As I recall, this is the issue where all the parties in Northern Ireland (except the Women's Coalition) agree: No Abortions Here. Over here in the USA, it's the one polarizing issue that won't go away. Good luck to the IFPA.

I support them. I wish my party would.

"I support them. I wish my party would."

Sinn Féin member

As a fellow party member I think our policy is spot on

We don't support abortion but we will never vilify a woman for having one

That's very big of Sinn Fein.

Hard cases make bad laws. The IFPA are following a well worn path ..emphsise the unusual or the difficult and sooner or later you can change everything.Yes there are hard cases The vast majority of people in Ireland do not want abortion on demand nor do they subscribe to the view that abortion is a basic human right. I don't think David Steele conceived that a coach and four would be run through the 1967 Act in Britain. Ireland North and South should be careful not to follow the same path.

Rethinking Uniuonism

I think this is an issue that most people in Ireland tend to agree on

I support them. I wish my party would.

Don't worry SFM -- they'll change their mind on this, just like they did on the Euro, the EU, the Unionist Veto, participation in the Dail, the 'Armed Struggle', the disappeared, their envoy in Cuba, decommissioning.........

"I think this is an issue that most people in Ireland tend to agree on"

That's nothing to be proud of.
If you really believed that abortion was wrong, you would do something to stop women travelling across the water to have them.
The really disgusting thing is that so many are willing to put vulnerable young women through the added trauma of travelling abroad, because that way it keeps the consciences of the "good folk" nice and clean.

The island of Ireland has no borders when it comes to hypocrisy.

The teenage daughter of a friend of mine nearly died as a result of a backstreet abortion. A legal abortion is grim enough but you wouldn't wish the backstreet version on anybody.

At the same time I'm all for termination if it's necessary, and it often is. The more the anti-choice lobby get their way, the more women will be at the mercy of the illegal practitioners. It's worrying that Ireland's immigrants are now falling foul of outdated and backward legislation, thereby placing even more women at risk.

As an American, I admit to my ignorance about the Irish constitution, but are all the articles written like 40.3.3? To me, The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right is extremely confusing. It seems to set up two competing rights with a promise to defend one of them, but which one?

Alan, I'm yawning here, heading for bed, so I hope a more wide-awake poster can help you out on this one.

I do remember that prior to the legislation you quote, the right to life of the unborn was paramount, in practice meaning that in a situation where both lives were in danger and a doctor had a chance to save one, then s/he had to choose to save the foetus or neonatal rather than the mother. Thankfully a more enlightened approach followed, but the anti-choice folk are trying at every turn to reverse this.

Night!

This Irish solution hits the poorest and most vulnerable hardest. They are paying the difference between real and imagined Ireland.

Every child should be a wanted child. Why?

Where abortion is legal crime rates go down.

If mothers do not bond well with a child before 4 years there is also an increased rate of criminality and disfunction.

Those are only the social policy issues.

In the end, women must be allowed control of their own bodies.

Well said Aquifer. It's refreshing to see some sanity in the postings on this issue.
It has always been my contention that if men were the ones who gave birth, abortions would be carried out in their lunchbreaks.
Sadly Ireland remains a country deeply wedded to religion (on both sides) and until people realise that their churches have been leading them up the garden path for centuries (abortion isn't even mentioned in the bible), there is unlikely to be a reasonable response to this issue.
Up to 24 weeks, abortion should be entirely the choice of the woman concerned.

Gerry Why 24 weeks..science has overtaken you.Seems arbitrary. If a child can survive at 21 weeks or 20 weeks why not then. People who advocate free abortion need to think through the implications and not come up with answers that keep getting eclipsed by medical developments. If a woman has a right to choose why not after 24 weeks. What is at about 24 weeks that changes the moral equation? If science can devise a way for a child to survive at 16 weeks do we follow that path? I suspect that choice groups would demur..why. Do they have any moral logic at all.. or are we following some kind of liberal fundamentalism that has no real thought of the child until he or she is born as long as the great God of choice is preserved.We make the debate sound like a supermarket outing..shame on you.

@ Alan McDonald

I think basically it's been interpreted as abortions are illegal except where the life of the mother is at risk.

So it's defending both rights, but the right to life of the mother takes priority.

This is an extremely difficult issue to deal with - particular for a conservative society like ours.
What I am sure of though is that men in general are in an extremely poor position to understand the full ramifications of the abortion issue. Can any female posters give us their take on this?

Fanny you mention it, circles. I was just checking the lot again and no female comment on it.
And as a woman and single mom, it’s not just my body it’s the rest of my life we are talking about. Therefore the decision is simple enough. It is mine to make.
That is the difficult part.

Rethinking Unionism - my argument would be for when the child becomes sentient. I don't know when exactly that is at the moment (I'm not a doctor or a scientist) but I believe this would be appropriate.

Why do people concern themselves making judgements on other people's lives? I find it especially difficult to see why so many men demand to enforce their point of view on this one. I understand the pro-lifers, and can see where there coming from, babies are cute. It's just a pity that they in turn, cannot see the other side's point of view, life is complicated. For the many christians out there, up in arms with self righteous indignation - Judge not lest ye be judged.

It's defintely the woman's decision and I am sure it's never taken lightly.

SF's attitude to abortion is 'interesting' definitely highlights a certain narrow catholic nationalist strand of opinion as opposed to any left wing/socialist tendencies

Unsurprisingly, I do agree with Betty but I do recognise the moral gravitas of this issue - discussion of morality which needs to be separated from a specifically male view of such matters.

Typically the pro-life arguments are the product of centuries of male-dominated thinking and teaching. I recently walked past a pro-life demonstration in University Street with my small daughter - graphic pictures of aborted babies were pinned to the street-lights and on posters paraded by the demonstraters. I would have expressed my anger at this sort of imagery had I not been concerned for the impact on my daughter - such emotive tactics are a poor substitute for rational argument, but then I dont think arguing in a street with a man about the right to consider abortion is at all appropriate or rational. Abortion goes on - it just doesn't go on (legally) on this island.

Im also a female poster but my views on the topic are quite different from Betty's.

Abortion is the killing of a child pure and simple and in most cases I am completely opposed to it - particularly because of the very late stage at which it can currently be carried out.

At the end of the day, it was the woman that made the mistake - not the baby and there are of course other options, for example adoption. Abortion is just a quick fix; an easy way out.

Now obviously if the womans life is in danger or if she has been a victim of rape (or similar) then abortion should be an option but in the case of rape it should only be carried out before 18 weeks (or whatever the time is at which the baby is fully formed and indeed feels pain) - there is little excuse for leaving it any later.

Rethinking

Those born at 25 weeks have around a 50% chance of survival, and for those born at 23 weeks the survival rate is 17% - all of which ignores the reality that many of those extremely premature births that do survive the initial trauma have severe physical and mental disabilities. In holland iirc they won't even treat births at less than 25 weeks.

Mere survival should not be the criteria, but given that we live in a country where an elected representative can claim disabled children born of rape are a 'gift' from god, I don't reckon this argument is going away any time soon.

Sevenmagpies,

It not about how many children survive at 20 odd weeks. Its the fact that by that stage they are fully formed (they just have to grow) and they can feel pain. There is not escaping the reality that abortion carried out after 20 weeks is the brutal killing of a child. At least an earlier abortion could be viewed as the destruction of a few cells rather than a child.

Sevenmagpies,

It not about how many children survive at 20 odd weeks. Its the fact that by that stage they are fully formed (they just have to grow) and they can feel pain. There is not escaping the reality that abortion carried out after 20 weeks is the brutal killing of a child. At least an earlier abortion could be viewed as the destruction of a few cells rather than a child.

As someone of the female persuasion I am completely oppose to pocohontas comments.......
It's not the woman's fault - as far as my memory of biology lessons go I think it takes 2 to conceive - a man and a woman....

Obviously it should not be a subistute for other more traditional and accessible methods of family planning.

But it should be legalised and monitiored and freely available so Irish women no longer need to make unnecessary trips to Britain.

La D:
Agree, but unsurprised that an issue affecting the lives of half the population of the island is dominated by the thinking of the other!

Alan McDonald,
you have hit the nail on the head.

It all started with the anti-abortion lobby trying to get a watertight ban on abortion enshrined in the constitution in 1983.

They thought they had it in "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

However, in 1991, the X case came up. It concerned a 14-year-old girl who had become pregnant after being raped by a family friend.

The girl was suicidal and her family wanted her to have an abortion. But the then attorney general, Harry Whelehan, sought and obtained a High Court injunction restraining her from travelling to Britain to end her pregnancy.

The Supreme Court overruled him concluding that: "If it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40.3.3."

Horror of horrors for the anti-abortion lobby as, rather than banning all abortion, their amendment meant that if the life of the mother was in danger, including from a threat of suicide, abortion was now permissible in Ireland under the Constitution.

They could have lived with legislation but no, they wanted a Constitutional guarantee.

The anti-abortionists were sinking like a stone and the chant was "pro life that's a lie, you don't care if women die".

They had to think fast so came up with another constitutional amendment, this time explicitly excluding the risk of suicide as a reason for abortion.

"It will be unlawful to terminate the life of the unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction."

Too far for conservatives, would you believe, and too horrifying for the liberals and mothers and the like so this failed to be passed in a 1992 referendum.

But two amendments stating that the Eighth Amendment did not mean the prevention of travel to another state, or the provision of information about services legally available in another state, such as abortion, were passed.

In 2002, the Church and anti-abortionists agreed on a new referendum, which had the support of government parties, to give constitutional backing for legislation rolling back the X case decision allowing the risk of suicide as a ground for abortion, outlawing abortion except according to current medical practice where a mother's life is at risk, and allowing for the morning-after pill.

But the conservatives were against it too because the morning after pill is abortion to them. The pro-choice lobby won the day and this was defeated, which leaves us all in the current no-man's, or no-woman's land, we find ourselves in.

Obviously, the IFPA believes things have moved on from 2002 and it is now time to tackle the issue from a pro-choice angle for the first time rather than anti-abortion.

