Are you an open-minded, thoughtful person? When someone makes a statement or says a word, do you look at what’s said and come to a considered conclusion? Or is there a list of trigger words that sends you into reflex mode, your calm gone and your response closer to a knee that’s been tapped by a medical hammer?
Good – you’re the thoughtful kind. That means that when I say the subject of this blog is abortion, you won’t trot out your pre-cooked views. Yesterday Mr Justice Horner said that pregnant women here who are the subject of rape or whose baby is suffering from ‘fatal foetal abnormality’ should have access to abortion. My view?I’m against abortion, although (or maybe because) some elements of the debate confuse me.
Let’s cut to the chase. I don’t believe abortion is desirable in any circumstances but one where the mother’s life is at serious risk – and even then I’m not 100% sure.
The question of abortion is a bit like our central political problem. In politics, we dress up the issue, devise all sorts of schemes, set up all sorts of structures, hold conferences, write papers. But it comes down to one thing: Britain’s continued claim to jurisdiction in this part of Ireland. Likewise with abortion – we can talk about human rights and tolerance of difference and our abortion laws as compared to those found elsewhere, but in the end it comes down to one thing: is the foetus a human being? Depending on your answer to that question, just about everything else is straight-forward – or should be.
I believe that human life begins with the moment of conception. I know that many – maybe even most – intelligent and sincere people don’t agree. So let me lay out some questions that puzzle me and some statements of belief.
- If human life doesn’t begin with conception, when does it begin? At what point can we say of the foetus ‘This is not human’ and at what point ‘This is human’?
- If you believe that the foetus is not human, why do people talk about women who choose abortion as doing so reluctantly, after long and serious consideration? If what’s inside the womb is not human, just a collection of disposable cells, what’s the big deal? You don’t agonise about clearing your throat and spitting, do you? (OK, it depends on the company, but you know what I mean.)
- If a woman is the victim of rape, many people opposed to abortion in normal circumstances would say it’s permissible here. I don’t agree. For a raped woman to bring to full term a foetus conceived through rape must be a prolonged nightmare. But it seems an odd response to the crime of rape to add the crime of taking human life. It wasn’t the baby that did the raping. If the foetus is human as the result of a loving relationship, it’s still human as the result of a brutal assault.
- Why do we cite the number of women going to England every year for an abortion as grounds for us adopting similar laws? I don’t decide to mug a passer-by because I know that if I don’t , s/he’ll stray into a part of town where s/he’ll certainly be mugged.
- What are termed ‘fatal foetal abnormalities’ – that is, the baby is certain to die shortly after birth – were seen by Mr Justice Horner yesterday as definite grounds for abortion. I don’t agree. I do agree that for a woman to carry an unborn child to full term, knowing that it will die shortly after birth, must be harrowing beyond any male’s imaginings. But if this is human life, the notion of taking it because the afflicted child is going to die shortly after birth is an argument similar to the going-to-England argument: it’s going to die anyway so let me kill it now.
- Talk about the right to choose misses out, intentionally or not, on the point that our laws on all sorts of things – theft, murder, swindling – remove the notion of right to choose. We wouldn’t say that a woman has a right to choose regarding the speed limit or paying taxes. Why talk about choosing in this instance?
- Finally, the notion that men should have no say in this matter is illogical. It’s true that men can never know what it’s like to carry an unborn child, wanted or unwanted. But we don’t exclude males – or females – from passing laws about drug-trafficking because they can’t know what it’s like to be a drug mule or a drug baron. As surely as women have the right to be included in legislating matters applying to men only, men have the right to legislate on matters applying only to women.
So here we are at the end of seven different points, which in retrospect seem over-long and wind-baggy. Because as I said earlier, the entire matter of abortion comes down to one simple question: is this thing inside the woman a human being or a collection of cells? On the answer to that everything else hinges.
Thought Provoking!!! Good article
Grma, Jim.
No doubt you will carry the baby full term next time you’re raped Jude.
Maybe you should read my first paragraph again, Brian…
That argument makes as much sense as saying: So you will be asking your mum to have an abortion when she conceives you Brian.
I agree with every word of this and it’s precision.
I believe there are contradictions in the legal definition of life. A drink driver who hits a pregnant woman causing the foetus/baby to die is charged with manslaughter. A woman who kills a child after it is born is charged with murder, but if she does it before it is born it is perfectly legal. Medically/scientifically we can’t agree what constitutes death so how can we pick a week and say that is when life begins.
whats in there doesnt really matter,its in the womans life that matters,if she wants rid she wants rid its her business and hers alone not a lot of religious nuts dictating.a lot of costly court cases will help drag them in to 2015 the ruling yesterday is hopefully only the start.
I accept that you disagree, billy; but name-calling and assuming that people have a different view for religious reasons and are ‘nuts’ doesn’t really take things forward…
more costly court cases,compensation claims 100k plus for breaches of human rights after yesterdays ruling should settle this.the religious reasons you say ime assuming can be seen on the placards being shoved in peoples faces at some protests,so religion is there.as for taking things forward lets leave that to the courts to decide.
