Because I have the disadvantage of being a man, I can’t have children…Well no, I can and I have – four of them – but not in the way a woman has children. The experience of having another human being growing inside you must remain something of a mystery to me and other men.
That doesn’t mean men aren’t entitled to a say in the question of abortion, since the figure at the centre of this issue is the child inside the woman. However more closely a mother-to-be can identify with her child, legislation about what can or cannot happen to that child is a matter for everyone in society, male or female.
The row on abortion looks like boiling over once again: last night on The View (BBC TV), Archbishop Eamon Martin expressed his and the Catholic Church’s opposition to some proposals the Justice Minister David Ford is putting forward. The one that was highlighted in his interview with Mark Carruthers was that which said abortions should be allowed in Northern Ireland where the foetus has a lethal abnormality. Archbishop Martin is unambiguous: abortion on a foetus/child for that reason is contrary to the views of the Catholic Church.
I find myself getting impatient as this subject rolls around yet again. David Ford said that the ‘technical’ definition of a child was someone from the moment of birth until the age eighteen. He may be right, in which case the technical definers are not too good at their job. There are many people who believe in abortion and who say so; I’ve never met anyone who’s urged the right of a pregnant woman to an abortion a week before her baby is due for delivery. According to the technical definition it’s not a human life because it’s not born, so a woman should have the right to do what she wants with it, including abort it.
But to come back to the case of the woman with a foetus/child suffering from lethal abnormalities – that is, medical experts say that the child will die in the womb or shortly after birth, and so abortion should be permitted. This strikes me as slippery ground on which to stand. If an adult were dying, most of us would say they should be made as comfortable as possible in the circumstances. I know there are some who believe in what they call ‘assisted dying’ but I’d venture that most of us would be appalled if doctors or relatives ended someone’s life on the grounds that they’re going to die in a few months anyway.
Likewise with the foetus which has a ‘lethal abnormality’. While stressing that I cannot possibly know what it is like to carry a child, healthy or otherwise, and that women have a unique insight into how harrowing that can be, the issue boils down to a simple question: is this thing inside the woman a human being or is it not? I believe it is, not because Archbishop Martin told me so but because no one seems capable of explaining how this non-human thing inside the woman becomes at some imprecise point a human being. Equally, I don’t understand why pro-abortion/pro-choice people talk of what a difficult decision aborting is for the woman involved: if she’s carrying something that isn’t a human being, aborting it should cause no more anguish – probably less – than having a cow slaughtered for food.
Finally, I don’t follow the thinking of those opposed to abortion except where there has been pregnancy following rape or incest. These are both terrible crimes and, as I said, I know I can’t begin to understand what a woman in a normal pregnancy must feel, let alone what she must feel in these horrible circumstances. But the point at which I would urge halt is the point where the woman’s anguish is treated by the killing of the child she’s carrying. The child conceived through rape or incest is every bit as innocent and defenceless as the child conceived between the most sanctified matrimonial sheets.
People speak of a woman’s right to choose. I can see reasons for saying that but in the end, it’s not simply her choice. There is the man who was involved in conceiving the child, for a start. But more importantly, it’s a matter of society protecting innocent life. In a proper society, everyone is responsible for maintaining innocent life, not just those most affected by it.
Eire’s Uber Abortionist
If the Mayo mother of Nurse Cadden
Said: ‘Not another for me to madden!’
The Dworkin Class
Wld be less a lass
And heroine their hearts to gladden.
Some interesting points
Archbishop Martin is unambiguous: abortion on a foetus/child for that reason is contrary to the views of the Catholic Church.
As was Child Abuse yet it happened and was covered up for years.
I know there are some who believe in what they call ‘assisted dying’ but I’d venture that most of us would be appalled if doctors or relatives ended someone’s life on the grounds that they’re going to die in a few months anyway.
You would be unpleasantly surprised how common this is increased amounts of morphine etc….
The child conceived through rape or incest is every bit as innocent and defenceless as the child conceived between the most sanctified matrimonial sheets.
I find this troubling I am not mad keen on abortion but on certain grounds I support it rape being certainly one of them I don’t think any male could possibly conceive how loathsome it must be to carry the child of the person who raped you?
To quote you , neill – some interesting points. (i ) that bit about the Catholic Church and child sexual abuse: if the multitude of cases springing up now regarding various BBC icons such as Jimmy Savile, and so many in other fields of endeavour do anything, they at least expose the myth that child sexual abuse was some kind of monopoly of Catholic priests; (ii) I’m fully aware that increased doses of morphine hasten death in patients – that’s a different matter from saying ‘We’ll kill this patient’; (iii) I agree, no male can conceive how loathsome it is to carry the child of someone who’s raped you – but that doesn’t justify using the death of a child as the medicine for this ghastly state.
