - it might not - for many reasons. We're not saying that can't happen - we're saying it's the woman's decision.

Who would pay for that alternative? What would happen to the possibly severely disabled child left in state care?

And why are you arguing at all Bumbley when six days ago you said on this very thread that you didn't want to get entrenched in yet another debate