“whats in there doesnt really matter,”
You are a hoot billy 🙂
Billy your argument would allow a woman to kill 5 a week old baby, if you do truly believe only the woman’s life is important. Religion isn’t really a motivator for an anti-abortion argument, it really comes down to conscience. If you feel something is wrong then it probably is (unless you have no capacity for empathy). The only logical way to refute Jude’s argument is to prove that a foetus is not human. I don’t think you can play the ‘ religious nut’card for this one you’ll have to think harder.
“I don’t think you can play the ‘ religious nut’card for this one you’ll have to think harder.”
I don’t think billy fully engages his brain on the question in front of him, but he can be funny.
Thinking might actually detract from the enjoyment i get from reading some of his comments.
If a woman is raped she should have the right to an abortion if the baby cant survive outside the womb she should have the right to an abortion.
That in my opinion is logical and fair.
A humane response, Neill. I agree with your points and dispute the pro-life notion that a first trimester foetus is a human being. It is a human potential only, sharing more traits with our evolutionary ancestors than with human beings. That tail, for example.
As regards possible risk to the mother’s life, any unwanted pregnancy can endanger a woman’s life because the distress she undergoes may increase her suicide risk, particularly where there has been rape or incest.
“dispute the pro-life notion that a first trimester foetus is a human being”
What do you think it is then Mary?
Every embryo has the same features, but dns dictates what it will become and a human embryo will only ever grow into a human child so you are factually wrong.
a first trimester human foetus is 100% a human being
Exactly. Mary Jo are you suggesting a foetus goes through the process of evolution before it is born? That tail you talk about is a feature of the human anatomy, it’s called a coxic bone or tail bone. A 1 year old Is not fully physically developed, does that mean he/she is less human than an adult? So what happens at midnight at the end of the first trimester that suddenly makes a foetus s human?
“If a woman is raped she should have the right to an abortion if the baby cant survive outside the womb she should have the right to an abortion.
That in my opinion is logical and fair.”
If a woman is raped she can take a pill and avoid pregnancy prior to conception, i.e. morning after pill.
Post conception, there is another life to consider. Abortion is not very fair to the child who loses the opportunity of life before being even born.
Well, I suppose it had to happen but I, finally ( and firstly) find myself in total agreement with Neill.
I am uncomfortable when individuals opposed to abortion begin to shout over individuals who are ‘pro choice’. I am uncomfortable when individuals without legal training criticise legal decisions. Judges do not always get it right, some of us will remember Lord Denning’s reflection about “an appalling vista.” Fortunately, legal rulings may be challenged.
In the context of Human Rights, with specific reference to the right to life, unborn babies need the full protection of the law. Women and children need support, not censure in the context of incest, rape or evidence of a fatal foetal abnormality. Clinicians need the protection of the law in relation to medical and nursing practice. It is evident that our elected representatives are not competent to legislate on this matter given the failure to deal with these issues to date. As politicians dither, some women feel they have no alternative other than to seek terminations in England as organised prostitution thrives throughout Ireland. (RTÉ 30 November 2015)
There is an urgent need to provide adequate assessment and counselling services which will enable individuals to make informed decisions that will impact on their short, medium and long term physical and mental health. The long term effect of an abortion demands much more research.
“i am uncomfortable when individuals opposed to abortion begin to shout over individuals who are ‘pro choice’”
voicing an opinion is not shouting. I am uncomfortable when pro-abortionists ‘shout’ over the unborn babies who really don’t have a voice in all of this. Someone needs to speak on their behalf as a matter of social justice.
“i am uncomfortable when individuals without legal training criticise legal decisions.”
Then I take it you fully supported the outcome of the original bloody Sunday tribunal? I think in a democracy it is up to individuals to be informed and make their views heard. Sure the law will naturally align to social norms but we shouldn’t ever say leave that to people who are trained in that sort of thing
Please read my comments about Lord Denning and the point I make about appeals. The Widgery Report and the Saville Report are are mere indicators of work in progress.
I was really only making reference to your annoyance at people criticising legal decisions without a qualification.
Thank you, we may or may not like what a judge says or writes, however, rulings are based on careful consideration of evidence or the lack of, which may be tested in a subsequent appeal. Judges tend to take time, reflect, examine precedents and reserve his/her judgement if the need arises. I prefer to hear individuals comment on a judgement after the full judgement has been read with a view to an appeal.
If a foetus, or in Irish, “leanbh” or English “child” were a mere verouca or ingrowing toenail
abortion would be ethical. But it ain’t.
I also agree with every word, Jude. Very well said – I shall maybe refer to your article when I’m telling SF reps at my door, why I won’t ever be putting an ‘X’ or ‘1’ beside them in the polling booth again.
