o
I met a woman I know the other day. “I’ve stopped following you” she told me. I was alarmed – was she stalking me? Hoping I knew the way somewhere? Suddenly aware that my sense of direction is non-existent?
I’ll come back to that.
Last week, one of my daughters-in-law gave birth to a daughter. Next month, all being well, another daughter-in-law will give birth. Both events were and are looked forward to enormously by all the family – most of all, I’m sure, by the mothers-to-be.
Factoid: In Britain, you can have a legal abortion up to 24 weeks.
The image above is of a foetus/baby at 20 weeks. I feel safe in saying that had someone asked either woman at, say, 20 weeks if they’d considered having their 20-week-old foetus/baby aborted, both women (and their husbands) would have been horrified. So, for that matter, would I.
But back to the woman who said she wasn’t following me. It turned out she wasn’t following me on Facebook anymore. “Not since you put up that abortion picture on Facebook – that was totally uncalled-for!” I suggested that was her opinion. “Of course it’s my opinion” she said. “You can hear the words coming out of my mouth, can’t you?”
One way and another not the most cordial of encounters. But an instructive one nonetheless.
Why would someone see the picture of an aborted foetus/baby as ‘uncalled-for”? Probably because it is so horrifying. And why does the aborted foetus/baby horrify those who see it? Probably because they see the mangled pieces as a baby dismembered.
Which is odd. Because the people who object to such images, I’ve noticed, are very often the people who say that abortion up to 24 weeks should be available throughout Ireland. The people who don’t object to such images – who in fact present them – tend to be those who say that abortion up to 24 weeks should not be available throughout Ireland.
So here’s the thing. If abortion of a 20-week foetus is the removal of a non-human, why do many, like my critical woman, believe such images are “uncalled-for”?
One thing’s for sure: the foetus/baby involved didn’t call for it.
Jude,
A complicated topic – not clear on my own position – but leaning towards liberalisation in Ireland in line with the UK.
The thing that gets me about the ‘anti-abortion’ position is that if it the law thinks it a crime to provide abortion services then it should also be a crime to have an abortion – so women from Ireland going to Britain for an abortion should be prosecuted for murder(or variation of) – the fact that doesn’t happen and the anti-abortionists don’t call for it suggest they don’t really think believe it to be murder/child killing.
I think this point illustrates that abortion is a complex social and moral issue and it is entirely inconsistent to outlaw something you know that people can and will just get on a boat/plane and have anyway – and which the State simply allows to happen.
Probably best to keep the law in line with Britain and recognise the reality of the situation rather than adopting what is in effect simply a moral though legal position than Irish women North and South simply sidestep when they feel it is necessary.
I agree completely, Sammy, that thousands of Irish women go to Britain and have an abortion. But I’m not sure that’s a green light for Ireland north and/or south to provide that ‘service’. It all comes back to how you view the foetus/baby up to 24 weeks. If it’s not human, then certainly services should be provided in Britain, Ireland and everywhere else. If it is human, I don’t think it makes sense to say ‘They’ll kill the babies in England anyway, so we should save them the journey’. As you say, it’s complex, although it all really revolves around that core human/non-human question.
It also amazes me that many pro-abort feminists do not raise their voices against gender selective abortion which ends the lives in the main of female babies.
why would they – they don’t believe I is female, just a bunch of cells
In the grand scheme of things, women are on earth to get impregnated, have a baby and care for it until it can care for itself. To the human race, nothing else matters. You can mess with abortion, flirt with gay rights but this is contrary to the continuation of the species. Morality and legality are diversions. If all pregnant women decided to abort their babies for whatever reason, there would be no more human race. But Jude has exposed the kernel. If a 6 month baby is not human there is no problem. Hoover it out and bin it like a malignant growth. If it is human then abortion is murder.. get your heads round that.
fiosrach, if it is murder then why are women who have an abortion not charged with murder?
Surely if you believe it to be murder they should be?
I am not in a position to charge anybody. This is my opinion.
It is illegal, and they could be charged, why not ask the police why they don’t do it?
fiosrach
“If all pregnant women decided to abort their babies for whatever reason, there would be no more human race”.
Yes of all the risks there are to the human race that is certainly the most likely!
Jude,
re. “If it is human, I don’t think it makes sense to say ‘They’ll kill the babies in England anyway, so we should save them the journey’.”
Yes fair point but how equally does it make sense, if they are human, to say –
“it is legal for them to travel to England to kill the babies there and we wont prosecute them for doing so?
It is indeed a difficult subject
Clearly the later abortions occur the more difficult it is from an ethical point of view.
The best answer is to improve the availability and efficiency of contraception and make abortion accessible quickly and easily in the early stages.
There will always be those who are against even these measures (Saint Teresa notoriously) but society does not nor should not allow itself to be dictated to by extremist groups.
Abortion will not just go away by making it illegal unless we are going to start putting pregnant women in chains.
And what was “notorious” or did you mean noteworthy?