The lessons that should have been learnt from this? Don't put things in the constitution that don't belong there. That's what legislation is for. 20 years later and it's still a mess.

At least it gave a lot of people in Ireland a chance to engage the real conservatives and show them up for what they were, especially when it came to the lives of vulnerable women.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

"Now obviously if the womans life is in danger or if she has been a victim of rape (or similar) then abortion should be an option "

This is quite simply wrong thinking - if the pro-lifers genuinely believe that the foetus is the wrongful taking of a human life then even in cases of rape, incest whatever, abortion cannot be permitted.

pocohantas,

Until there is a functioning brain and lungs it is simply not a 'child', it is still merely a collection of cells. Brain function in an individual 'human' sense begins at about 27 or so weeks. Until that point the fetus is no more a living breathing thinking individual than a cabbage or a rose.

Current religious thinking on the issue was only established around the 1880s or possibly even later. Before that there were various arguments, one for example was that the fetus was not regarded as human until it looked like a human. It's odd that the religious right seem to be desperate to move further and further away from rational thought on this issue.

La D

Agreed it takes 2 to tango but the other player involved is not the baby so why should it suffer. At the end of the day the woman knows she is risking getting pregnant (even if she takes precautions) when she has sex. If she isnt in a position to deal with a baby (or cant be bothered with the hassle of adoption) she shouldn't jump into bed so quickly.

"it was the woman that made the mistake "

A shameful comment - this underlines my point about how mens thinking has affecting woman's thinking on this!!!!!!!!

Someone once wrote that if it was men who had the babies, abortion would be a sacrament. I'm becomng more inclined to agree with this when I see how women have accepted the guilt and shame foisted on us by male-orientated theology.

Jo - I agree with you re the tactics the pro lifers have to use - once you start shoe=wing pictures of fotuses etc you have lost the (rational) argument.

My sister who lives in NY state heard a nun commenting on the Bush's stance (during last year's election and had a very interesting and insightful point: she described them (an the pro-life christian right) as
"pro birth but anti-life" (given the lack of welfare and the growing number of poor people in Dubya's USA.

Pocahontas - are you sure you really area woman or just a man in drag...

"pro-life"=anti abortion, but bush is pro-death= death penalty, im confused

Jo

If you read my last comment you will see what I ment by that comment - i was trying to point out that it is the womans fault she is pregnant not the childs. I'd hardly let the men off, but ultimately it is the woman who makes the decision to have an abortion - not the man.

"if the pro-lifers genuinely believe that the foetus is the wrongful taking of a human life then even in cases of rape, incest whatever, abortion cannot be permitted."

I think that these are special circumstances and in these cases abortion should be an option because the mothers (mental or physical) health may be at risk through no fault of her own.

I am indeed a woman... and im not one of those people who runs around with pics of aborted babies.
I do however have a respect for the right to life and, as I've tried to explain, while in special circumstances (rape, health problems etc) abortion should be an option, it should stop being used as a quick fix to an unwanted pregnancy as it currently is. That is just morally unethical and I fail to recognise the arguements for it.

Pocohantas,

Well said!

Bootman - Bush and his neocon cronies want as many babies to be born so they have a bigger market for state execution /murder. They just seem to get off on the death penalty ' whether someone's IQ is above a certain level or not...;

Rethinking Unionism:
''What is at about 24 weeks that changes the moral equation?''

I quoted this figure since as far as I'm aware, that is the current limit in Britain. Presumably the only reason why it should be different in Ireland (north and south) is the extremely narrow-minded brand of religious dogma prevalent here.
If Ireland is an example of moral standards, given the stance of the Roman Catholic church on child abuse and third world contraception, and the rantings of the Protestant Fundamentalists on homosexuality and dancing(!), I suspect God (whoever he or she may be) will be giving this place a miss.
As I stated before, if roles were reversed and men had babies, there would be no debate (I don't see women lambasting men for wasting 'God's Gift' through mastrubation). Women should be given the choice of what to do with their own bodies -- if their religious convictions forbids them from abortion, then so be it -- but men should have no say in the matter.

" if she isn't in a position to deal with a baby (or cant be bothered with the hassle of adoption) she shouldn't jump into bed so quickly."

For Gods sake!!! Would you try and think before you type such sexism?

"pro birth but anti-life"

I think there's a similar contradiction among those who say they are pro-choice.

The 'choice' ought not to be between having an abortion and not having one. It ought to be between having an abortion as a last resort and giving birth to and bringing up a child in decent circumstances with proper support.

I fail to see how anyone can advocate the right to the former, and not be prepared at the same time to give any consideration to the latter.

"it takes 2 to tango... If she isnt in a position to deal with a baby.. she shouldn't jump into bed so quickly."

Cliched, unthinking typically MALE reflex!

Jo,

" if she isn't in a position to deal with a baby (or cant be bothered with the hassle of adoption) she shouldn't jump into bed so quickly."

"For Gods sake!!! Would you try and think before you type such sexism?"

Im being realistic - not sexist.

More babies = more for the draft.

Feed them burgers and keep the brain activity to a minimum. Sound like a strategy?

Jo men dont have abortions! I can give you a biology lesson if you like.

And I assure you (not that I see what it matters) that I am a woman!

Gerry Lvs Castro

Its the difference between aborting a few cells and killing a baby. Thats why it changes the moral question.

"I think that these are special circumstances and in these cases abortion should be an option because the mothers (mental or physical) health may be at ris...k through no fault of her own."

So, to sum up, every time a woman gets pregnant when these circumstances DO NOT apply, it is HER FAULT, is it?

Jo - yes just more (poor) cannon fodder for US oil wars....

It is HER fault rather than the CHILDS whom SHE chooses to abort. yes.
SHE choses to have sex.
SHE choses to have an abortion.

Im not saying the man doesnt have a responsibility too but he isnt the one who has to has to make the decision about abortion, is he? All he can do is (1) stick a condom on and (2) support her if she does end up pregnant

We can cuddle up to terms like pro-choice all we like, but what we’re really talking about is the destruction of a life. Although I can understand why some people choose to salve their consciences by describing such life as cabbages.

My question is why stop at 24 weeks. The same pro-choice arguments also hold for aborting a foetus older than 24 weeks. Heck, they even hold for young children.

Why shouldn’t parents be given the ‘choice’ to terminate children that prove too inconvenient up to six months of age or older? Childcare costs are crippling!

Now, I’ve no time for the religious argument, and if pregnancy can be detected at a very early stage then it should be allowed. However, a 24 week old foetus is far too late to abort to my mind, and I see no difference to aborting a 24 week old foetus and the smothering of a 6 month old child in their cot.

I also disagree that this is solely a female argument. How can it be?

Yes, I understand that pregnancy is very difficult and I thank whatever cosmic force decided that I was to become male at least once a day, but until humans become hermaphrodite it will also be more than just a female issue.

smcgiff

see my post at 12:08

Agreed, pocohantas,

This debate is moving faster than my poor fingers can type!

Slackjaw et al

'Pro-birth but anti-life'

This comment which was made by a nun in the run up to the election last may be a bit subtlle for some..

Basically she was saying that for pro-lifers just care a bout the birth and don't give a tosss about its life chances given their (lack of) social policy re education and health opportunities - basically they don't care if babies are born in to dire poverty and their limited life chances as they are not an important political group for Bush.

That raises a very important issue, La Dolorosa, and there is no easy answer. And it pains me that I've anything in common with Bush.

However, I’m pretty sure that aborting at 24 weeks (not sure what the age limit is in the US) is not the answer, but to those that think it is… why not put the 6 month old poor kids out of their misery and euthanasia them before they have to live much more of their appalling lives?

SMcGiff - it shows the hypocrisy and outright contradictions of Bush and his fellow (Christian right) travellers - and then they murder & threaten doctors/staff in the clinics where abotions are performed.

I can well believe that pocohontas is a woman, and I think it is a form of sexism to asume that women are free from such narrow prejudiced thinking on the matter.

Thr trouble with pocohontas argument,and the arguments of many others is that there is a clear link between the idea of crime and punishment in her words.
Sex is obviously sinful, and retribution must be exacted, in this case by forcing a woman to have a child and carry the burden of raising that child. After all, if she wasn't a slut and a harlot, she wouldn't be in this position in the first place?

it was great to see the gay pride march in belfast recently, but perhaps we need a heterosexual pride march as well, where young men and women can come out and state publicly that they do not subscribe to the archaic views of sex and sexuality on display here.

La Dolorosa,

The contradiction I see is that they expect mothers not to abort children, but then to live in a very uncaring (not to mention unchristian) society.

Somehow, I don't think God is a capitalist.

Jo,

I too am a pro-choicer, but your attacks on Poco's opinions don't help the cause. I don't think she's being sexist by saying a woman shouldn't jump into bed unless she's prepared to risk pregnancy- women are strong enough to demand men take precautions in such situations, and if they get pregnant as result of sexual mismanagement, so be it. It takes two to tango, but I'm sure you would agree that women know what they are letting themselves in for.

As regards accusing Poco of having male reflexes, I don't think gender comes into it at all. Most of the vehement anti-abortionists I have come across have been female- even on TV this appears to be the case. Most fellas don't really care- ultimately, if a 'mistake' happens, an abortion could release them from 18 years of unwanted responsibility to the offspring.

Ultimately, it's unfair to have a child if it is not going to be loved or cared for properly. If the would-be mother believes it would be better if the foetus were not allowed to be expelled naturally at the end of nine months' gestation, and that it should be halted in its development by means of medical removal at an early stage, then I think that is her choice. It's not one that would be taken lightly, and no one else really knows how a would-be mother feels in each individual situation.

''I also disagree that this is solely a female argument. How can it be?''

Does the man go through 9 months of (often extremely unpleasant) pregnancy? Does he endure hours of pain giving birth? Is he expected by society to raise that child to adulthood?
No he isn't and if he were the subject would most likely not even be discussed.
Let the religiously deluded and the moralists take care of their own bodies -- every woman should be able to decide for herself.
Like it or not, abortion will continue -- it is society's choice whether it continues under medical supervision in a (reasonably) clean medical facility, or on some quack's kitchen table.