Well,neill, lets look at your contribution. Firstly, the percentage of women who conceive after rape is very very small. Secondly, we have the yesses, the noes and the maybes of sex – not to mention the drunken or drugged rapes. If a baby goes the full term and has a straightforward birth, how long do you think it will last without human intervention? Would it be one, two or three years before it could fend for itself. Is it ok to squidge it up until that time? How many of the millions who leave the colony each week to go to that progressive island beside us to have their insides hoovered out actually go for social reasons? I am doing bridesmaid/ I am applying for a new job/ I have a new boyfriend/ I’d rather have a car? jude seems to have an insuperable argument.
Statistics are not helpful if you are one of the individuals in the 5% of pregnancies that are stated to be the result of a sexual assault. There is no reliable evidence that millions are leaving the colony each week for abortions. Some evidence suggest that of all the abortions carried out in Britain, Irish women and children account for 15%. Perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to establish the actual number of pregnancies following sexual assaults as at present there is a dearth of reliable evidence.
Judes argument makes perfect sense if you share his opinion I for one don’t that’s why I .disagree with it
Ah but why?
Just an innocent question from an ignorant male:
If a woman is raped and goes to the hospital, can the rapist’s semen be flushed out of her system, possibly before conception?
Would that be considered an abortion or would it be easier for the female victim rather than being in the situation of having to wait for an abortion?
That’s an morning after pill however it always isn’t practical or accessible to take a morning after pill
Hi Jude,
Great blog, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head when it come to the nub of the issue concerning abortion and I think it’s important to stress; the questions you pose are ethical, philosophical and scientific questions, not religious as some of your other commentators seem to suggest. So I think it’s only fair if we address these questions within the same fields.
In my humble opinion, the best and most convincing answer I’ve ever head to this issue comes from an American academic called William Lane Craig. I believe Craig answers your question head on, and with a clarity and logic that is refreshing. I would do an injustice to summarise his response, so I’m going to quote him instead. Craig in response to a question on abortion responds:
“It seems to me that amidst all the arguments pro and con about the abortion issue, there are two central questions which are determinative:
(1) Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value?
(2) Is the developing fetus a human being?
Think about that first question: Do human beings have intrinsic moral value? Something has intrinsic value if it is an end in itself, rather than a means to some end. Things which are valuable merely as means to some end have only extrinsic value. For example, money has no intrinsic value, in and of itself. Rather it has extrinsic value insofar as it’s a useful means of commerce for human beings and so is valuable to us for the ends it helps us achieve. But in and of itself it’s intrinsically worthless. It’s just paper.
Now the question is, are human beings like that? Or are they intrinsically valuable? I’m certain that most people, once they think about it, recognize that human beings are intrinsically valuable. People aren’t just valuable as means to some end; rather people are ends in themselves. That’s why, as Augustine said, we should love people and use things, not vice versa. Those who use people and love things are doing something profoundly immoral because they are not recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of other persons, who are not mere things to be used.
The international community recognizes the intrinsic moral value of human beings in its declaration on human rights. The notion that people have inherent rights just in virtue of the fact that they are human beings, regardless of their race, class, religion, caste, or station in life, is based in the inherent moral value of human beings. This truth is recognized as well in our Declaration of Independence, where it affirms that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, such as the right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. Most of us, when we reflect upon it, would come to a similar conclusion: Yes, human beings do possess intrinsic moral value.
Now what that implies is that if the developing fetus is a human being, then he or she is endowed with intrinsic moral worth and therefore possesses inherent human rights, including the right to life. Abortion would be a form of homicide, and against such attacks the innocent and defenseless fetus would have every right to the protection of the law.
So we come to the second question we must address: Is the developing fetus a human being? Here it seems to me that it is virtually undeniable scientifically and medically that the fetus is at every stage of its development a human being. After all, the fetus is not canine, or feline, or bovine; it is a human fetus. From the moment of conception on, there exists a living organism which is a genetically complete human being and which, if left to develop naturally, will grow into an adult member of its species.
Contrast the complete human embryo with a sperm or an unfertilized egg. Neither the sperm nor the egg alone constitutes a human being: each is genetically incomplete, having only 1/2 the chromosomes necessary to make a complete human being. If left alone, they don’t develop into anything: the sperm dies in a couple of days, and the unfertilized egg is expelled in a woman’s monthly cycle. But if they unite, they combine into a single living cell to form a unique individual which has never before existed.
Already in that moment of conception, that individual is either male or female, depending on whether he or she received an X or a Y chromosome from the sperm. The later development of sexual organs and other secondary sexual characteristics is only evidence of a difference in sexuality which has been there from the very beginning. Moreover, all of the individual’s traits like body type, eye and hair color, facial characteristics, and so forth are all determined at the moment of conception and are just waiting to unfold. From the moment of conception we have a genetically complete and unique human being; in effect, you began at the moment of your conception.