Croiteir
Well you say noteworthy I say notorious. Her stance against contraception(and abortion) is just one of many reasons why many consider her to be no saint
As I have often stated my position is that it is none of my business what a woman does with her own body. Whether I think she should/should not have an abortion will not have the slightest impact on her decision. And there is no reason why it should.
It’s no business of the Church or State either. Because as we know what they legislate makes no difference – women travel to the UK or other EU countries if they decide to abort and if they can afford it.
So why not put a stop to the hypocrisy, discrimination against poorer women who can’t afford the costs of travel, overnight accommodation and private abortions,and the illusion of “controlling women”
I have yet to hear logical arguments why a “best practice” legislation cannot be adopted, taking into consideration what is set out by other EU countries – to be available for those who want it.
It would have absolutely no impact on the lives of women who don’t want to avail of it – for whatever reasons.
https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/abortion-on-demand-now/
If you can’t legally be a paedophile here you can always go to Thailand. Doesn’t make it right.
obviously the civil rights marches didnt cater for the women in the north,
at last there is something we agree on Jude! I have never understood how supposedly “progressive” attitudes seem to gloss over infanticide.
“So here’s the thing. If abortion of a 20-week foetus is the removal of a non-human, why do many, like my critical woman, believe such images are “uncalled-for”?”
Because they cant handle the truth. You often hear that accusation threw around a lot: “You cant handle the truth!”. But its true, most people cant handle the truth, they would rather avoid the truth if it is unpleasing or difficult for them to accept, so they bluntly deny it.
I’m a staunch anti-abortionist or a staunch Pro-Life supporter may be the more correct term. I believe children enrich our society and they are vital for the survival of our society. If societies don’t have children (like Germany/Japan) then they will inevitably die off. So yes, it is very possible in a century Germans or the Japanese wont exist.
One thing you will notice about most Abortionists is that they are generally very selfish people. They have absolutely no concept of community or its values. They support abortion for selfish reasons. The most common reason why they back abortion is “because its a woman’s right to choose”. The child doesn’t figure in their equation (or the father) at all. They even go as far as to declare the child “non human”. So by their own logic, does that mean animals shouldn’t have rights? they aren’t human. Of course animals should have rights, most animals have a level of intelligence and definitely have feelings. Scientists have proven individual Cows, for example, can develop a bond and be best friends.
But again, this shows a selfish logic by abortionists. Only the mother matters. Only she should decide. Its HER body. I have came across abortionists who support abortion at any stage of pregnancy, even 9 months. I have posed the valid question: “Whats the difference between a baby at 9 months in the womb and a baby 9 months out of the womb?” They refused to answer because they knew there was an argument for infanticide by their logic. And that will be the next thing abortionists will argue for in the future: Infanticide. I already regard abortion as infanticide but there will come a time when they will raise the argument and promote infanticide. I know some people may say I’m crazy for thinking that but its already being preached by some Scientists. Why not? these sick individuals might pose the question “a week old baby is not self aware or intelligent yet” or “a mother has the right to put her baby to death humanely, its HER baby”.
The reality is we’re living in a society where principles are no longer being taught. Secularism is being aggressively promoted. Materialism and Money instead of Community Spirit and Moral Excellence is what the youth are taught to aspire to. Instead of aspiring to Intellectual Brilliance, the youth (especially young girls) are taught that the Cult of Celebrity is how you should live your life.
In short, we’re living in a rotten society. One where people are taught to care about only themselves. And now we’re even going as far as killing our children, the unborn. I don’t want this to happen to Irish society, that’s why we must push back against these people who are rotten to the core, who support abortion and who want to poison our people.
So you are entirely against abortion and yet you supported a terrorist group who killed many people i would be interested in seeing how you square that circle?
As for abortion the woman’s right trumps all other considerations in my opinion.
A woman’s right to what?
“As for abortion the woman’s right trumps all other considerations in my opinion.”
I’ll assume you mean “all other considerations” related to abortion.
And, no, I’m not being pedantic – the language we use is important.
“All other considerations” means *considering* what the unborn child is.
If you don’t yet know or can’t explain what and why you think about that, you should *consider* it – post-haste.
That’s a fair point PF since the woman carries the child she in the end should have always the final say in any circumstances on how the pregnancy should or should not progress
The idea of the sanctity of life is another very curious concept ..(I’ll have to make a list of these curious concepts!)Let’s put it like this .Most of us love little babies…especially our own children and grandchildren , so it would be a cold-hearted beggar who said it was just fine and dandy to go about murdering them. When it comes to two other extremes on the “sanctity of life” scale, us humans become very confused. For a start we are not all perfect creature.We have many faults and weaknesses which constantly trip us up throughout our lives. Some of us are needy , vain , greedy, stupid or simply plainly criminal .We really are a mixed and mixed -up bunch. If we were perfect there’d be no crime and no broken marriages. If we were perfect men and women would treat each other well and nobody’d get a bit drunk some night and have unguarded sex or forget to us contraception…or the contraception might fail with all the best intentions in the world. some people even believe that contraception itself is an un-natural thing .They say that it flies in the face of nature…and maybe even in the face of a god , should they believe in such things.