Jude tut tut tut
My point wasn’t a dig at your church just pointing a simple fact that it is against abortion but for years covered up abuse of children I hold the BBC in similar contempt they knew about abuse and did nothing.
By increasing morphine you set out to kill people even though it might be a blessing for the person or family if the person is going through agonising pain.
And the last point well surely in the end it has to be the women’s choice?
No, I disagree that it ends up the woman’s choice – only if there isn’t another human life involved. If there is, then she can’t do whatever she wants with it, any more than a mother can do what she wants with her young children after birth.
You are right on this one Neill .i have experienced that death scenario many times when the “cocktail” of drugs is administered to put the dying person and the family out of their misery . I have it on close authority that this has been an accepted practice among doctors for many years . A little concoction of speed and morphine to race the heart out of this world.You can see why when the pain becomes unbearable to bear and watch.
Well summed up, Jude. It always struck me as strange that people who are horrified at capital punishment have no trouble with abortion. Regarding rape and incest. Why punish the child unborn for the father’s crime? Is it revenge?
“it’s a matter of society protecting innocent life. In a proper society, everyone is responsible for maintaining innocent life, not just those most affected by it.”
Think that’s the crux of the problem Jude.
As long as society and the state get their say over what a woman does with her own body nobody can possibly be happy with the outcome and these debates will continue ad infinitum.
As you admit, you yourself are getting impatient as this subject rolls around yet again and as ever the same old, same old arguments are put forth .
Would men accept the same level of Church and State interference into some male sexual function – likeOnanism or spilling of seed ?
The whole issue can be put to bed by considering it as a medical matter, allowing the woman and her doctor to decide.
The father’s view should certainly be taken on board if he’s around,
Decision-making can be aided by any appropriate counselling the physician may recommend for that particular woman and her circumstances.
No one can compel a woman to have an abortion if she doesn’t want one and by the same standards no woman should be compelled to go through an unwanted pregnancy.
I have long argued in favour of this choice https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/abortion-on-demand-now/
And it does no harm to remember the very sad outcomes of Church and State interference
https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/the-way-we-were-single-mums/
Thanks ben – useful argument and references. The catch with talk of a woman’s choice is that there’s another human being (I believe) involved. And if that’s so, it’s not a question of agreeing to the woman’s right to control over her body: it’s a question of the woman’s right to control over her body and life/death control over the unborn infant. We don’t give people a choice in whether they choose to kill 5-year-olds or 2-year-olds; it seems to me illogical to give people control over a child in the womb.
indeed Jude I fullly accept that is your dilemma. Many people probably share it.
Other people think differently,
They reason an embryo is not a child and a fetus is not a child unless it is viable i.e. it can live outside the womb, which a court decision in the republic recently upheld
Even if only 1 person held this view, it still needs to be accomodated within the laws the state makes
Otherwise what is all this talk of inclusivity about?
I see no reason why a law cannot be formulated in NI and the republic which allows women to decide with their doctors what is the best option for the individual lady.
It certainly would not oblige any woman to follow along a certain pathway if she doesn’t want to.
Hi Ben – I had a long eloquent response to your thoughts and then hit the wrong button – grrrrr. Two quick points: don’t think I accept the ‘viable/non-viable’ thing. A new-born infant won’t survive long without constant support – but we wouldn’t kill it. The point about one person seeing things differently: I’m sure there’s at least one person that thinks killing journalists is a good idea but I’m damned if we’ll give them legislative leg-room to do so.
jude – looks like you are confusing apples with oranges
Embryos and foetuses are not “children” or newborn infants
Embryos and foetuses are not journalists
Let us have a debate devoid of dogma. There is a need to concentrate on Human Rights, legal implications, health implications and confidentiality. Health professionals need clarity in relation to the law on this issue and how it impacts on their professional practice.
Today, we have an ambiguous response to this issue, the availability of abortions in England. This is unacceptable. There is a need to develop a properly funded system which enables each individual to examine and reflect on options in the short, medium and long term. Legislators have a difficult task as it will prove impossible to legislate for each and every set of circumstances at any given point in time. Legislation can be challenged. It can also be changed based on knowledge, precedent and professional opinion.
We live in a multiracial democracy. This suggests we conduct intelligent rational debates on this complex issue. We need to engage in a manner which respects the rights of the mother and which also protects the rights of the unborn.
I think that’s well said, Iolar. As I see it, the crux of the matter is what’s inside the woman’s body. A collection of tissue? In that case, no question, the woman decides what to do with it, full stop. An unborn child? In that case, no question, that life should be protected as we would protect any child of any age.
“Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later Woman A has a premature baby, small but healthy. Woman B is still pregnant. One week later both women decide they don’t want their babies anymore. Why should Woman B be allowed to kill her baby and Woman A not be allowed to kill hers? Since there is no difference in the nature or development of the two babies, why would Woman B’s action be exercising a legitimate right to choose, while Woman A’s action would be a heinous crime subjecting her to prosecution for first degree murder? It is irrational to recognize the one child as a baby and pretend the other one isn’t. I know a former pro-choice nurse who was converted to a pro-life position after seeing premature babies being frantically saved by a medical team in one room, while down the hall, babies the same age were being aborted.”
The above quote exposes the nonsense of the ‘technical’ definition Mr. Ford uses to justify an abortion.
Hi Jude . This is always going to be a very tricky debate because people are anything but consistent in their moral choices , never mind the logic of their actions. Even a phrase like “All life is sacred” …soon falls in tatters when it ‘s broken down to the reality that we really only mean our “sacred”human life ….Our wee species that survived all the other ape forms to dominate everything else. . Oh, we’ve set up a whole raft of rules to protect all of that, which we merrily break every day, in little and large ways . That’s why the gaols and the courts are full every day with “sacred” people being stabbed to death for £200 or a dozen journalists being mown down …not to mention all the wars and mayhem all over the world ….Oh sure , life is sacred ,…. Me arse. !
That ‘s only our own species too……. .We slaughter and eat everything else that moves and dress it up, pretending it’s not even meat. We’ll call the bits of the animals weird little names like chops, sausages, sweetbreads and steaks and think not a damn bit about it .None of those creatures are sacred or debated about in parliament. Don’t get me wrong ..I love a nice ribeye steak , but i’m not being hypocritical about what eating an animal and destroying its life , actually entails.
When it comes to something closer home like an unwanted pregnancy, then there’s a rush of morality to the head and we’re arguing when actual life begins .We’ll say… “Is a mouthful of saliva that is spat out into the sink not a collection of cells too?” When does some emission from a male, bonding with cells from a female suddenly become a “holy” lifeform.Is the semen and the egg not wonderful ” holy life” too, already?…before the two things bond together into another lifeform. Yeah, it’s all microscopic stuff , but every cell is living and constantly dying as we age. It’s all life….. but which bits of it are “sacred” bits?
Eloquent and thoughtful as ever , PK. I think the difference in a mouthful of saliva and a fertilised egg in the woman’s body is that we now have what, given protection and good health, will develop into an adult human being. I’d agree human beings don’t treat human life as sacred – your example of wars is blindingly obvious; and I’ve sympathy too that we unnecessarily feed ourselves by slaughtering living animals when we don’t have to (and it’d be better for the ozone with much fewer farting cows). But I’d distinguish between the sacredness of human life and that of animal life. I know it’s hard to believe in some cases, but humans are a higher form of life – the highest – and for that reason deserves to be protected (right, even some of the bastards you and I can probably think of).
Ah Jude , i had another comeback typed up but somehow deleted it while lifting that glass of red..It went something like …Well I’m not so sure that human beings are such superior creatures at all . The dinosaurs knocked around for some 165 million years…yes , pause for breath and that is quite some stretch compared to our paltry few thousand years…You could argue that something like a dolphin has a better handle on its environment than a human being . He seems better evolved to deal with a life in the ocean wave than we appear to be be with our lovely planet …which we’re getting dangerously close to upending in a very, very short span of earth -time..We might be great tool-making hairless apes and all that, but we’ve only been around for about five minutes in “real time”…We’ve cultivated a lot of high -falutin’ ideas about ourselves, of course, and how “special” we all are…but are we that special? We’re an aggressive lot and that breeds a kind of arrogance too. We might all be gone in a million years and there might be nothing left to try and remember us except some insects. I doubt we’ll be around for 165 million years somehow.
PK – you have a ravenous mind – where do you get the energy? …I’m not sure humans are morally superior – animals can’t be moral or immoral, we can and frequently choose the latter. But we are intellectually insofar as we are self-aware, which animals aren’t. Plus I haven’t seen any giraffes getting the Nobel Peace Prize recently (and yes I know, Henry Kissinger got it and the giraffe would have got my vote too). But even our ability to make destructive stuff like nuclear weapons shows we do have superior intellects. Doesn’t mean we should preen ourselves, I agree. I’d opt for a dog as a companion most times…
Yes Jude…bow wow!!