Moreover, the development of this individual is a smooth and unbroken continuum throughout. There is no non-arbitrary breaking point before which you can say the fetus is not human, but after which he or she is. The traditional division of pregnancy into three trimesters has no scientific or medical basis: it is a purely arbitrary reckoning device for the sake of convenience. It’s probably due to the fact that pregnancy lasts nine months. If human beings had a gestation time of 8 months, nobody would talk about trimesters. We’d probably divide it into quarters. The fact is that any attempt to draw a line and say “not human before this point, but human afterwards” is wholly arbitrary and without biological foundation.
Thus, as I say, it seems to me virtually undeniable that the fetus — which is just Latin for “little one” —is a human being in the early stages of his development. Whether one is a “little one,” a newborn, an adolescent, or an adult, he is at every point a human being at a different stage of his development. Those who deny the little one in the womb is a human being typically confuse being human with being at some later stage of development. For example, some abortion rights advocates say that because an embryo is not a baby, it’s not a human being, and therefore abortion is morally acceptable.
This argument seems to me completely fallacious. On this reasoning, we could with equal justice say that because a child is not an adult, he is not a human being; or because a baby is not a child, he is not a human being. Of course, an embryo is not a baby, but that doesn’t mean that an embryo is not a human being. All of these are the various stages in a human being’s development, and it is arbitrary to cut off one stage and say that because it is not a later stage, it is not a human being.
Moreover, it is simply false that most abortions are performed on embryos. By the time most women realize that they are pregnant (about two months after conceiving), the embryo has already become a fetus, a “little one”. We’re not dealing at this point with a cluster of cells, but with—the word is unavoidable—a baby, a very tiny baby with a face and features, with little arms and legs, with tiny feet and hands. All the organs of the body are already present, and the muscle and circulatory systems are complete. Even brain wave activity is present. By the twelfth week, his fingers and toes are fully developed, complete with delicate fingerprints and with little fingernails and toenails forming. The baby is already quite mobile, kicking and moving about, clenching and opening his little fists and curling his toes. Behind his closed eyelids his eyes are almost fully developed. Incredibly, already at this point, the baby’s facial features begin to resemble those of his parents!…No one who has seen photographs of infants in the womb between 8-12 weeks old can honestly deny that here we have a human baby”
“The fact is that from conception to old age we have the various stages of development in the life of a human being. It seems to me therefore that the medical and scientific facts make it virtually undeniable that the developing fetus is a human being.
If we thus answer “Yes” to both of the questions we’ve set ourselves, it follows that abortion on demand is a moral outrage, the destruction of an innocent and defenseless human life. Now you’ll notice that I’ve not appealed at any point to the Bible in all this. That’s because, contrary to popular impression, abortion is not, as such, a religious question. The first question we asked is philosophical: do human beings posses intrinsic moral value? The second question is scientific and medical: is the developing fetus a human being? Neither of these is a religious question.
Given our answers to the two questions above, it follows that abortion on demand is the transcendent moral issue of our time.”
I too would also answer Yes to the two questions posed, but I’d love to hear from anyone who would answer No and their reasons for the same.
Grma, Baldy – and your extensive quotation from Craig is well-argued.
looks like the legal findings may make it on demand,
I wish people would stop putting their noise in the affairs off other people
Where you never a foetus? Surely since the argument is about foetuss then anyone who once was a foetus is entitled to a opinion on the matter. Imagine a child abuser told people to mind their own business when questioned why they were harming a child.
I agree that life begins at conception but I don’t agree with #5 mothers being forced to deliver full term in cases of ‘fatal foetal abnormality’.
If a person is badly injured ending up on a life support system and the doctors diagnose clinical brain death and that they could not survive without life support. How long would you choose to keep the body going through the motions on life support?
In that case, there is only 1 life to consider and it is the well being of the mother and therefore her choice as to when it gets turned off.
If you believe in God has the right to take life and gave it then if he thinks it is wrong to abort he should intervene
Do you think we should allow genocide and wait to see if God intervenes. Are you serious?
Yes..Jude. I’m back. I think we ploughed this particular field a year or two ago. You know , of course that I share many of your viewpoints and respect many of the opinions you opine. You make an excellent argument on this one but i’m inclined not to agree.
To me it is ultimately a woman’s choice as to what she should be allowed to do with her own body and then either bear stoically her choice or live with a “moral regret” afterwards. You might say an abortion is a “stolen” life for instance , but much of that idea is based on our own beliefs that life itself is somehow a sacred thing. I differ on this one . To me life can be a pleasure …of course it can also be an awful pain. It is what it is and we live it and die and that’s the end of it .We are all re-constituted in the plants , trees, grasses and creatures that our deathly carbon recreates. There’s not a damn thing wrong with that scenario and lives go on and on into the future just as they’ve gone on and on in the past.
If we decide that on a personal level the unborn cluster of cells inside a woman is a potential human being we are right but if it is a potential “sacred” human being ,we are indulging in a dream of wishful -thinking of what might sometime be ,in an unformed future time.If we decide that the potential being should have no life ,then it won’t ….and will never exist as that particular cluster of cells or that particular human animal with all the cellular influences and temporal DNA that it might carry.Of course many talk about a “soul” when they might mean a mind or a consciousness. A consciousness can never exist without the entire human body with all its functioning senses. The “soul” part of things is another human construct when all is said and done .