Then there is the sanctity of life that is easily suspended when we need to kill something or someone or a whole lot of “someones” in a war, for example….or when we have a great need to execute someone for a crime.We used to really love to do that, eh? We’ve been very good at that throughout our history .Now in the UK we fudge that one by locking criminals away but there are plenty of places where that’s not a problem.We still train soldiers to kill other soldiers of course….so there’s that…..too…
No ! I don’t really buy into this sanctity of life thing .It simply doesn’t stack up when you can pick- and -mix it to suit the occasion.What I do believe is that until a baby becomes a viable baby at a certain time …and not simply a globule of unconscious mutating cells, a woman or a young girl, should be allowed their own personal choice as to it’s future prospects and what to do with their own body .If the baby is not born it will not exist in this cruel but beautiful world and the woman or the girl will have made her choice , either to live with the regret or the joy of her own actions. I don’t think anyone has the right to judge that one …especially when we’ve spent forty years here crookedly killing each other and tussling over other less life-enhancing desires…. or have witnessed the bombing of Nagazaki , Dresden or the the Gulf Wars. Consider too that The fruit fly or the chicken on your dinner plate shares about 60% of its DNA with humans . Sure ..I feel terrible when i inadvertantly kill one of my honeybees…they’ve inhabited the planet for a few billion years longer than us humans…and in very many ways are much more important to the sustainability of the earth than any late-comer human-being , but sometimes it happens They might just outlive us yet if we don’t destroy them first.I don’t really believe that life is sacred per se; It’s a glorious business for those of us who can enjoy its pleasures and I’d hate to see it abused in any way, but I think something like this issue should be an entirely personal choice made soley by the female it has the most effect on .As for getting upset about a picture , the lady needs to be pointed in the direction of Picasso’s “Guernica”.That should really upset her.
One of the difficulties with these discussions is our use of language, and precisely because many use certain types of language to assert the validity of a pro-choice position.
I wonder if I may pick up on two uses of language on this thread so far to illustrate and clarify?
First of all, Jude – “If it’s not human, then certainly services should be provided in Britain, Ireland and everywhere else.”
I absolutely agree, Jude; but in terms of your use of the word ‘human’, the unborn child is, unquestionably, ‘human’ – I haven’t come across anyone arguing otherwise. Hence the reason why the pro-choice lobby use the word ‘person’ (as in ‘not a person’) to justify abortion. But I don’t think that a credible distinction.
Secondly, to pick up on Gio’s idea that, “Clearly the later abortions occur the more difficult it is from an ethical point of view.”
Well OK, Gio, make the statement, but you really need to explain why later abortions are more unethical.
And, sorry, Gio, but I really must ‘protest’, using the word “extremist”, really doesn’t, and can’t, carry the argument.
PF
It becomes harder to justify morally as the pregnancy nears term and the foetus (or baby)is able to survive outside of the womb.
If you had to save a 30 week foetus or a 1 week foetus which would you save?
I think the answer should be clear.
Although it is difficult to determine exactly when consciousness appears,I think most would agree that by the last few weeks there is some consciousness present.
On the other end of the scale,immediately after fertilisation no consciousness could be possible and it is only the argument for a soul which could possibly carry significance for those against abortion at that stage.
I don’t pretend to be sure about the process that happens in between fertilisation and birth or when consciousness arises.
That is why I make the point about contraception.
Would you agree with my point that prevention is better than cure and better access to contraception would reduce the need for abortions?
I use the word extremists because only extremists could consider contraception to be a bad idea when the alternatives are considered.
Finally what would you suggest we do with women who do not want to be pregnant?
Hi Gio.
“If you had to save a 30 week foetus or a 1 week foetus which would you save?”
I don’t think that the argument needs to be (or benefits from being) framed in such terms. I see the timescale as an unnecessary and false distinction. A more important questions is – ‘what is the unborn child’, not, ‘what age is it’.
“Although it is difficult to determine exactly when consciousness appears”
Why is an *appearance* of consciousness a necessary definition of personhood?
“it is only the argument for a soul which could possibly carry significance for those against abortion at that stage.”
That is quite simply not true. There are perfectly good, non-religious and material objections to abortion. Perhaps we will explore them. (Although, I, personally, believe in souls.)
“That is why I make the point about contraception.”
And that is a different question. Contraception might prevent a pregnancy, but it does not abort a pregnancy.
“Would you agree with my point that prevention is better than cure and better access to contraception would reduce the need for abortions?”
I have no issue with contraception – although I will admit that every once in a while I contemplate the possibility that Catholics might have a point!
“I use the word extremists because only extremists could consider contraception to be a bad idea when the alternatives are considered.”
I was thinking in terms of abortion, not contraception.
“Finally what would you suggest we do with women who do not want to be pregnant?”
That’s an oddly worded question – and no, I’m not trying to avoid the wider point. My view is that the problem of unwanted pregnancies concerns two people.