'Does the man go through 9 months of (often extremely unpleasant) pregnancy?'
No, but women have been doing it since the dawn of time, and will continue to do it until a nuclear holocaust or a meteor wipes us all out.

‘Is he expected by society to raise that child to adulthood?’ Yes, he is. What society to do you live in? We’ve moved on from the maidens at the cross roads, and now women choose to work outside the home or choose to remain at home.

‘Let the religiously deluded and the moralists take care of their own bodies -- every woman should be able to decide for herself.’

Lets keep religion out of it. Decide for herself, yes. But a foetus is not herself, it’s actually a foreign body to her own body if we’re to get technical.

‘Like it or not, abortion will continue.’ So will murder in general – just because something is going to happen doesn’t mean we have to agree or facilitate it.

Perhaps you’ll answer my question. Why have a limit a 24 weeks? Why not give the woman the choice to terminate an infant that will impinge on her future choices. Why should a mother have to be responsible for continuing to bring up a foetus after 24 weeks?

El Matador:

I object to cliched thinking because it is not thinking at all.

Once sperm can be synthesised, there will no need for all the other body parts which are associated with those that currently produce it in the male body - in short (and I use that word advisedly!!!)...you'll be redundant, guys!

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix.

The country with far and away the lowest abortion rate in the world is the Netherlands, a country with one of the most liberal abortion laws. This includes countries where abortion is illegal.

If a person is really interested in the welfare of women and the unborn, then they should not be moralising or campaigning to keep it illegal, rather they should be looking to the lead of the Netherlands, which provides real support to vulnerable women, including readily available abortion.

Or is reducing the number of abortions much less important than being able to say "not in my back yard".

I would like to hear the moral justification for that.

"Once sperm can be synthesised, there will no need for all the other body parts which are associated with those that currently produce it in the male body - in short (and I use that word advisedly!!!)...you'll be redundant, guys!"

You think?

The opposite is just as true, once we are free from the ties of supporting families, it's a life of coke, booze and whores for most of us.
I'm looking forward to it.

Taf:

Yeah, go ahead, and all the while the psychological worm will be working within your increasingly addled brain, whispering: "you're useless." ;)

Jo,
this type of attitude is smug at best, downright dangerous at worst. Science is well capable of developing a way to make women "redundant" also. It might involve keeping a few brain dead "battery hens" but it is just as possible.
Don't tempt fate.

‘Is he expected by society to raise that child to adulthood?’ Yes, he is. What society to do you live in?

Really? Other than the generally futile efforts of the CSA, most unmarried men can simply walk away from their children at any time, with no financial or social stigma attached. A woman abandoning her child is still viewed by society as a heinous crime and is extremely rare compared to the thousands of absent fathers in this country. You obviously have no concept of the stress, misery and sheer hard work of bringing up a child alone, often in conditions bordering on extreme poverty.

''But a foetus is not herself, it’s actually a foreign body to her own body if we’re to get technical.''

So this 'foreign body' could survive at say 10 weeks could it?

‘Like it or not, abortion will continue.’ So will murder in general – just because something is going to happen doesn’t mean we have to agree or facilitate it.

We could at least try to be compassionate about it. I'd hate to be asking you for advice if I'd been raped by my uncle or was a distraught 14 year old pregnant schoolgirl.

''Perhaps you’ll answer my question. Why have a limit a 24 weeks?''

As I stated before, this is the current limit in Britain, and has been arrived at by medical brains much more capable than mine or yours.
It is my understanding that the vast majority of abortions are carried out well before this limit.

"Yeah, go ahead, and all the while the psychological worm will be working within your increasingly addled brain, whispering: "you're useless." ;)"

If I wanted voice whispering in my ear that I was useless, I'd get married.
Listen Jo, despite all the clichès say, it's women who have the fragile egos, men are simple creatures.
give me an Xbox a widescreen telly and free subscrition to the football and porn, and you can whisper till the cows come home.

If it makes your basic insecurity as a woman any better to have your fantasies of male redundancy, then go ahead.

Maybe the focus should be shifted to the what happens after. Whatever the reasons for an unwanted pregnancy, not only is the woman left with the care, responsibility and financial cost for the rest of her life, the unwanted child as well might be paying for it for the rest of his/her life because of lack of it.

SMcGiff - re pro-birth-anti-life - that's what the nun was the point the nun was making.

Your analysis is spot on and Iam with you on the fact that God is big on capatlism.

Guys - the thing is if men ceased to exist and we could still procreate by other means women would be fine as we are much more resilient, self-contained and diverse creatures than our male counterparts. Sorry I just don't think men would last 5 minutes on their own - who would thay be able to patronise?

Of course I meant to write:

"God is NOT big on capitalism"

"Sorry I just don't think men would last 5 minutes on their own - who would thay be able to patronise?"

Classic.

Not only for the irony on steroids, but also for being a perfect example of the kind of comment that men get thrown at them on a regular basis, and we laugh it off.
Say anything remotely similar about women, and it would be a different story.

But don't you little ladies worry your pretty little heads, us men shall continue to allow you to stamp your tiny feet and scream.
We know how you girls enjoy it so.

‘I would like to hear the moral justification for that.’

George, why not aim for both? A supportive society like the Netherlands in one that doesn’t allow abortions at the 24th week.

La Dolorosa,

women would be fine as we are much more resilient, self-contained and diverse creatures than our male counterparts

I guess the problem with women being left on their own is that they would no longer be women. Women may well be more resilient, self-contained and diverse by whatever today's standards are, it would certainly be interesting to see if people with the body of a woman retained such attributes in the absolute absence of men.

smcgiff,
That would be limited support, not full support.

You are back into the area of what if the women's life is in danger etc.

If you want to reduce the numbers of abortions, you support women in need and offer abortion as an option.

A woman given options, is much less likely to have an abortion in the 24th week of pregnancy than one without them.

Most women don't want an abortion, they see no other way out. If you want to wash your hands of it then ban it but you are not going to change anything.

It's a bit like being against drinking so you introduce prohibition. It won't work and makes the situation worse.

Except instead of dodgy liquor, you have dodgy abortions.

If Britain wasn't next door, you would have a host of backstreet abortionists from Larne to Listowel.

‘You obviously have no concept of the stress, misery and sheer hard work of bringing up a child alone, often in conditions bordering on extreme poverty.’

So, struggling single parents should be allowed to commit infanticide. Or do you think that once they’ve been stupid enough to give birth it’s their tough luck.

Instead of having a debate about abortion, we should be arguing for greater support of over stressed, miserable, hard working single mothers living in extreme poverty.

‘So this 'foreign body' could survive at say 10 weeks could it?’

The legal limit for abortion is 24 weeks. I’ve already stated that I think abortion should be legal at a very early stage, possible 8 weeks.

‘I'd hate to be asking you for advice if I'd been raped by my uncle or was a distraught 14 year old pregnant schoolgirl.’

Yet, you’d legislate for every single mother to be able to abort a foetus because of extreme cases?

‘As I stated before, this is the current limit in Britain, and has been arrived at by medical brains much more capable than mine or yours.’

Do you think it possible ‘medical brains much more capable than mine or yours’ could be found that would disagree with the 24 week status of a foetus? Think for yourself!

‘It is my understanding that the vast majority of abortions are carried out well before this limit.’

Then, why not have it (much) earlier than 24 weeks. I fail to see the difference between crushing the skull of a 24 week old foetus and that of a six month old child.

If you want to reduce the numbers of abortions, you support women in need and offer abortion as an option.

You’re implying that options are currently not on offer. Maybe they need to be promoted better, because, as you mention it’s the range of options that leads to a reduced rate of abortion in Holland, not because abortion is one of them.

‘Most women don't want an abortion, they see no other way out.’

I agree 100%.

smcgiff

No 'cuddling' or 'salving' is required. Before the fetus develops a brain with the capacity for individual thought it is not a human being. After it develops that individual identity it is a living, thinking, active, reactive person. I'm not sure what pro-choice argument you refer to that you suggest can apply to young children. Can you provide more details?

''Instead of having a debate about abortion, we should be arguing for greater support of over stressed, miserable, hard working single mothers living in extreme poverty.''

And where would this support come from? Would you and other tax payers fancy a tax hike to help single mothers?

''Yet, you’d legislate for every single mother to be able to abort a foetus because of extreme cases?''

I merely gave a couple of extreme examples. I've already stated that every woman should be able to make her own choice without the interference of either men or religious dogma. For the vast majority of women, having an abortion is a momentous personal decision and is certainly not take lightly.

''Do you think it possible ‘medical brains much more capable than mine or yours’ could be found that would disagree with the 24 week status of a foetus? Think for yourself!''

Of course there are disagreements, but the current medical concensus appears to favour 24 weeks. Personally, I'd rather listen to the medical profession than a nutter waving a gory placard on the street or a bloke in a frock waving some incense.

Every society has had to face the issue of the unwanted pregnancy. The Greeks I understand used to leave unwanted newly born children on the slopes of a mountain to fend for themselves.

One of the difficulties about discussing this entire issue, apart from the fact that all the moral arguments are formulated by MEN and concern how WOMEN should behave, is that there is an intrinsic difficulty about "supporting" abortion. No-one suppors it as such, in an ideal worl there would be sensible and informed attitudes to contraception, but unfortunately, and in view, maliciously, those who are pro-life are also against sex education and contraception.

Talk of women "jumping into bed" and assigning "fault" and "blame" to women who have an unwanted pregnancy is a continuation of a certain religious view, which sees women as the temptresses of men, who would, of course be pure and God-loving if it wasn't for all these whorish females hurling themselves open-legged at anything remotely phallic.

" fail to see the difference between crushing the skull of a 24 week old foetus and that of a six month old child."

Thats because there isnt much difference. the only real difference between the Greeks and ourselves is a matter of the timing which society believes acceptable.

I walked past City Hall at lunchtime where a spaced out teenager was demonstrating to his friends how he planned to - or already had -jumped up and down on the skull of another teenager...its what we are prepared to put up with. Apparently.