There is also much talk about the sanctity of life but I’m also on the side of those who choose a “Dignitas” ending if that is available when their quality of this life dissipates. That’s the kind of ending I’d want for myself if my brain becomes a jumble of misfires and I have lost control of the basic functions. Human beings have some very odd ideas about the sacredness of life but they have no problem ramping up to bomb the hell out of Syria or whatever flavour of the month it is this time. They had a great old time blasting the hell out of Iraq .that made great television …… nor have they a problem with slaughtering unknown beasties for food when they could quite easily dine on glorious and equally tasty vegetarian fare and leave the sacred turkeys, cows , lambs, pigs, goats and all the rest, alone. I have no such qualms , seeing myself as the predatory beastie that I really am and I will consume my festive dinner without a second thought and never worry whether that old turkey might have a “soul” or not..
So what to do? For those who have very strong” moral” ideas based on whatever religious or social texts they have been influenced by , let them live by their assorted consciences, by all means and let them , if they desire, keep their babies whether inspired by unwanted rapes or possibly malformed at a cellular level , but give them and everyone else the choice . Obviously , if there are to be clinics for the purpose of abortion or the making of those choices, they should be staffed by people who have an unfettered conscience.I’m all for giving the individual the choices …should that be that they join armies when they know they’ll be expected to kill people as part of their job or should they want to rear, farm and slaughter other creatures to eat at their tables, well they are only doing what apes have always done throughout time since we sprang from the trees and roamed the plains of early Africa.
When all is said and done , we are the top predator, at the apex of the food chain and we got to that point by being the very best at making those killing choices.Men and women can be ruthless when it comes right down to their own ideas of themselves and the preservation of their own personal egos.
We all start on our life’s journey at conception, Paddykool, and all rights are predicated on the right to life-the most fundamental of them all. Without respect for that principle, whether it is in relation to the maturing life in the womb or very ill people in their senior years, talk or written articles about “rights” amount to only meaningless and pointless verbiage/spilled ink on paper. No amount of discussion about the fetus being a “clump of cells” or a woman’s right to choose as if she is pushing a trolley down a supermarket aisle can disguise those basic and inescapable facts. Jude and Baldybap have beautifully encapsulated the arguments which pro-life people logically make.
leaving aside for the moment, pregnancy due to rape & fatal foetal abnormality & perhaps other crisis situations, is it possible that abortion is used as a form of birth control. The availability of birth control should have made the necessity of abortion almost obsolete. I understand the morning after pill can be used up to 4 days after sexual contact (I could be wrong on this), & that it is easy accessible. When I lived in Japan in the early 80’s, abortion was widely used as a form of birth control & I suspect in other countries as well. Abortion should be a last resort for medical & emotional reasons. I remember a famous Irish singer boasting on TV, that she had had four abortions. I think travelling to UK for an abortion is as always an Irish solution to an Irish problem.
Sorry.Jude.a.am.against.abortion.it.is.against.my.faith .
you’re.entitled.to.have.your.view.J.i.m….
Jude
If we say the foetus is a human being from conception it is far from being straightforward as you suggest. Where do we go from there?
What will we do with all the women desiring abortions? Some may accept their lot an go ahead with the pregnancy, but many others will still seek a termination,perhaps illegally.
Would you prefer to see women bring an unwanted or even stillborn child into the world rather than take a morning after pill say?
No-one could possibly claim a foetus at those early stages is sentient or in any way aware.
Finally if we agree that abortions are, one way or the other, undesirable,would you be in favour of better access to contraception to prevent things reaching that point?
Are you suggesting that the embryo must be sentient to be human, gio? If I knock you out, do you cease to be human? I’m not focusing on or offering a script for what would happen if there were no abortions. I’m simply asking questions and making statements about abortion itself. I don’t think it clarifies things to decide on their morality by the reference to what comes after or before.
Jude
What is your definition of a human being, just so we know what we are arguing about?
“What is your definition of a human being, just so we know what we are arguing about?”
I didn’t think anyone was arguing but, pray tell what your definition of a human being is gio, as I am starting to think you are not the full shilling.
Ha. I asked first!
“Ha. I asked first!”
It was the fact you had to ask that I was concerned about, not the timing gio
Well it is at the heart of Jude’s question…”is the foetus a human being?”, so it does no harm to be clear on what we mean.
I take it then you are happy with the dictionary definition:
‘a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child’?
Or are we talking about something more like personhood,where there are different definitions, relating to individuality feeling, consciousness and so forth?
“I take it then you are happy with the dictionary definition:”
I wouldn’t dispute the dictionary definition gio, it sounds sane enough to me.
As I said, my difference with Jude would be around #5, where a human being on life support only is not alive and in such terrible cases where a child is known to be clinically dead, it would be inhuman to force a woman to carry full term when there is an alternative option if doing so is going to cause further distress to the mother.