PF
Thanks for your reply.
I was trying to explain why I had said it becomes harder morally/ethically as the pregnancy goes on.
If you do not believe in a soul (and there is not one jot of evidence to suggest it exists) then there is a significant difference between a 1 day embryo and a 36 week foetus.
You say there are good non-religious arguments against abortion even using the morning after pill.What are they?
I am glad we are in agreement about contraception. It makes sense to reduce the need for abortion as much as possible and thus avoid these difficult cases.
I believe polls tend to show a majority (even amongst Catholics) in favour of contraception being permissible and in favour of making abortion available to some extent.
To use ones private religious beliefs, for which there is no evidence, to impose rules on the rest of society seems like an act of extremism to me, which is why I used that word.
Regarding my final question I am sure you are debating in good faith and not trying to dodge the issue, but it does seem as though you did not answer an obvious point (and Jude dodges a similar point from Sammy above).
If abortion is murder,and murder of an innocent which is worse then we cannot surely be saying that these child killers would not face any penalty in law.
That would make no sense..So once again;
What should society do with women who do not want to carry through a pregnancy?
Gio
I am reading your reply late in the day, so my reply must wait until tomorrow evening.
But I will reply.
Gio, I promised a reply.
“You say there are good non-religious arguments against abortion even using the morning after pill. What are they?”
In my understanding, the pro-abortion position is often concerned with whether or not, or at what point, a foetus can be considered a person who should be granted human rights.
And the argument usually goes like this:
Due to its limited development, a pre-twenty-week foetus is incapable of exhibiting a particular personality and it is therefore not a person. And because it is not a person, no one’s rights are violated if there is a termination.
However, even if it is true that no particular personality is observed at that stage (at least in terms of what we normally call a personality), the unborn child is, at every stage of its development, and at the very least, always becoming a fully functioning person. As is a newborn, a toddler, a teenager and a young adult.
We might say that a personality only appears at a given point, but that person and that personality is entirely dependent on each prior stage of development.
So much for the necessity of development, but we can say more, and particularly in relation to religious/scientific questions.
From a non-religious point of view, if we make the argument without reference to a soul, it is absolutely beyond doubt that the person and personality is inextricably linked to the body. The body is the way we experience the world and the way in which our personalities are, and continue to be formed.
And if there is no divine image, no soul, or no external divine source to ‘infuse’, or in any other way transmit a ‘soul’ to a human being, then we must accept that all the information required for the on-going development and formation of the human person and personality is already contained in the fertilised human egg.
Therefore, whatever else we say about personalities, souls, the development of a foetus or a particular stage of development, we must ask the question: what right do we have we to terminate a process which will inevitably lead to a rational, moral and independent human being, when at no other stage of a person’s development do we consider it ‘moral’ to terminate that process.
PF
Thanks again for your thoughts. I don’t think we can reach any agreement on this.
To my mind it is not so much about personality as personhood. The question of when a collection of cells becomes a person is very difficult and as far as I can make out, no universal agreement is likely scientifically or philisophically.
I would hope we can agree there is no person or potential person to consider in either a sperm or egg separately and therefore contraception should not raise any issue (pardon the pun), leaving aside the religious view.
It is true that from the moment of conception we are talking about a potential person, which is why this is such an emotive subject and why I dislike the argument I sometimes see that it is no different from a fingernail. That is clearly not so.
However that potentiality is not the only criteria to be considered.
The question of when consciousness and self awareness arise should also be taken into account.
I do not think the potentiality of a foetus in the early stages should outweigh the actual rights of an actual person, the mother, and that person has to be given greater consideration than a potential person.
A potential person is not a person and any rights they may have cannot outweigh the rights of an actual person.
There is no clear cut answer to this in my view, but in the real world the consequences of not allowing any abortion would create even greater moral dilemmas.
Any thoughts on how society would deal with women who do not want to go through with their pregnancy, or those who procur abortion illegally, which would presumably be murder in your view?
I have asked you 3 times now!
Gio
We may not reach any agreement, but I do feel the need to clarify – this is important.
“To my mind it is not so much about personality as personhood.”
You are making a distinction I did not make. In terms of the argument about personhood, personality and personhood are synonymous, and this due the the idea that the foetus is deemed to be a ‘person’ when it has supposedly reached a stage when a ‘personality’ is possible.
“The question of when a collection of cells becomes a person is very difficult and as far as I can make out, no universal agreement is likely scientifically or philosophically.”
No universal agreement, perhaps (universal is an extremely broad word), but the general agreement is that the existence of a complex cerebral cortex is critical in determining what counts as a person. Subsequently, it is argued that because little or no neurological activity takes place prior to about 20 weeks, then no individual person exists at that stage of development. Personhood, we are told, is linked to this particular development.
“It is true that from the moment of conception we are talking about a potential person”
Indeed. (at least)
“and why I dislike the argument I sometimes see that it is no different from a fingernail. That is clearly not so.”