'Can you provide more details?'

All the reasons put forward by pro-choicers for the termination of a 24 week foetus.

‘Before the fetus develops a brain with the capacity for individual thought it is not a human being.’

That’s rubbish. It’s known that a foetus has dreams. Just because it doesn’t dream about Cork city winning the European cup doesn’t mean it’s not human.

So, what punishment would be fitting for a person that caused a pregnant women to loose a 24 week old foetus. Would it be the same as a person that squashed a cabbage?

Jo,
They drew them down the slopes to die and it wasn’t only unwanted children from an unwanted pregnancy. If a child was the wrong sex or disabled then it went literally down the hill.
These days children are left to fend for themselves.

and the term 'pro-life' is such a dumb and misleading collection of words - to try and suggest that everybody else is anti-life, anti-family etc.... very unevolved thinking

La D:

Of course! Unevolved=Male=gratuitous prehistoric body hair, etc,etc...

‘Would you and other tax payers fancy a tax hike to help single mothers?’

Fancy it? No. Put up with it? Yes. It’d be the same as any social cost.

‘I merely gave a couple of extreme examples.’

If you didn’t mean them to be representative why did you mention them? It’s not an issue to point score on.

speaking as someone who is totally for sex education in schools and at home, and also someone who has been adopted as a child and who has grown up and worked with people with down syndrome, I really am against abortion completely.

i honestly do understand that pregnant women under the worst circumstances really may not want to keep the child growing inside them; but I would say to them, that i have no idea under what circumstances that i was conceived, and have no intention of finding out, but for arguments sake lets say it was rape, my biological mother probably wouldn't have wanted to keep me - wanted to abort, but was persuaded otherwise - then not only would i not have reached the age of 23, become a teacher and touched the lives of others, but a decision would have been made that would have meant i would not have lived this life that i have - but i would have died instead.

in the same way when a disability like some of the people that i have worked with is detected in the womb - a doctor immediately offers abortion - well, i can assure you that those who were in my care had as much life as anyone else i know, complete characters out and out, but more importantly in my opinion, had a RIGHT to life, a RIGHT to give it a go anyway.

Basing the time at which a pregnancy can be terminated based on the viability of the foetus does not seem morally satisying - the age at which prematurely born babies can survive has dropped to around 25 weeks (what a coincidence) and seems set to decrease, albeit slowly, as incubator technology improves. It is not far fetched to suggest that in ten years time a majority of prematurely born babies who are 23 weeks "old" could be kept alive.

For this reason I think the argument has to be based on unsupported viability of the foetus which is a much, much later figure (36 weeks?) or on complete prohibition if you are of the every sperm is sacred bent.

This really is an irreconcillable philosophical question - either you buy into some idea of personhood/soul and you forbid abortion or you think that babies are not full people. I would have to side with the latter - I am not sure that babies are full individuals and I am sure that mothers are.

There is a very good Jewish retort to the saying "better not to have been born at all"
- it is, typically, a question:

"How many are so lucky?
Not one in ten thousand."

smcgiff

I can't think of a single argument put forward by pro-choicers that could apply to a young child. You'll need to describe exactly what you mean.

How can a collection of cells with no thought processes 'dream' about anything? It's not human because it has none of the inherent qualities of a thinking breathing active/reactive person. In relation to your punishment question, what are you suggesting the attacker is doing? Why wouldn't he simply be charged for those actions?

'You'll need to describe exactly what you mean.'

The many variations of:-

Why can’t a woman abort a foetus because she will have to look after it until it’s 18.

Not every mother that actually gives birth to a baby wants it.

‘How can a collection of cells with no thought processes 'dream' about anything?’

The fact you think a 24 week old foetus is just a collection of cells speaks volumes.

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/lifebeforebirth.asp

'Why wouldn't he simply be charged for those actions?'

Assume he punched a woman pregnant with a 24 week foetus. Do you think it enough he were charged with the physical damage caused to the woman only. Possibly only minor bruising. The woman may have lost the foetus from the trauma of the attic rather than the physical violence.

‘Would you and other tax payers fancy a tax hike to help single mothers?’
Fancy it? No. Put up with it? Yes. It’d be the same as any social cost.

You just try putting this one on your party manifesto.

'You just try putting this one on your party manifesto.'

I’d imagine it would be as big a vote getter as increased taxation for better health services. It might surprise you that people don't tend to like paying tax.

''It might surprise you that people don't tend to like paying tax.''

Exactly my point. And for better or worse, more money for single mothers is one of the last things that voters will go for.

'Exactly my point. And for better or worse, more money for single mothers is one of the last things that voters will go for.'

If the Dutch can have a more socially supportive society then I don’t see why it can’t apply elsewhere.

The above debate is evidence itself of how dangerous it is to start coming up with new definitions. The only safe and logical point to define when life begins is conception. Nor can I accept this fatuous argument that only women can have a viewpoint. Does that mean we can ignore anything that does not directly concern us personally...I think not. We are not dealing here with a tumour or female circumcision but the status of something that is truly unique. It is intersting to observe how the debate has subtly shifted from the hard cases (rape incest) to one of absolute choice.A disabed child of a rape victim is precious by the very nature of their humanity..to deny that take us into some pretty scary territory. Societies always will have difficulties with this issue,and of course there are genuine hard cases, but we are the first generation to come up with the idea of choice as the sole criterion. To listen to the certainty of the choice lobby one would think that this theory had been around for centuries. Truth is that it is a product of a mentality which actually undermines and devalues humanity.

Rethinking,

I was with you right up until you said:
The only safe and logical point to define when life begins is conception.

I thought you were going to say:
The only safe and logical point to define when life begins is birth. This was the traditional definition and has changed only recently, giving rise to this whole relatively recent argument about the termination of pregnancies.

Based on your personal beliefs, you want to give a foetus rights it never had under common law. That is why you amended the Irish constitution and peopel with your beliefs want to change the American constitution. Whenever we want to inititate a change, we start by saying we are getting back to the way things have always been.

Lets look at the term "pro-choice"

What exactly is the choice that is being made?

In my view, the choice is to terminate a human life. The foetus is not part of a womans body, it is a life form, with its own DNA, and cell structure, from a very early stage is developing its own limbs, and organs. Its genetic deficiencies and strenghts are developing, and are pre programmed and distinct from that of the mother, and the father.

When looking at the issue of abortion, this choice is all that should be considered. Religious considerations, womens rights, back street abortions, the burden of unwanted children on society all these issues are beside the point.

Is it right to terminate a viable and distinct human life?

My opinion is: no it is not.

The birth threshhold is problematic, though:

For argument's sake, imagine the following scenario:

A premature baby is born (caesarian or otherwise) at, say, five months. Everything is done to save it. An unborn baby is terminated at five months. What's the difference?

The medical im/possibility of the hypothetical scenario is not the point: it's just to raise the possibility that "birth" cannot be regarded as a logical or safe cut-off point.

That said, I'm buggered if I know what a safe or logical cut-off point would be. Perhaps there isn't one, and those who support abortion (like me) will simply live with the fact that abortion may be impossible to completely dissociate from taking a life.

Yoda,

I only raised the birth cut-off point as it was the traditional date from which we measure a person's life. We can now push this point back to some point in time of viability outside the womb, and even Paddy Canuck uses the term viable. This would explain the cut-offs by number of weeks or trimesters in most legislation or court decisions.

All feotuses are viable unless disease or the mothers health or other factors intervene.

In the vast majority of cases were abortion is performed, the foetus is viable if the pregnancy is left to run its course. The only thing that affects the viability in the case of an abortion is the docors intervention.

This is the choice that we must focus on. A life is being terminated when an abortion is performed.

Indeed, Alan.

All I'm pointing out is that there is no clear way of deciding if all "viable" foetuses become viable at the same time. "Viability" just resituates the "birth" argument. A particular foetus may be stronger than another, or may have needed another day or two to become viable. However, if you impose an arbitrary cut-off point, you still risk killing "viable" foetuses. The problem is not with "too early" (morning-after pills are a good idea), but rather with determining the latest possible time.

Where do you draw that line?

All I'm saying is that there cannot be an absolute line once you start talking about termination. If a line can be pushed forward or back, individual viable foetuses can always succumb.

If you are in favour of abortion (like me), you need to live with these uncertainties.

Paddy,

Viability in the context of the abortion debate is usually limited to viability outside the womb not in the womb. I think you are saying that life begins at conception and should continue until birth. This is my understanding of the so-called right-to-life position. Here in the United States, there has been discussion of a constitutional amendment to define this right. The way I interpret it is that it gives a pregnant woman the right to choose to carry the pregnancy to full term or ...

Well, you know there is no or in your position.

Alan,

There is an or. The alternative(or) is the choice to terminate a human life.

Why should that be a legal right? It is a crime in most other cases (I am not categorising abortion as a crime).

smcgiff

I've never heard a pro-choicer using those arguments for abortions post 24 weeks, and of course you didn't answer the question. How can a collection of cells with no thought processes 'dream' about anything?

"The fact you think a 24 week old foetus is just a collection of cells speaks volumes."

It speaks to an interest in a solely rational basis for my argument, rather than airy fairy emotive nonsense that anything that looks a bit cute must be a human being. What is it you are suggesting makes something without human, individual brain function magically an individual human being after all?

As for your attack scenario, the physical result is already a criminal offence because the authority to perform abortions or induce miscarriages is strictly limited to medical personnel under specific circumstances.

Paddy C,

If you are not calling abortion a crime, but a woman does not have the right to do it, then what is it? I may have misunderstood your position, but you seem to be arguing legal rather than moral considerations. This leads me to ask how you would regulate abortion, other than to ask women to refrain from doing it.

Alan,

Point of information. A foetus did have rights under the common law. Abortion was a misdemeanour under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.The rights of the unborn have specifically been recognised in a plethora of civil cases. There is an endless amount of litigation on this one. Abortion rights are a feature only of the last 30 years

Rethinking,

That's not what I read at The legal rights of unborn babies,
Release date: 26 Jan 2004
By Dr Claudia Riordan of Mills & Reeve

According to English common law, an unborn child does not have a distinct human personality; only when it is born alive does it become a person in its own right.