Common sense must be applied and religious opinions should not come into the decision
“If we say the foetus is a human being from conception it is far from being straightforward as you suggest.”
No it is straight forward gio, a human foetus is a human child.
As for #5, my thoughts are that a human unable to live without life support is a dead human and therefore it would not be an abortion but a removal of an already dead human in which case emotional assistance should be the focus.
“What will we do with all the women desiring abortions?”
Same thing we do with all the women desiring to kill their husbands, nothing.
Hi Gio,
I hope you don’t mind me cutting in on your comment – I’ve some thoughts on your comment to Jude.
“If we say the foetus is a human being from conception it is far from being straightforward as you suggest. Where do we go from there?”
If this is the consensus then it is straight forward – we legislate against abortion in all cases. It’s a human being after all, and the intentional killing of a human being has consequences.
“What will we do with all the women desiring abortions?”
Like Jessica said, you can’t do anything to these women for only desiring an abortion.
“Would you prefer to see women bring an unwanted or even stillborn child into the world rather than take a morning after pill say?”
Yes. For the same reasons that I laid out in my post above. 1.Because I believe that human beings possess intrinsic moral value and (2) the developing fetus is a human being.
“No-one could possibly claim a foetus at those early stages is sentient or in any way aware.”
Are you advocating this as a reason for abortion? I don’t know if you remember but I posted a blog on this topic back in January http://www.judecollins.com/2015/01/fancy-bit-birth-abortion-kieran-maxwell/ The blog highlighted a paper that was posted in the Journal for Medical Ethics http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full by two philosophers who argue that “Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
So if you are advocating this as a reason for abortion, I presume by your logic you’d support the call that “‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is”?
“Finally if we agree that abortions are, one way or the other, undesirable,would you be in favour of better access to contraception to prevent things reaching that point?”
Studies show that greater access to contraception does not reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. See this factsheet published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/contraception/fact-sheets/greater-access-to-contraception-does-not-reduce-abortions.cfm
Hi Baldy
You can of course butt in. You generally offer challenging and civil debate.
If you say nothing can be done regarding women desiring to end their pregnancy, that is fair enough. If you have legislated against abortion what then would be the penalty for a distressed young woman who has just procured an abortion after being raped for example?
Prison sentence? It would surely have to be if the crime is equivalent to manslaughter.
The study you cite is interesting. I found an equally interesting article on it in Slate.
It points out that when looking a little closer at the data it is clear that the participants were using the most unreliable forms of contraception. Using contraception wrongly would naturally increase risk of pregnancy.
Proper use of effective contraception will by definition reduce pregnancies in the users.That ought to be self evident really.
It needs education in the use and access to the most effective methods.
Do you object to the use of contraception per se on religious grounds or is it that you do not think it effective enough?
“If you have legislated against abortion what then would be the penalty for a distressed young woman who has just procured an abortion after being raped for example?
Prison sentence? It would surely have to be if the crime is equivalent to manslaughter.”
If I was to reframe the question slightly, it might help answer this one. So in a situation where the consensus is agreed that the foetus is a human being and a situation occurs where a woman is raped and subsequently conceives a child; the woman decides to carry the child and gives birth. However, shortly after birth she kills the child, what would you advise we do in this situation? Are both not equivalent?
I think these particular legal issues are mostly a matter of prudential judgement. How do we deal with mothers who kill their children now? Each case is different and is judged on the merits of the situation. Not every conviction gets the same sentence now.
“The study you cite is interesting. I found an equally interesting article on it in Slate.
It points out that when looking a little closer at the data it is clear that the participants were using the most unreliable forms of contraception. Using contraception wrongly would naturally increase risk of pregnancy.
Proper use of effective contraception will by definition reduce pregnancies in the users.That ought to be self evident really”
First off, the pedant in me must point out that you asked Jude if he was in favour of “…better access to contraception to prevent (abortion)” The link I provided showed that this is not the case.
Now your question above must be seen as a separate issue in that you are changing the focus from “better access” to more reliable forms and proper use to reduce abortions.
It might surprise you that the more effective methods, which you don’t stipulate but I’ll assume you mean an intrauterine device / System (IUD/ IUS) given that they are a more “permanent” method, have what is known as an abortifacient function i.e. mechanism of preventing implantation, should fertilization occur, such as thinning the uterine wall. According to Dr. Joseph Stanford, it is estimated that a woman using one of these devices would have between 0.2 and 1.8 abortions per year.
J. Stanford, MD, MSPH, “Mechanism of Action of IUD devices: Update and estimation of post-fertilization effects,” Am J Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dec. 2002; 187(6); as found in “Intrauterine Devices (IUD/IUS)” by Lili Cote de Bejarano, MD, MPH.
So far from preventing them, IUD’s/IUS;s and the pill actually add to the abortion tally.
Now I think I’ve been pretty fair in answering pretty most all your questions. How about your answer a couple of mine?