Indeed.
And this is why contraception can be said to be different. I agree. Personally, if I were to make an argument against contraception, I’d make it slightly differently.
“The question of when consciousness and self awareness arise should also be taken into account.”
Why? Why is that particular point of development so important?
“I do not think the potentiality of a foetus in the early stages should outweigh the actual rights of an actual person”
That is only a credible position if you can demonstrate that the foetus should not be considered a person. But the measurements made are arbitrary. The only different between a foetus at a later stage of development is that the information required for the development of that person appears in a different form. In other words it looks different. The information itself is not different. And even at 24 weeks and following it must further develop in order to be sustainable. But, and this is critical, no new information will be added at any stage of development. There is absolutely no clear criteria for saying ‘person at this point’ and ‘not person at that point’.
“A potential person is not a person”
You have not demonstrated that. Simply using the words ‘potential’ and ‘actual’ is not an argument. As an adult of many years I’m still developing potential to try and actualise what I can be.
“There is no clear cut answer to this in my view”
But we are prepared to abort without clarity?
“but in the real world the consequences of not allowing any abortion would create even greater moral dilemmas.”
Such as?
“Any thoughts on how society would deal with women who do not want to go through with their pregnancy…”
Counselling, support, fostering, adoption, social and medical care, love, acceptance, hope.
“I have asked you 3 times now!”
I hesitated precisely because it is a difficult, emotive and sensitive question, and words like ‘murder’ don’t help when we’re already having difficulty in accepting the foetus should have the rights of any other person,
PF
Some good points.
You say;
“There is absolutely no clear criteria for saying ‘person at this point’ and ‘not person at that point”
I agree.It is not or does not seem to be one particular moment in development but rather a gradual process.
People adapt different criteria I suppose.For some it is consciousness,ability to feel pain, or for others ‘quickening’.
For medicine and the law it is viability and that may well change from 24 weeks with medical advances.
I think you are being disingenuous over the idea of potentiality. Yes you may still be developing but you are indubitably a person already. A 1 day embryo may have all the information encoded within it but it is clearly not a person.
An apple seed has the potential to be an apple but if you think it is one try taking a bite
Again you avoid the issue of how your views would be worked out in the real world. You mention ‘Counselling, support, fostering, adoption, social and medical care, love, acceptance, hope’ yet strangely not punishment for all these murders.
If counselling etc fails would women be forced to go through a pregnancy against their will? That is the inescapable logic in your position.
Hi Gio
“I think you are being disingenuous over the idea of potentiality.”
Absolutely not; but if you apply a predetermined definition of personhood to my position I can see why you would think that. The trouble with your statement is that you have already created a distinction between person and non-person which you then apply to my position. But it is that very distinction which I am rejecting.
Likewise:
“You may still be developing but you are indubitably a person already.”
Only because you have a particular definition of person and non-person.
“A 1 day embryo may have all the information encoded within it but it is clearly not a person.”
Why not? I have said why I think the word person should be applied throughout. To maintain your argument, you need to explain why “all the information” equates to “clearly not a person”.
“An apple seed has the potential to be an apple”
That analogy only works (and even then it is limited) if you deem apples to be as valuable as human beings. I doubt you are.
“Again you avoid the issue of how your views would be worked out in the real world.”
I absolutely did not. The only point I chose not to force was the point on punishment. The rest are real world options.
“You mention ‘Counselling, support, fostering, adoption, social and medical care, love, acceptance, hope’ yet strangely not punishment for all these murders.”
Why is that strange?
As I have already said, the circumstances we face are those in which many, if not most, do not think abortion to be the same as murder.
In that context establishing what the unborn child is, is more important. If we can’t do that, there’s no point shouting “murder”. Children are already being terminated; I’d prefer that stopped and think it best done by rational thought, debate and education. It is also best done by supporting rather than demonising.
I also value counselling, social care and so on very, very highly.
“If counselling etc fails would women be forced to go through a pregnancy against their will? That is the inescapable logic in your position.”
As it is the inescapable logic of your position once 24 weeks has been reached.
And it is also an argument for the preeminence of ‘choice’ rather than unfortunate necessity. Are you arguing for the option to terminate a pregnancy up to 24 weeks without restriction, or only in certain circumstances?
“I use the word extremists because only extremists could consider contraception to be a bad idea when the alternatives are considered”
Being against contraception hardly makes you an “extremist” Gio. Of course, being an “extremist” is all a matter of opinion. By your logic, the Pope is an “extremist”. Many hundreds of millions of Catholics must now be “extremists”. Many hundreds of millions of Muslims must now be “extremists”. I don’t know what the Protestant Churches preach on contraception but I know many do oppose it, so they must be “extremists” too. I have come across Atheists who are against contraception too, so, by your logic Gio, they must be “extremists” too.
From a religious viewpoint (and opposition to abortion/contraception doesn’t just come from churches, but from many secular bodies too) the reason why churches oppose contraception is because they believe sexual intercourse is always about the creation of children. They don’t see sexual intercourse as the casual plaything it is portrayed on TV now days. My opinion on this matter is what a couple do in their spare time is none of my business. If a life is created then like all people it deserves protection.