Except in circumstances where a foetus is specifically protected by statute (as for example in the Abortion Act), the termination of its life or the infliction of violence to it gives rise to no common law penalties or liabilities, whether at criminal law or civil law.

The implication under English law is that, not being a 'person', a foetus cannot possess its own independent legal rights, and the issue has not to date been clarified by the European Court of Human Rights.

Seven

'I've never heard a pro-choicer using those arguments for abortions post 24 weeks,'

Sorry Seven, it looks like I've not been clear enough.

My point has been that there is no difference between aborting a 24 week old foetus and killing a 6 month old child. With me so far?

Therefore it is very unlikely you'll hear a pro-choicer making that argument. I've not said they would.

'How can a collection of cells with no thought processes 'dream' about anything?'

I can't answer that question, because I do not believe a 24 week old foetus is just a collection of cells, and of course there are thought processes. Are you really so dense to believe this only happens at the point where the doctor slaps the baby on the arse!

'something without human, individual brain function magically'

There's no arguing with you Seven, your starting point is that rain isn't wet.

However, I've been treating you with kid gloves up until now. Please tell me why you believe that an option should exist whereby a 24 week old foetus can have its skull and brain crushed?

What is Sinn Feins official policy on abortion at the moment? Could anyone send me a link to whatever policy was passed at the most recent Ard Fheis?

What is Sinn Feins official policy on abortion at the moment? Could anyone send me a link to whatever policy was passed at the most recent Ard Fheis?

Sovietpop,
Sinn Fein made no mention of abortion in their last Dail manifesto although I think the party policy is that they accept the need for abortion where a woman’s mental and physical well-being or life is at risk or in grave danger; or in cases of rape or sexual abuse.

But they aren't willing to put their heads above the parapet and stick it in their manifesto or offer suggestions as to how we get to this point.

They were totally against abortion 20 years ago. Strange that, for supposed socialists. As Comrade Stalin reportedly said to the IRA when they said they were revolutionaries: how many priests have you killed?

Surely a man and a woman can take all manner of precautions and still end up with an unwanted pregnancy. Call it a mistake or just an accident. The point is that the earlier the pregnancy is terminated, the smmler the significance of that mistake, and no "baby" suffers in any way unless you want to use "suffering" to refer to deprivation of future pleasures and pains, in which case you might as well demand that we preserve all bone marrow cells now that the technology is becoming available to create cloned foetuses to harvest cells.

I don't think the pro-choice makes any intemperate demands. Surely it makes sense that ULTIMATELY the decision to continue with a pregnancy or not should be that of the pregnant woman, not her partner, hr parents, some disiniterested party such as the church, or the state. Do we really want to we see the state force a woman to continue with a pregnancy against her wishes?

And I'd be interested to read the position of 'pro-lifers' on the status of acephalous foetuses. Does a foetus without a brain and therefore no consciousness or sense of pain still qualify as a human life?

John,

Do we really want to we see the state force a woman to continue with motherhood against her wishes?

smcgiff

"My point has been that there is no difference between aborting a 24 week old foetus and killing a 6 month old child. With me so far?"

I understand what you are saying, I'm simply disagreeing with what you are saying. A 6 month old child is a thinking, acting and reacting individual. A 24 week foetus is not. That's the difference. Can you see it?

"because I do not believe a 24 week old foetus is just a collection of cells"

Again, I understand that is your opinion. I am asking you to outline on what exactly you have based that opinion. A 24 week old foetus does not have the physical brain structures required for the individualistic thought processes that fundamentally define our humanity and personhood. So - once again - What exactly is it that you are saying magically creates 'personhood' in spite of that lack of physical and mental capability? Nice diversion about doctors slapping babies though, bears no relation to anything I posted but as long as you are having fun not answering the question, that's the important thing, right?

A 24 week old foetus is not a human being. It does not have the mental capacity or thought processes that define an individual human being because the physical brain structures required simply do not exist at that point. I have explained this more than once.

Not sure what that 'kid gloves' reference was all about, all you have actually been doing is repeatedly avoiding the question you were asked.

smcgiff--

I think sevenmagpies makes my point. The mistake or accident is minimized the earlier a pregnancy is terminated. A pregnant woman is not a mother until her body has formed a child from her flesh and blood and she has given birth. She is only potentially a mother otherwise. Do you call a woman who has a miscarriage a mother?

As a woman I find some the hard line, regulatory arguments being put in this forum disturbing. I have serious misgivings about late abortions - or any abortion. Any woman feels strongly about being pregnant - the changes and new life developing within your own body. No woman takes the decision to end a pregnancy easily - particularly when it involves the difficulties that women in Northern Ireland face. Although I have problems about abortion I find the idea of men legislating or telling me about what happens to my body unacceptable. Legislating against abortion will not prevent abortion happening - they will simply become backstreet - with the deaths and danger that entails. Provision of greater support to women who are pregnant without the preaching would be a start.
I find little difference between Sinn Fein and the DUP on this issue and therefore as woman would never vote for them or support being part of an Ireland where they had a majority representation.

Seven,

I've tried to answer your question before now with the aid of a link. Forgive me now for pasting more information.

It beggars belief that you can think of a 24 week old foetus as being only a collection of cells.

It appears to me as if you are claiming that a woman should not care much about a 24 week old foetus and could perhaps consider an abortion at this stage to cut down a dress size for the sake of the Christmas party.

That last sentence may appear facetious, but that’s how your stance comes across to me.

Week 10
Thanks to the brain's considerable development, the baby's head is very big when compared to the rest of the body.
The external part of the ear begins to form in concert with the development of the inner ear.
Abdominal muscles form stronger and the loins define their definitive position. Lungs continue their development.
The baby is now about 5 cm from tip to butt and 7.5 cm if you count the expanding legs.
Week 11
Baby is now able to swallow. The urinary system functions. The foetus swallows and urinates the amniotic fluid.
At the end of this week, all of the vital organs are formed and for the most part function normally. From now on they will grow in size and efficiency.
Week 12
Muscles respond to the brain. This is only a reflex for now because the brain is not yet sufficiently mature to control things yet.
This simultaneous development of the brain and muscles allows baby to bend arms, twist wrists and elbows and to clench and open the fists.
The face becomes animated, allowing for pinching of the eyebrows or pursing of the lips.
The placenta begins to function properly during this week. The umbilical chord begins to take the role of blood circulation.
Week 14
Fully into the beginning of the second trimester of your pregnancy.
Essentially, for the next 3 months, the baby will grow and grow. It's full system is in place and just needs to expand. The organs are mature by now.
The baby's heart beats at twice the rate of yours.
The arms continue to develop. The bending of fingers and the clenching of the fists is now possible.
Over the course of this week, a doubling in size takes place.
Week 14
You are now fully into the beginning of the second trimester of your pregnancy.
Essentially, for the next 3 months, your baby will grow and grow. It's full system is in place and just needs to expand. The organs are mature by now.
Your baby's heart beats at twice the rate of yours.
The arms continue to develop. The bending of fingers and the clenching of the fists is now possible.
Over the course of this week, a doubling in size takes place.
Week 16
Baby has acquired the reflex of suction. If a bitter solution is introduced into the amniotic fluid, all swallowing will stop, however, if a sugary solution is introduced, your baby swallows twice as fast as before!
The baby can also get the hiccups just about now.
Baby reacts to visual stimulations. It will use the hands to protect the eyes from violent external light.
The baby is moving around a lot. It has more space now and will spin around and around and around...
Week 18
Baby can now hear sounds coming from outside the womb, but of course in a muffled manner.
If a loud noise is made near the mother, the baby will raise its hands to cover its ears. It can even jump in the stomach or bury itself to hide from the noise.
He/she moves most of the time now and gives lots of punches and kicks with the hands and feet...
Chest muscles develop further to allow breathing when born.
The small cavities that will become fully working lungs begin to develop more rapidly into the final product.
Week 22
The baby's system begins to produce the white cells that will enable it to fight illnesses and infections.
He/she reacts to external stimuli like your caresses and voice.
The skin begins to thicken, but there are no fatty cells yet so it is still translucent.
The eyebrows and eyelashes begin their growth.
Week 23
Tiny lines begin to appear on the fingers and palms. These will become the future fingerprints.
The nerve cells are all in place now. Soon they will begin to join together to form a full nervous system.
The dental buds are in place now and the enamel that will create the milk teeth starts to construct itself.
Week 24
Baby's auditory functions are now completely formed. The inner ear is at it's definitive size. Sounds are heard very well now, so a little soft music will be pleasant and calming.
The nails begin to grow. The fingernails will be ready before the toenails.

http://www.brent.gov.uk/

Now, perhaps you may be so kind as to answer my question...

Why do you think it should be allowed for a woman to be able to decide to have a 24 week old foetus's skull/brain crushed? It's a simple question.

John,

'The mistake or accident is minimized the earlier a pregnancy is terminated.'

I agree 100%. I'm not against abortion. I'm against abortions that are very late. 24 weeks is far too late.

I'm aware I fall short of the 'holy joes' and 'It's only a cabbage until it's born' brigades. I find myself somewhere in the middle.

'A pregnant woman is not a mother until her body has formed a child from her flesh and blood and she has given birth.'

Birth is too arbitary. That implies an abortion should be allowed up to the 39th week and beyond.

'Do you call a woman who has a miscarriage a mother?'

I'd have every sympathy with a woman who miscarried late in her pregnancy to call herself a mother.

smcgiff--

She can call herself what she likes, but my point was that you used the term "motherhood" to replace my use of "pregnancy" as though they were interchangeable, and they're not. Abortion terminates a pregnancy, not motherhood. It doesn't follow then that abortions are acceptable up to 39 weeks.

Anyhow, that may just be semantics. Either way, I don't think we can ignore the implications of the state having control over a woman's reporductive system, as Susan points out. What if the state later decides she can only have boys or can only have one child? This is why I think the decision to terminate (OR not) should ultimately be made by the woman in question.