Q1. In my last post I asked you the following in response to your “sentient” comment:
“Are you advocating this as a reason for abortion? I don’t know if you remember but I posted a blog on this topic back in January http://www.judecollins.com/2015/01/fancy-bit-birth-abortion-kieran-maxwell/ The blog highlighted a paper that was posted in the Journal for Medical Ethics http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full by two philosophers who argue that “Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
“So if you are advocating this as a reason for abortion, I presume by your logic you’d support the call that “‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is”?
Can you answer this please?
Q2 Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value and if not why not?
Q3 Is the developing fetus a human being, and if not why not?
Cheers.
There is scientific evidence that a foetus is aware. Being aware isn’t a good measure of life if it was everyone in a coma could be considered dead. I am scared by how extreme society is becoming. Once abortion is legalised the cut off date for abortions will gradually rise to a point that most people will consider it to be murder. Only by that time everyone will be desensitised and just see late term abortions as an everyday lifestyle choices.
Something very Swiss about your blog today, Esteemed Blogmeister: like a seven-device Swiss Army knife or a seven-point bar of Toblerone, it was deeply satisfying.
Togha ! Bravo !
Every Swiss hero from the Tell Boy to Del Boy came to mind.
With the first named the comparison is embarrassingly obvious: the only difference being you went six better by splitting seven apples with bolts from your unerring crossbow.
The reason why William T. (not to be in ANY way confused with Cosgrave) was compelled to do what he did was because when Gessler the Hapsburg overlord raised a pole under the village lindentree, he hung his hat on top of it and demanded that all the villagers bow before it.
The Tells, snr and jnr, walked past it, without bowing, and the rest in legend.
There was a farcical re-enactment of this storied tale by Mob Productions Inc at the Abbey Theatre recently which ended with a post-modern anti-ending: truth to tell, in this case the dude playing the part of W.T. not only bowed his head but his knee as well.
To bow or to crossbow: that is the question down here in the Free Southern Stateen, at this moment in t., going forward.
For it would take muchos magairli / cojones on the part of a mere male not to bow in the presence of the omnipresent pole with the hat on it, erected by the Hapsburg overladies. This is the knitted tea cosy hat which is the de rigeur headgear of the dungareed Dworkin Class. It is (yawn) they who, of course, are currently in the Bheanguard / Vangaurd of the current abortion debate, oops, conversation.
Which brings to mind the second Swiss hero (see above): that would be the late, great and straight Del Boy Shannon who in 1962 yodelled the marvelous song of the equally late, great and straight Roger Miller to such musical effect that if effortlessly echoed around the world.
One time a long time ago
On a mountain in Switzerland, yo lo ho
There lived fair young maiden
Lovely but lonely, oh, oh, oh, oh.
While Del took off his hat to the likes of Larry it is doubtful (extremely) if he would doff his hat to the Harridans who over-populate Mob Productions Inc (see above), none of whom would be in any danger of being cast in the role of the lovely Swiss Maid. Honorary membership of Mob Productions Inc is also extended to those jolly good fellows who pride themselves on being on the milksop end of the male spectrum, i.e., Ms Panti Bliss, contemporary heroine.
And who – quel surprise (1) ! – this week was awarded (?) an honorary doctorate by TCD for staging his own one-woman show in the much put-upon Abbey T. But – quel surprise (2) ! – opted to dress in a buttondown three piece suit of a male persuasion at the solemn ceremony. It took muchos cojones to fit into those glad rags.
It was noticeable that the Chairperson of the more recent Abbey Theatre take over was (gasp) a TCD professor and who happens to be the front runner in the abortion, erm, conversation.. Though this may be strictly coincidental. Coincidences being the life blood of the theatrical genre known as the Farce.
As one sees it, the Stridentia (as the Harridans of Mob Productions Ltd are also known ) have a problem with the Inconveniences of being Female. Which is not to say that men do not have a problem with the Inconveniences of being Male. The essential difference here is that the overwhelming m. of men tend to get on with it, finding it more difficult to indulge in the b-word: bitching.
One uses the Inconvenience word advisedly – a darling word, Joxer, advisedly. For It was there where Conveniences are located, cheek by jowl, that one first noticed the greater problem the female of the species seem to have with their own Conveniences. The ones with doors marked Mna/ Eves.
In a life time of Pointing Percy at the Porcelain one has never, EVER, witnessed Adam invading the convenience of Eve; sadly, the reverse is all too true. Specifically, the non-ladylike type of Eve. If they are so discontented with their own Conveniences, it is but a ladies’ tee away from understanding how much more discontented they might be with the Inconveniences of their own gender.
Mention of Inconveniences, the witheringly witty singer-songwriter Roger Miller (see above) was one of those who had to endure one of the great Inconveniences of being Male: he was drafted into the army; in his case, that of Uncle Sam. He didn’t bitch, whine or make a martyr of himself. He manned up, survived and came up with this gem:
– ‘My education was : Clash of Korea, 52’.