I have to agree with PF and say use of language is very important and calling people “extremists” (its not as if they are trying to hide under couples duvet covers to make sure the guy isn’t wearing a condom) is hardly accurate simply because they hold an opinion that is against contraception….
Ryan
“I have to agree with PF…”
That must be an odd experience!
The a-word, abortion, Esteemed Blogmeister, comes in many guises and other euphemisms. Spelt too in all shapes, configurations and sizes, each different spelling casting a different, well, spell.
Right now, down here south of the Black Sow’s Dyke were are legally operating under the spell of the Pro-Abortion Band Wagon, aka, Repeal the 8th Amendment thingy. The Apple harvesting season may come, the Apple harvesting season may go, but right now , the only enduring show in town is the Big Fat Lady of Legislation , the 8th.
Truly is it, as contentious issues go, Le Crunch.
The Rose of Tralee (ROT) recently underlined that factoid most spectacularly when the Rose of Sydney, whose cheeks (upper) were of a rosy applesque hue, by the name of Sile Something or maybe it was Matilda Downunder itself, and obviously and meticulously coached by some local Harpie, went on a rant when handed the mike, about:
– ‘the absolite right of fe-miles to control over their ain abirtions’.
This cri de couldn’t care less was greeted with shrieks of glee unconfined which reached freakishly high decibel levels, accompanied by high fives all around in that hive of humanity, Tara Street, where the Harpies that once still do, and then some.
Yes, indeed the hacks and hackettes of The Unionist Times (for it is it !) who ‘ cannot wait to castrate the Eighth’ just didn’t celebrate in the manner unconfined but , in the wake of some predictable threats from the local headaches who promised to apply the emergency brake on such rants in the future, experienced a collective Light Bulb moment. They do tend to trend in packs, these hack and hackettes.
The result of this communal LB moment was the proposal to launch their own counter- ROT festival, to be called, quite serendipitously, the Thorn of Tralee.
One uses the s-word advisedly (a daarlin’ word, advisedly, Joxer) for it tends to lend itself, erm, serendipitously to the slogan:
-TUT for TOT.
Combined with the support unlimited of its broadcasting wing, RTE, its relentless propaganda will be characterized by fruity doses of Truthiness. Expect the Babe Ruths of ranting truthiness to whack the Pro-Lifers clean out of the ball-park.
It would, of course, be nothing new for a flower to be aero-spayed with truthiness. What happened, to the lily, after all, can happen to the rose, by any other name.
The Great Shakes is taken to have come up with the phrase:
-To gild the lily.
He didn’t of course and is as good an example of truthiness to start with, having been around the block in its time. Not a bad idea to study the relevant speech inserted into the plain mouth of Salisbury in the drama known as “The Life and Death of King John’.
Curiously enough, some other elements of the same speech might well feature in the ongoing Campaign / Cam Pain.
-To gild refined gold, to paint the lily
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice….’
Stall the ball there, Sal, stall the ball right there !
The next line is of particular relevance; the clue, perhaps, to how the Campaign / Cam Pain will be conducted.
‘…….or add another hue
Unto the rainbow’.
The hint is in the hue: Red Hugh O Donnell took early parole when Dublin Castle double jobbed as chokey for the mid-managerial level of nativism. Alas, he eventually ended up, by a commodious vicus of recirculation, in Simancas Castle, Valladolid. There, in 1602, at the early age of 29 summers, the life of Aodh Rua O Donaill, was aborted. Oops, was ended by poison. (Same differ, m’lud).
The courtyard of the same Dublin Castle is where the Rainbow Revolution celebrated its most memorable victory to date, to which all the good and the great stepped they gaily as they went, heel for heel and toe for toe, all for the wedding of Marie and Mary.
To hear The Unionist Times tell it: this rainbow over Dublin Castle courtyard proved to be akin to a golden shower of opportunities for all truly human human beings from Bangkok all the way to Lahore and vice versa.
Reverse button now, Sal, to the first line of your short but not insignificant speech:
-Therefore, to be powered with double pomp.
Hold it there: can you repeat that, Sal?
-Therefore to be powered with double pomp.
Point taken, please continue:
-To guard a title that was rich before.
Hmmmm.
So, what we’re talking about here is to take the thumbs up to Adam and Steve, the green light to Marie and Mary last year, the next logical constitutional step to take is, erm, more liberal abortion legislation?
Logic: gynecologic logic.
-……….or, with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess’.
Thank you, Sal, a true pal.
Now, the crowning of the Thorn of Tralee aka Ms. Totty in the iconic courtyard of Dublin Castle next year will be preceded by the unveiling of a tasteful and significant post-modern sculpture to honour perhaps the great unsung heroine of Hibernia . The sculpture, a meaningfully abstract amalgam in stainless scrapmetal of coat hangers, curling irons, candles and penholders.