Susan:
Thank you for that comment, you have summed up the case succinctly. There is very little difference between SF and DUP on female issues - the difference in gender perspective being ultimately drawn from the fact that a man's involvement in baby-creation is usually perfunctory.

smcgiff,

"Why do you think it should be allowed for a woman to be able to decide to have a 24 week old foetus's skull/brain crushed? It's a simple question."

My answer, which I have repeated over and over and over was perfectly straightforward. I'll try again, shall I?

Foetal brain development does not create the physical structures required for individual human thought processes before the 24th week. Therefore the foetus is not an individual thinking acting and reacting being at that point.

So, yet again, on what do you base your theory that despite the fact a foetus has no physical capacity for thought, it still magically thinks anyway. Are you any closer to getting around to answering that?

‘Either way, I don't think we can ignore the implications of the state having control over a woman's reporductive system, as Susan points out.’

But the government of Great Britain still has control over a woman’s reproductive system. An abortion is not allowed after the 24th week. Take to the streets man!

‘This is why I think the decision to terminate (OR not) should ultimately be made by the woman in question.’

Why keep the decision to terminate before 24 weeks or even birth. Why not allow that option till the child is able to look after itself? Why should a woman have to look after a 6 month old child? This is the point I was making by substituting the word motherhood for pregnancy.

Susan,

The issue of late term abortion is too significant i.e. life or death (and even the 'it's only a cabbage' brigade have to concede that point) for personal sensitivities to hinder its debate.

‘the idea of men legislating or telling me about what happens to my body unacceptable.’

Do you find it acceptable if women tell you what is unacceptable to happen to your body?

'Are you any closer to getting around to answering that?'

I answered that in my 11:55.

Where's your evidence that no thought processes are present in a 24 week old foetus?

Why should abortion be an acceptable weight loss option?

'There is very little difference between SF and DUP on female issues'

Why should the DUP and SF have a different stance on this?

smcgiff--

I entirely agree: the British state still has control over a woman's reproductive system and shouldn't have. Whether she terminates the pregnancy early or not, the decision should be hers. I think you would rather the state make that decision, which means that it can decide either way whether or not a foetus suffers, and a woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of her wishes.

As to where we draw the line, well, I think this only reaffirms the view that the earlier a termination takes place, the better. I don't think pro-choice people omit the fact that termination at any stage leads to suffering; their position is that the decision about that suffering should be made by the woman involved and not someone else. It's a heavy responsibility, but sooner she take it than it be taken out of her hands.

'It's a heavy responsibility,'

We can certainly agree on that, and I wouldn't for a minute think it's an easy choice in the vast majority of cases.

At least we know what we disagree about. I feel state and society involvement is necessary. Otherwise we'd be back in the days of Athens and leaving our newly born babies at the side of mountains.

smcgiff:
No, the two parties, while diametrically opposed on the constitution, are as one in their ultra-conservative views on female sexuality, whether that be from a Protestant fundamentalist or traditional Catholic concervative perspective. Having 2 female MEPs isn't sufficient evidence that SF are not arch-conservatives.

Jo,

Sorry to point this out to you, but you (not necessarily yourself) get what you vote for as a society.

How come the SDLP, UUP, the Alliance Pary or the Women's Coalition are not getting 50% of the vote i.e. 100% of the female population, so as to keep the arch conservatives out of power?

smc:

Because, try as I might, I can't be everywhere and charm/cajole/hector all women to vote against the arch-conservatives and their smoke/mirrors/carrots!

Jo,

At the risk of diverting the topic, I don't understand the lack of interest/success of female politicians.

I can imagine it's hard to come through the ranks of the boy's club political parties to be selected, but even when they do, the public don't always support them in the numbers you'd expect.

And can anyone fathom why Thatcher was so loathe to give more females a chance...

However, say what you like about SF, and it may (probably is) be just political spindoctoring, but they’ve certainly promoted women to very public positions.

smc:
This is a true story.
Earlier this year I met a woman who was in her mid-30s with whom I had a very interesting chat - at a wedding. She was from a Republcian background, but very pleasant and I felt we had a lot in common...until, during the middle of a discussion on politics, I mentioned that perhaps there would be a settlement which meant our children wouldnt have to go through what we had experienced. Her response was "Wwell, Ive done my bit for the Cause, I've had five, all boys." She smiled triumphantly, in all seriousness, and my jaw fell about five feet to the floor...

'She smiled triumphantly, in all seriousness, and my jaw fell about five feet to the floor...'

Hah! Good to see there's still good Irish Catholics then! ;-)

Although, she might only have been trying to reconcile herself to the fact she never had a daughter... I'm wishful thinking, aren't I!

Shows you what an uphill struggle really means huh?

Anyway at that point my beautiful blonde daughter (6) came over to drag me away and I am sure the woman was more than a little jealous... :)

'I am sure the woman was more than a little jealous... :)'

Have I mentioned I've a blond haired, blue eyed son, aged 5! Likened to a young David Beckham (gets his looks from his mum, I hasten to add!) by cheek pinching adults. Impeccable manners, although overly fascinated with Harry Potter at the moment. 10-15 years time...You’d never know… :->

Well, my girl will of course be somewhat more articulate, if not necessarily more of a heavyweight than Victoria :)

Very much a definite plus, Jo!

smcgiff,

None of the information in your 11:55 was a response to the question of how something that lacks the physical architecture for thought can still magically think. If you contend it does then can you highlight that sentence in particular?

"Where's your evidence that no thought processes are present in a 24 week old foetus?"

The fetal brain's building of the necessary interconnections doesn't start until that point and therefore no thought process is possible. Any standard physiological development text should help you out here. It's not like it's a secret. For a more populist end of the market view sagan's 'billions and billions' has a chapter on abortion that covers the issues. Should be easy to track down on the net.

"Why should abortion be an acceptable weight loss option?"

I'd appreciate it if you could at least attempt to respond to the argument I have actually made rather than these strawmen you keep desperately trying to shoe-horn into the discussion. Thanks.

Can you give me the link to the same American website where you found the word fetal to back up your case?

I'm assuming your not a brain surgeon yourself.

Thanks

smcgiff,

Basic courtesy seems to be presenting you with a bit of a problem. Let me know when you get over that and perhaps you can take another crack at discussing the issue like a rational adult.

oooo..touchy! ;)

Seven,

You might be interested in the article from The New England Journal of Medicine. Not only are the synaptic interconnections present at 13-14 weeks, but pain can be felt.

So much for 'just bunch of cells' theory!

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/

smcgiff,

See, not difficult to be polite after all. Thanks.

As the article itself makes clear, the word "pain" carries with it emotional and perceptual connotations that do not apply in the case of the 'unborn'.

It's a basic stimulus/response that does not imply or require conscious processing anymore than a flower's turning to the light implies it gave it a lot of thought.

You presumably accept that the brain develops in the womb, and the question therefore becomes at what point do you think it develops sufficient complexity to be a thinking human individual. To me the lack of complexity and interconnections before 24 weeks precludes the notion that the fetus is a human being.

You disagree, but you have yet to clearly explain why that is the case.

smcgiff-

Yup, we almost know what we disagree about except I don't deny that society should have some role to play: I think we disagree on where we draw the line in regard to a society's control over its citizens' bodies.

I think.

Sinn Fein 100% the womans right to choose.

Yup, keep choosing to out-breed the Proddies! ;)

‘I think we disagree on where we draw the line in regard to a society's control over its citizens' bodies.’

That's pretty much it. I'm not even sure of the exact date myself, but it can't be 24 weeks.

As I've said before, I'm not likely to be welcome in either of the opposing camps on this issue. Doh! I'm the alliance party!!!

Seven,

'Recent studies using electron microscopy and immunocytochemical methods show that the development of various types of cells in the dorsal horn (along with their laminar arrangement, synaptic interconnections, and specific neurotransmitter vesicles) begins before 13 to 14 weeks of gestation and is completed by 30 weeks.'

There are interconnections, and they exist from the 13-14th week.

We can probably go around quoting articles for the rest of the day, but the fact is no one knows what kind of pain a 24 week old foetus will experience. One thing for sure, though, is that an aborted 24 week old foetus will not be able to to inform us.

I reject completely that a 24 week old foetus is just a collection of mindless cells, and suddenly at week 24 and one day becomes a sentient being.

smcgiff

"I reject completely that a 24 week old foetus is just a collection of mindless cells, and suddenly at week 24 and one day becomes a sentient being"

Good job no-one is making that argument then, isn't it? The process by which it becomes a thinking sentient individual does not begin - at best - until week 24. It doesn't instantly complete the process the day after.

The fact remains that the fetal brain before 24 weeks does not have the necessary complexity of interconnections required for being human. The article you cite even admits that they are using the words 'feels pain' as a shorthand, not as a determination that the fetus experiences pain like a human being does.

Guys...guys..one thing I KNOW about the abortion issue ...no-one but no-one considering it goes through the sort of debate, internal or otherwise, that you are having!

'The fact remains that the fetal brain before 24 weeks does not have the necessary complexity of interconnections required for being human.'

That's one hell of a sentence to stand over, Seven. But, I see you've moved away from the 'no interconnections' to 'not the necessary complexity' of interconnections. Perhaps you'll change your mind further in time to come.

'The article you cite even admits that they are using the words 'feels pain' as a shorthand, not as a determination that the fetus experiences pain like a human being does.'

The article states...

'These fibers (neurons in the thalamus produce axons that arrive in the cerebrum before mid-gestation) then "wait" just below the neocortex until migration and dendritic arborization of cortical neurons are complete and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation' Suggesting that huge amounts of developement takes place pre 24 weeks.

'First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks'

'Several lines of evidence suggest that the complete nervous system is active during prenatal development and that detrimental and developmental changes in any part would affect the entire system'

The thrust of the article (written in 1987) advocates the use of anesthetic when operating on neonates.

Do you still think a 24 week old foetus is ‘merely a collection of cells’.

smcgiff,

"I see you've moved away from the 'no interconnections' to 'not the necessary complexity' of interconnections. Perhaps you'll change your mind further in time to come."