Nor did he take it out on the Eves whom he recognized had their own particular Inconveniences to deal with. Rather did he compliment and celebrate the female of the species with such enchanting songs as The Swiss Maid which ended on this up-tending note :
Some say the maiden’s dream never did come true
She never did get to go to the valley
If she did or not, I really don’t know,
Did she die unhappy?
I’d rather think she did find love
Wouldn’t you rather think
Somehow, some how
Yo lo lady yo, yo ho !
One also would rather suspect that the lovely Swiss Maid would not find a particularly warmhearted welcome into the ranks of the tea-cosy hatted, cow-belled shrillies of the Stridentia.
The inescapable logic of whose position can only find a final verse which describes them cursing their Mammies for not taking the then equivalent of Repealing the Eight Amendment.
Superb as ever, Perkin! I can’t believe how the sound-tracks of our lives run like two rail tracks into the vanishing point…Yo de lay ee o….
Jude, the notion of commencement of life, around 100 years past, was recognised as occouring at a ‘quickening’ or, where the mother could feel movement, now of course we have ultrasound, so permitting us to diagnose the ‘ period of confinement’ much closer to actual conception.
Mr. Justice Horner was asked by the HRA to determine the question in respect of fatal feotal abnormality, this now is seen as children who have little chance of survival after birth, the problem is, and was raised, though not pursued by BBC yesterday , what of the slipery slope, what if, in five, fifteen or fifty years your unborn may develop diabetes , or be born with downs or develop cancer? The possibility is terminations may, in time, be permitted then , it’s known then as eugenics, what people condemned the Germans for.
On men, or, more likely, father’s, we all want to love and support our wives but, what of the aforementioned, slippery slope? What where a father disagreed and wants to give his child a chance?
In rape, it is difficult but, when I read medical laws, this was less than one per cent of cases where women asked for abortion, however, it might become an excuse so we do need be careful in promoting it as an idea.
Myself I am very pro choice, if you choose to engage in intercourse you have a further choice, do I use contraception, if you go ahead without, live with your consequence.
Just one small point re the unborn being “potential human beings” has anyone who has ever experienced a miscarriage felt anything other than they have lost a child?
I don’t think so!
Untypically Jude , yoursuggestion that I read the first paragraph again (Presumably implying that my contribution s a knee-jerl reaction?) is just a tad patronising.
Well I didn’t mean to be patronising, Brian – I meant it literally. It seemed to me you came very quickly after my piece was made available and you made an absurd inquiry as to whether, if I were raped, I would carry my infant to full term. I don’t think that is particularly polite and I don’t think it suggests mature reflection.
I did not intend to be impolite Jude; if it came across that way I apologise. Neither did I “jump in”. it is an issue I thought about most o my life and indeed changed my mind on. The point I was making is that no man can ever experience or indeed appreciate, what a woman who is raped and left pregnant – possibly by a relative – goes through. Of course some women chose to go through with the pregnancy, and they are wonderful people. But to force a rape victim against her will to carry an embryo in her violated body until it becomes a viable human being, to me that constitues a double rape.
Thank you, Brian – no offence taken. I don’t know if forcing a rape victim to full term constitutes another rape but it certainly would be a hugely painful time. But again, the question comes down to what is in there. Is it a collection of cells or a human being. If the latter, I think it’s our duty to protect that helpless being, while supporting the woman in every conceivable way.
I think that the governments of the world want to introduce abortion so that the population can be controlled.
GRMMA, a Mhaistir Ionuin Blog.
Funny all the same how the class Miller with his 2.07 minutes of a magical song could conquer the world in a way so effortless that mass Killers from Atilla the Hun to Atilla the Hen (aka La Thatcher) could only dream of and scream at.
Grma Jude – I admire your courage and honesty, particularly on this issue. You are bang on about the central issue – one that has to be addressed fully from the human rights as well as all other perspectives. While I am myself ‘against’ abortion (late stage or ‘on demand’) from both a human rights and a moral/religious perspective, I have to confess I am unsure about the issues when rape is involved, particularly in the case of an underage girl for example. The ‘slippery slope’ argument is no excuse for bad legislation, as has recently been tragically and horrifically demonstrated. The mothers life must be paramount. We need a balanced, thorough, respectful and compassionate debate around the issues.
Fair play to you Jude for standing up for your principles on this issue.It must be one of the few policy differences you have with Sinn Fein.
I can see that for you, Argenta, this is a political matter rather than a moral one. Fair play to you for originality…
Actually Jude,my views would be nearer yours.If anyone has made this issue political,it is Sinn Fein!
I really don’t mind who agrees with me or disagrees on a moral issue, Argenta. I don’t think anyone commenting on the blog other than yourself saw it as political…
Of course,I forgot Sinn Fein is above criticism!!
“Of course,I forgot Sinn Fein is above criticism!!”
Really, all I ever hear is criticism of sinn fein.
Parties in the south, parties in the north, media, journalists.
I wonder will it stop when they are in government in the south?
I take it you would rather see fine gael come out on top in next years election argenta?