It will stand ten feet tall on a bronze pedestal and will represent the Mayo woman who was to young Irish women in the mid-20th century what her heroic predecessor, Lord Kitchener of Kerry was to young Irishmen of the early 20th century. In carved Celtic script the pedestal will simply state:
-Nurse Cadden, uber- abortionist.
Btw, the distinguished sculptor (whose identity is a closely guarded secret) is:
-Michelle Angela McCackhand.
–
Can anyone who is anti-abortion and believes that abortion is murder explain – following the logic of their own position – why the potential mother should not be locked up for murder?
They used to be. And a while in the chokey would do them no harm. At least they couldn’t get pregnant. There is a class of girls who go out at night to get ‘blocked’. If they get pregnant should they be free to kill a child because ‘it’s their body’?
you got it in one..its their body.
its no big deal nowadays,
“you got it in one..its their body.”
Please apply a modicum of thought: it is not their body they are aborting.
“its no big deal nowadays,”
What is ‘no big deal’, and what has ‘nowadays’ to do with it?
what is no big deal..and what has nowadays to do with it..
nowadays the biggest majority of young people gladly dont listen to priests,vicars,or whatever fancy title they give themselves telling them how to live their lives.if some girl wants an abortion whats the big deal to you or the likes of you or anybody else for that matter.
What have priests got to do with it?
If you had any grasp of the question you would know the breadth of the arguments.
Yes, what about the big deal? You have yet to say.
The point is to save life, not to prosecute.
Interesting that all the commentators here appear to be men including mé féin. (Unless some of the pseudonyms are women, but I don’t get that impression)They will never have to undergo the trauma of carrying the child of a rapist, perhaps of incestuous rape. They will never be told to carry to fill term a foetus with no brain. But how would they feel if their daughter’s, wives siblings were placed in that position? and being criminalised for seeking a temination.The Catholic Churches male higher Primates tell us that as soon as the cluster of cells from a male and female, as it were bond, high presto! We have a human being with an immortal soul. I don’t buy it. Nor do the vast majority of Irish people who, in numerous polls have supported in principle the relaxation of Irealand’s (32 counties) abortion laws. I respect the views of most of those who think otherwise. But they are a minority. As regards the photos of the mutilated foetus there is perhsps a case to be made for showing them, just as you might make a case for showing the mutilated corpses of let’s say people blown up in the Abercorn or Bloody Friday. But it is by no means cut and dried.And we have no way of knowing whether the pictures shown were of a termination or a miscarriage. And if it was a termination what were the circumstances that laid to it.Sooner or later the Irish people will come up with a permanent Irish solution to a chronic Irish problem and stop off-loading our unwanted pregnancies to GB.
Brian
“Interesting that all the commentators here appear to be men including mé féin. (Unless some of the pseudonyms are women, but I don’t get that impression)”
That’s only half a point.
If is helps at all, my wife is more against abortion than I am.
But she dislikes technology, especially the internet.
i think the new tablets you can buy on the internet has it more or less sorted,technology eh.
Has what sorted?
sorts saving the travel arrangements,buy online next day delivery.no pun intended.
Are you flippant about everything? If so, it would explain a lot.
Right. Lay down a law that pregnancies of rapists, incest etc and no brains can be squidged. Husband and wife rapes are iffy but I’m sure there are other circumstances which justify ‘termination of the foetus’ life’s. We have all the no-nos covered. Can we now punish the rest of the millions of Irish women who go to England every week for relief? I mean, why rant and rave and try to prevent suicide? It’s their body, after all.
PF,
re. “The point is to save life, not to prosecute.”
Yes but for some the anti-abortion position is murder and anyone taking that position clearly wants to save lives – but it must also follow that they believe the woman has committed a deliberate crime – and it must surely therefore follow that she should be prosecuted.
That is the logic of the abortion is murder position.
That’s a good point, Sammy. But murders happen all the time that are not prosecuted. For example, the various ‘regime changes’ in the Middle East involved ‘taking out’ the leader of the country. Do you think someone will be charged with the murder of Sadaam Hussein/Muammar Qaddafi etc? Or the multiple attempts to murder Fidel Castro? Or the soldiers/their masters on Bloody Sunday? The fact that prosecution is out the window doesn’t shed light on the nature of what happened.
“Yes but for some the anti-abortion position is murder”
I know, I have already replied to that point.
“and anyone taking that position clearly wants to save lives”
Indeed. So how does that comment apply to your stated pro-choice position? If you have defined ‘anti-abortion’ as ‘saving lives’, how do you define your prochoice position?
The point of the contemporary debate is, what does it mean to abort a human life?
Without an answer to that question the rest are secondary.
Jude,
re. “The fact that prosecution is out the window doesn’t shed light on the nature of what happened.”
Yes I agree. But if someone believes that an act is murder then I think it is consistent for them to believe the person who carried it out is a murderer and if they believe the person is a murderer and then I think it is consistent for them to believe the person should be charged with murder.