Is this some kind of a joke? My initial comment was that the fetal brain did not possess the physical structures required for individualistic thought processes. Those necessary physical structures are the very same complex interconnections to which I later refer. They connect the physical mechanisms to the higher order brain functions, and they don't happen before 24 weeks. My position has not changed at all.

"Do you still think a 24 week old foetus is ‘merely a collection of cells."

Yes. Because it still contains none of the physical structures required for the individual thought processes that identify us as human. Until it becomes human it simply is not human, no matter how cute it may look or how it turns to face the sun.

Jo,

I would have thought the issue of whether or not you were getting rid of a human being or a collection of cells would be pretty key to the debate?

'To me the lack of complexity and interconnections before 24 weeks precludes the notion that the fetus is a human being.'

Sorry, was that a different Sevenmagpies at 2:28 today?

'Yes.'

God, Allah, Creative Force in the Universe, bless your conviction.

I missed your 3:39 post, Jo!

Take no notice of us men! :->

smcgiff,

"Sorry, was that a different Sevenmagpies at 2:28 today?"

Apologies if my phrasing was poor, but that's no reason for you to pretend that my position had somehow changed. My viewpoint remained the same and was clear from the context.

"God, Allah, Creative Force in the Universe, bless your conviction"

Oh, don't tell me your whole viewpoint is based on magic after all? Sorry, I'm not a big fan of 'imaginary friend' arguments. A collection of cells with no individual human brain function is not a human being.

So, you’re saying some of the necessary interconnections are in place at 24 weeks. So, who decides when enough of the necessary interconnections constitutes humanity. There’s no room for error. As I’ve said before… bless your conviction.

smcgiff

As I already pointed out, fetal development is an ongoing process. That process eventually leads to the establishment of neural connections that engender the higher order functions of "thought" and "being" beginning at 24 to 27 weeks. Using 24 weeks as a cut off gives sufficient benefit of the doubt and indeed errs massively on the side of caution, because in reality those human thought processes are rarely seen in the fetus even well beyond that stage. No great "conviction" is required, it is simply rational acceptance of reality. Indeed, it takes more conviction to disregard this reality in spite of the evidence.

'in spite of the evidence.'

Looking forward to the evidence.

7
I meant that a woman contemplating abortion doesnt have the luxury of endless debate on the sort of issue that men are spending time theorising and debating here.

smcgiff

I have made my position perfectly clear, I have directed you to sources of further information. The rest is really up to you. Good luck with that.

Jo,

In my view trying to remove emotive issues from the debate is a way of making that difficult decision easier.

I can't imagine they'd be thinking about anything else.

Oh, just realised what 7 meant.

Oh, you men.

A load of men sitting around with cigars and brandies and smoking jackets and luxurious debates.

Look, it's this simple: the fact that you were 50% responsible has nothing to do with anything. The baby's body has nothing to do with anything either.

Silly men. Stop talking.

'Silly men. Stop talking.'

Of course you're right. Silly me.

Yoda,

"A load of men sitting around with cigars and brandies and smoking jackets and luxurious debates."

Debate is one of the few simple luxuries people have left, don't knock it :-)

Of course you're right. Silly me.

And don't let it happen again.

'And don't let it happen again.'

Heck, I thought us men could sit around with cigars and brandies and smoking jackets and luxurirate in debates on a Northern Ireland blogsite safe from the harping of a Misandrist.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .

He said, very much tongue in cheek!

smcgiff,

Clearly, you need to hear your wife/ girlfriend/ significant other/ life partner roar as they take your phallic cigars and brandy away from you.

I am utterly perplexed that you have such a lack of respect for this-sex-which-is-not-one.

'I am utterly perplexed that you have such a lack of respect for this-sex-which-is-not-one.'

Eh?

Typical man, doesn't even recognise a reference to Luce Irigaray.

Hi-YAAA.

Humph.

oh, her,

So you could equally have said...

'this-sex-which-is-not-two.'

smcgiff, stop oppressing me with your phallocentrism.

Sorry, meant to add...

Hi-YAAA.

Humph.

Miss Piggy is a feminist icon. I do not approve of a male appropriating her voice or judo/ninja skillz.

Yoda,

Re: phallocentrism

That society (and I don't just mean men, but predominantly, yes) has allowed men to dominate women down through the ages is a huge crime. It makes the claims for 'one man one vote' in Northern Ireland look like a squabble over sweeties.

Do I, just because I have male genitalia, feel personally guilty about this? No. Should I?

This travesty of history, though I believe you’ll disagree, should not enter the debate about whether it’s right for abortions to be acceptable. It does, to my mind, explain why some may advocate abortion, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

'Miss Piggy is a feminist icon.'

How can someone that pines after a male that has no interest in her be a feminist icon?

Do I, just because I have male genitalia, feel personally guilty about this?

Don't get testes with me! Of course the male member is a tool of oppression! You've made a balls of this argument! Cocked it up! I win! Hi-YAA. Humph!

How can someone that pines after a male that has no interest in her be a feminist icon?

Because she controls her frog.

Yes, Yes, you win. Your prize is that pink balloon you can see floating around your room. Go fetch, and take LuceIrigaray’s psycho babble with you.

'Because she controls her frog.'

Feminists want to control frogs! What have they ever done to ye?

Stop oppressing amphibians, I say!

How can you see into my room...?

I'm being spied upon!

'I'm being spied upon!'

I'm attracted to feminists. I think they're cute!

By "frog," I of couse meant the nut in her violin bow. It's inanimate. I'm opressing nothing!

'I'm opressing nothing!'

Tsk! Call yourself a feminist!

Okay. Time to go home to my wife. She’d better have my dinner ready and my Thursday slippers waiting at the front door.

You're also extremly transparent smcg, I realised that several hours ago lol

Alan,

I see Dr Reeve is a trainee solicitor. She is just plain wrong. For example a foetus that has been injured in the womb has been able to successfully sue a mnaufacturer of drugs. To do so the foetus has to be a person in order to initiate proceedings There are a host of other examples.

Rethinking,

My research so far only points to cases where states (here in the US) have legislated rights to fetuses. That is different from the Common Law that rules in the absence of statutes.

Are you saying that, in the UK, the foetus has been ruled to be a person in common law in the absence of a statute? If so, could you give me a reference to the case(s)?

Alan,

I enclose extract from Halsbury' Laws of England. Strictly speaking the foetus does have rights at common law and statute. It would be fair to say though that whatever right that accrues only vests in the child at birth. It is correct to say therefore that a foetus would not be able to prevent an abortion. There is also soem uncertainty regardinmg Artice 2 of the ECHR (right to life) This again is not the common law

ii) Duty of Care: Particular Problems

606. The foetus and family relationships.

In respect of births after the passing of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 19761 there is a statutory right of action available to a child who is born alive but with disabilities which would not otherwise be present because of an occurrence before its birth which affected either parent’s ability to have a normal healthy child, or affected the mother during pregnancy, or affected her or the child in the course of its birth2. Births prior to the commencement of the Act are governed by the common law which, after a period of some uncertainty, now provides the duty to take care not to cause damage to newly born child through injuries inflicted whilst the child was en ventre sa mere

Rethinking,

To let you see where my impression of English Common Law comes from, in the Canadian case of REGINA V. JAMES ROGER DEMERS, the court says:

[para 13] What then is the status of the fetus at common law? In Tremblay v. Daigle, the father of a fetus sought an injunction to prevent the mother from terminating the pregnancy. He argued that a fetus was a "human being" entitled to the "enjoyment of life" under. 1 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12. This Court unanimously rejected that contention on the ground that neither the Quebec civil law nor the common law of England and Canada recognize the fetus as a juridical person. While injury to a
fetus due to the negligence of third parties is
actionable, the right to sue does not arise until the infant is born.

The following outlines my understanding ot US law:

Some of the homicide statutes give you examples of how homicide law protects fetuses. The common law was that fetus was not protected until it was born alive. In recent years, states have started to move away from this policy, amending the statutes to protect fetuses. Other states have made killing of fetus its own crime, making it manslaughter, say. Each of these approaches has to provide some kind of exception for legal abortions, because Roe v. Wade supercedes the state’s interest in protecting life.

BTW, the reason I brought this up in the first place was to point out that the idea of the f(o)etus as a person is relatively new, and it's nothing like 1000 years old, let alone 2000 years old.

And, for the latest word from the European Court of Human Rights (or not), see VO V. FRANCE AND FETAL RIGHTS: THE DECISION NOT TO DECIDE.

With the commonest date rape drug being alchohol, a failure to allow abortion amounts to inbreeding brutes, alcoholics, and underage mothers.

Although I don't expect to see that spelt out in any local party manifesto.

Expect though to see more scared skinny girls in search of their own Irish solution.

I dont think the issue has arisen Alan because it was not until comparatively recently that abortion was not a crime. If one looks at natural law, the teaching of the major religions and the laws of virtually all societies abortion was eschewed. It was for that reason that the status of the foetus was not an issue. It has become an issue precisely becsuse of the debate about the legality of abortion.

Rethinking,

No, I don't think that the status of the foetus in common law and the issue of abortion are related as you suggest. Also, the history of religion and abortion is much more varied than you suggest. See, for example, Abortion and Personhood: Historical and Comparative Notes.

It is particularly interesting that:

There are no passages in the Bible specifically mentioning induced abortion

and that:

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, wrote in On Exodus (ca. 415) that early abortion should not be regarded "as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed."

People, like it or not the vast majority of irish people are against abortion. AS a SF supporter and coming from an area of massive republican support i can say that the about 95 percent if not more of them are totally opposed to abortion.

If would be madness for SF to support a policy of introducing abortion in Ireland.

As a man you can say that its easy for me to be against abortion but having 4 sisters i can gauge their opinion quite easily and thier more opposed to abortion than me.

People can decry all they want about religon but as far as i learned in history Hitler, Stalin and POl Pot were all non belivers and correct me if i'm wrong but i think they were the biggest mass murderers of the previous century.