I think that is the logic of the ‘abortion is murder’ position.
That’s logical indeed, Sammy. But to reverse the logic – go from failure to prosecute to the nature of the act doesn’t seem to me logical.
Jude,
re. “Sammy. But to reverse the logic – go from failure to prosecute to the nature of the act doesn’t seem to me logical.”
I’m not sure I’m following you – are you saying that failure to prosecute the woman is not being consistent with act she is carrying out? If so I agree that it is not being logical/consistent.
(Personally as I dont view abortion as murder I dont think the woman should be prosecuted).
Dat’s de key, Sammy – abortion = killing a human being OR abortion = flushing out a complicated but non-human collection of cells. Leave aside the policing of same – what I don’t get is why, if you (not you personally of course, S) don’t believe it’s human, you find it all a hard decision to arrive at. Should have thought a nanosecond would do it.
I personally cannot condone the destruction of life. I find myself moving a spider from the flow of the shower so as not to wash it down the drain. The image above is clearly the image of a baby and – in my opinion – human life is sacred.
Jude,
Life is complicated – not just the living of it – but the defining of it.
I dont have fixed views but on balance I dont think Ireland should export the problem to Britain because we cant deal with it ourselves – the British system seems to me be best compromise although it is far from ideal morally.
Well I think all you men (barring a few) should all continue to rattle on about how we poor wee wimmin should behave….mealwhile if my sister desires a termination I’ll help her source out a clinic and hold her hand.
Don’t you men worry your pretty little heads about it can never happen to you. I guarantee that.
Angela – are there any other areas of the law you think men should butt out of – drink-driving, theft, slander – and leave control of it exclusively to women? Just sayin’, like…:)
Jude
We will allow you to have a say in it but leave it to the women to decide. Perhaps the counry should hand over the legislature to the women…I think there would be less talking and more action. Just saying lol
I’d be tempted to agree with you except the spectre of Thatcher keeps barging into my head. And I’m beginning to think the May woman may (no pun intended) not have the answer to brexit beyond ‘Brexit means Brexit’. I mean, a field mouse could have figgered that one…
Angela
I’d be interested to know why you think men should have no say in the dilemma which is abortion.
I might disagree with you on abortion Jude but i do agree about thatcher. I hope the Orgreave miners get their inquiry.
It’s a pity to see all those 6 month old foetuses/foeti/things wasted. Could we not do some experiments with them? What about the 6.5 month old ones? Or is that infanticide?
PF I wasn’t saying that..after all you do have a 50% stake in it. I was more commenting on all the replys streaming in to Judes’ blog.
Fiosach I’m not getting into “cut off” times with you…to argue with someone who has a closed mind is futile. However I do believe strongly in stem cell research.
Angela
Thank you for your reply.
” I was more commenting on all the replys streaming in to Judes’ blog.”
Comments always stream in to Jude’s blog.
You say to fiosrach, “Yes I can… Glibly”
In light of that I’d be interested in your thoughts on the comments I have added above about the development of an unborn child.
Angela, you can’t glibly dismiss parts of an argument that don’t neatly fit your viewpoint. English law says 6 months. What do you say about 6 months and 1 day? Why not abort i.e. Kill one of a pair of twins to see what happens to the other one? Is it human at 6 months or is it not?
Yes I can… Glibly
PF with respect …I am not sure which post you mean Is it the one in which you write about personality? If so what would you do in the case of a foetus that was developing in the womb without a brain? Does it have a personality?
Would you be in favour of DNA testing of the foetus to determine major personality defects?
Or what about a foetus that was developing in the womb without a head? Isn’t that also human? Would you ask a woman to go full term with a foetus without arms or legs?
As a woman I am fully aware of the physical development of a foetus.
My understanding is that English abortion law is to do with the age at which a foetus is capable of sustaining life outside the womb.Nothing to do with personality.
Angela, yes, the one about personality, apologies if I wasn’t clear. I mentioned that because Gio wanted a non religious argument, and that is a pretty standard one. I was relaying it, though, not defending it.
Regarding a feotus developing “without a brain”; according to the argument it would not be a person, then again, according to the argument it isn’t a person anyway until about 20 weeks.
My argument, however, is that personhood is more that a particular point in time. But a lack of brain, or as you also suggest, lack of head, tends to indicate no life beyond a possible heartbeat. One that point we’d need more information; anyway, uncommon examples tend to skew the argument and make bad law.
Your point about a foetus having no legs is entirely different. Disability is no reason for a termination or any other kind of discrimination.
I too am aware of the development of a foetus, as is my wife, and I can assure you that having experienced two miscarriages we do not take the dilemma of pregnancy or termination lightly.
In relation to English law, whatever that law is, and I’d need to check, if it were accepted that personhood was more than a particular stage of development, the law would probably change. As for viability outside the womb, medical science advances all the time, and even on that point, are you suggesting that ‘viability’ should restrict a woman’s right in regard to termination?
Your question about personality defects is not clear enough. What personality defects are you thinking of?