Who is for abortion? Who waves flags and claps their hands at the thought? I can't think of anyone who relishes the idea. Who is in favour of crime? Not many. But prisons are still a necessity aren't they?

Unwanted pregnancy is an unfortunate fact of life - the solution isn't great, but for many it's better than bringing a child into the world. But the notion that women use abortion as birth control is just ridiculous.

I have a young baby myself and remember at the 20 week scan hoping that nothing was wrong which would result in a necessary termination. I did not accept that my child was a person yet, but that would not have stopped me grieving if I had lost him.

I think we can confuse emotion and hopes for a baby with actual personhood. When a foetus is terminated at that stage, it is hope that dies, all the dreams one had for the baby. However, we should not let emotion cloud the issue of deciding how women make such decisions. No one likes abortion and no one wants one, so instead of pointing fingers at 'women who make mistakes' how about a little compassion?

Abortion is an emotional issue. It is true Sinn Fein have an ambigious stance on the issue- many female members disagree very openly with party policy. I do understand their stance however, considering their constituents- therefore I think their policy makes sense for the time being. It is smart politics.
There is an awful lot of ignorance surrounding the abortion issue, for example taking a pro-choice stance does not mean that one is pro-abortion, it does mean that a pro-choicer allows for others to make their own moral decisions. My beliefs are not your beliefs and why should my morality be considered more or less relevant that the next persons.
An interesting point. In a lecture a few years ago, in a module on justice, a lecturer pointed out that states have no business legislating to reduce/ban access to abortion until that same state adequately provides the means, legislatively, through which each child has unhindered and equal access to healthcare, education, and the other factors involved in living and growing in a society.In too many socities, children are going to bed hungry, sick abused etc. Until states are willing to make guarantees to all children that this will not be their fate then they have no business in taking away this choice from any woman who feels she will never be able to provie for her child.

In the case of the US, I have read that the Bush crowd are really not 'that committed' to the abortion issue, but use it as a way of getting elected. This seems to have been well proven.This too, not matter how much some of us may despise the Bush administration, is smart politics.
( or excellent analysis of this read Franks 'What's the Matter with Kansas'- an excellent book). Even with a new supreme court justice of Robert's rightwing tendencies, it is suggested that abortion will continue in many states, under state law. Also that it will take YEARS for RoevWade to be overturned, as any constitutional matter is.
As for my own stance- I am solidly pro-choice.I do not believe human life begins at conception, and that is where the argument begins. Let us take care of the 6-10 million children around the world who are starving to death- how come these moral chest thumpers can not see them?

So many poor argument. Too little time.

Alan,

Sorry hadn't a chance to read your riposte.

I understand and that there has historically been a distinction between abortion and murder. The Offences against the Person Act refers to it as a misdemeanour and it has never been viewed in the same category as homicide. I think that the distinction is probably merited.

I accept that the emphasis has differed but there is a pretty strong consensus historically that abortion was wrong.

In relation to the sciptures, I'm afraid I am not of the school which argues that if it is not in the bible it must be alright.That is a peculiar product of the sola scriptura approach in the Reformation and one of its less welcome legacies.All sorts of difficult issues are not covered in the Bible and one has to understand the end and purpose of the commandments and the moral law to reach a conclusion I think you have to look at a rather wider varity of sources... natural law, the fathers of the Church the historical teaching of the church (or tradition properly understood) as well as medical and other sciences. You appear to have a fairly eclectic approach yourself which is a reasonable start.

Even if one accepts that a foetus does not completely fulfil the definition of person then one is still dealing with something that is absolutely unique and something that cannot be treated with anything but profound respect.It does not follow that because you dont accept that the foetus is a person then you are free to discard it as a mere amalgamation of cells

Rethinking,

Thanks for the feedback. I think we've exhausted the historical background of abortion. Now, let's go forward from here and now.

My approach in discussing political issues is to ask "What is it that you want to change?" Here in the US, we have the Roe v. Wade decision that many want to change. In Ireland, there is the constitutional article. In Northern Ireland, I'm not sure what there is, but I'm guessing that normal UK law does not apply based on all the parties being, essentially, anti-abortion.

The change envisioned in the US must entail re-criminalizing abortion. This would be quite a shock after a generation of legal abortions. It raises the question, how is the crime of abortion handled where it is illegal? Is there criminal legislation in Ireland to enforce the article in the constitution? What do they do in Northern Ireland? What do other countries do to deter abortion through criminal laws?

Kitty,

I agree that the Bush administration does not really care about most of the social agenda issues they appear to support and that its all politics. Bush insiders are extremely well off and will always be able to obtain abortions for their wives/children/paramours even if they have to leave the country to do it. Sounds a lot like Ireland!

Alan,

Abortion in the North is still handled under the Offence Agfainst the Person Act. As I mentioned previously it is not regarded as homicide. The 1967 Act does not apply and we have our own guidelines for when abortion is legal(the usual exceptions. mothers life etc).In the South the matter is dealt with in the Costitution, but even here following the X case there are exceptions when the mothers physical or mental s health is threatened.

My big problem with Roe and Wade is that it approaches the issue as one of privacy and esssentially enshrines choice.Abortion therfore becomes simply a differnt form of contraceptuion and the foetus is afforded no protection whatsover If it were repealed there would still need to be laws which governed abortion.

Thanks, Rethinking, for filling me in on the legal situation over there. You are right that Roe v. Wade is based on privacy rights. It was a supreme court decision that pre-empted state laws. When it was decided in 1973, some US state permitted abortion while others criminalized it.

The political climate since then has focused on restricting access to legal abortions (mostly through economic pressures like not funding abortions or even abortion counseling for poor women, and boycotting doctors who provide abortions). As Kitty points out, most of the partisan political posturing around abortion is just for the purpose of getting votes from single-issue voters.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned by a new, more conservative supreme court, the issue will move back to the states. Advocates on both sides are already preparing for this, and you will see the checkerboard approach return with the possibility of 50 different abortion laws in the 50 states.

Alan I can understand the desire not to have a patchwork quilt of different laws. I also suspect that overturning Roe will not that be easy as it has been established law for over 30 years. As I said my difficulty is in making abortion a human right ot approaching it in the consumerist language of choice. From afar it does seem that most are uncomfortable in dealing with it from that angle. For all the inadequacies and loopholes of the 1967 Act in England it was predicated on the protection of women and trying to prevent back street abortion. It seems to me that you get into a lot of diffculties from the "choice" angle because it appears like a lifestyle option which most people instinctively recoil from

I would be interested to here your views on whether the Democrats are going to have to change the framework of their approach to the issue of abortion before they tempt back a fairly sizeable number of key voters in the "fly over" states.

This will be a quick answer, Rethinking, with more to come.

Re: whether the Democrats are going to have to change the framework of their approach to the issue of abortion

Yes.

Isn't abortion in reality a choice now both in the UK and US. Regardless of the wording of the law in the UK I doubt if there are any cases where a woman is denied an abortion where she insists on having one.

@I would be interested to here your views on whether the Democrats are going to have to change the framework of their approach to the issue of abortion before they tempt back a fairly sizeable number of key voters in the "fly over" states.'

Hillary Clinton has already changed her discourse on the abortion issue, in anticipation I suppose, of her run for the presidency. That does not necessarily mean she has changed her mind, but she has changed the discourse.
You will find this trend recently in the US Deomcratic party. It is an obvious decision by the hierarchy of the party - to change the tone of their policy so that it appeals to the red states and the more religious consitituents.
Again, if I can recommend the book 'Whats the Matter with Kansas' to anyone interested in what has happened in US politics, and why these 'moral issues' have become the deciding factor in the voting trends.
Some frightening yet amusing stuff.

Is the core of the problem not the focus (nay obsession)on choice.? When Clinton stated abortion should be "safe legal and rare" he implicitly undermined the choice concept. Hilary has continued with this theme and sooner or later the edifice on which Roe was built will crumble. You cannot have a serious moral debate within the consumerist langusage of choice.It seems to me that Democrats in making Roe a litmus test for the Supreme Court have done exactly what they accuse Republicans of..single issue politics. Why have they made pro life democrats an oxymoron...there were people like Gov Casey in Pennsylvania who once styled themselves such and yet now it has become an issue on which no card carrying Democrat can have an alternative view.Why are they then surprised when large numbers of voters feel they cannot in conscience vote Democrat despite their sympathy with many Democrat policies.Getting rid of Roe could be the best thing that has happened to the Democratic party in decades.

'there were people like Gov Casey in Pennsylvania who once styled themselves such and yet now it has become an issue on which no card carrying Democrat can have an alternative view.Why are they then surprised when large numbers of voters feel they cannot in conscience vote Democrat despite their sympathy with many Democrat policies.Getting rid of Roe could be the best thing that has happened to the Democratic party in decades.'

First, great blog Rethinking Unionism.
I think you have hit the nail on the head about the voters and why they feel they can't vote dems.
The bigger point is, that this is because of brilliant political and discursive manipulation by the republican party. The FACT of the matter is, that they are neither interested nor convinced that the overturning of Roe v Wade is going to happen anytime soon- however they have convinced red state constituents that they have it within their power to do so. In addition, even if it is overturned there will be states which will provide abortion and those that will not.
As for the Democrats, as I said you hit the nail on the head- which is exactly why they appear to be changing their discourse on these matters. Howard Dean( not sure what his title is other than Governor- perhaps Chairman of the party) has made this the priority of the party. Changing the discourse and the image of the party- from an elitist prochoice 'liberal' ( which has becoe a dirty word in US politics) party to a party in touch with the common man- a party with varying views on the issue- and that is to appeal to the swing states which have put the Republicans in the White house.
If you search for recent statements of Hillary Clinton's on abortion you will see that this new policy has in fact been put into effect.
As to overall US policies- the tide is turning- see Ohio election result of recent weeks. War is largely unpopular, economy is so- so despite the figures that Wall street pumps out, the Dow has stayed ( with ups and downs) for the past year at the 10,500 mark-confidence in the war and economy will be the big issues in the next mid-terms. I predict big republican loses, but that could be wishful thinking!!
Cheers.