If the Bishop wants people to listen to the church’s view,he would need to distance himself from the Bernie Smiths of this world.I find the whole abortion issue very difficult and not an easy decision for all those involved.However the pro life protestors who shout at vulnerable women,often in the company of far right unionists are very off putting.Only tonight I saw footage of Bernie Smith on the news emerging from court with a smirk on her face and at least one fascist NF type in her entourage.These people along with the serial letter writers who are still stuck in the Archbishop McQuade era would drive people into the opposite camp.
MC – I don’t usually disagree with you but I do on this one. I think this notion that showing what happens to an aborted foetus is in bad taste is just bad logic. If someone is going to perform an act, they should know just what it is. They certainly shouldn’t fault others who would try to show them same. I’ve mixed feelings on the barracking of people intent on abortion: part of me feels people deserve more respect than that; part of me keeps asking ‘Would you think barracking too much if it was a question of someone going into a school playground to take the life of a child?’ Again, it comes back to whether we’re talking about a child in there or a collection of cells.
Jude
What should be the penalty for the crime of killing an unborn child?
Should it be applied retrospectively?
Why do you keep asking me hard questions, gio – do you think I’m the bloody Delphic Oracle or sumpin? No, I don’t think it should be applied retrospectively, since a) I’d assume the people acted in good conscience; and b) – much more important – they weren’t acting outside the law.
Jude
I know, on a Saturday too!
Maybe I’m not being fair but it seems like the reasonable outworking of your position.
The law punishes child killers so you would have to expect the same to apply for the unborn child.
I can’t see anyone legislating to lock up women who have abortions, somehow.
I agree totally, gio. (Takes temperature, looks worried.) If there isn’t a law against it, you can hardly prosecute people. On the other hand you mightn’t believe they’ve acted ethically. And you might think it odd that babies in the womb are at such risk, and wonder what sort of society sees them as disposable.
Jude
I guess my point is if you consider abortion to be the same as taking the life of a child you would want to see the law reflect that would you not.?
You cannot just shrug and say well there is no law against it nothing we can do.
So would you be calling for a change in the law to see these women prosecuted for murder?
I’m totally opposed to abortion, I think it just shows how much a society has decayed and is basically rotten when it starts killing off its own children, the next generation. The situation in Europe particularly, especially in countries like Germany and Italy where there’s so few babies being born that the country is heading for disaster because basically in a few decades time there’s going to be more old people than young! Outlawing abortion would go some way to ending this serious issue, in fact Japan is the country most at risk of “under population” and by 2050 half of its population will be old! who will look after all those elderly since theres not enough young, working taxpayers?. I understand pregnancies can be unexpected, can be hard emotionally, financially, etc but I believe there’s a much, much better ways of dealing with these issues other than killing an innocent child.
Ryan
That’s a bizarre claim even for this place. Maybe banning contraception throughout the world would avert the catastrophe. I seem to recall that China was encouraging it’s citizens to have less children due to overpopulation.
Good post Ryan, totally agree.
Jude, the central argument, which you skate over as if it were settled, is at what point the foetus becomes a human being, with a right to life entitled to state protection. Doctors who are experts in this field are divided on this issue, hence the differing levels of protection afforded by law in different societies, depending on the stage of pregnancy which has been reached. To ignore this is to skew the argument into absolutes. Which is a fair enough position for religions to adopt, but to attempt to impose their beliefs as moral imperatives through state legislation on what are multi-cultural, multi- religious and non-religious societies smacks of fascism. The rights of mothers cannot be denied other than on the basis of mores attaining societal acceptance and consequently legal validation. It is somewhat ironic to say the least that the Catholic Church in Ireland will campaign so intensively on this single issue, while ignoring the many threats to human dignity ,even life, which are the all too visible consequence of state policy targeting the vulnerable in society in the name of economic efficiency.
Pat, I tried to make it clear I’m not arguing this from a religious point of view, I’m trying to argue it from a logical point of view. I don’t put much faith in experts, whether medical, legal or moral. Countries can pass whatever laws their citizens choose but I don’t have to accept that they’ve got it right. Likewise with wise medical men. As someone commented here, it’s a bit contradictory, the excitement of parents-to-be at the sight of their baby on an ultra-scan or whatever, sitting alongside the insistence by others that it’s just a bunch of tissues. No mother or father or son or daughter has the right to take innocent human life. If that’s a baby in there, except where the mother’s life is at risk (and I’m not even clear on that one), then it should be strictly hands-off. If it’s not a baby, batter away – tear it up and flush it out. Like blowing your nose. Again, I’m not going to bat for the Catholic Church or anyone else. I’m saying how I see it.
Exactly why is SF getting into a public row with the Church on abortion, months before an election ? What was their majority in Fermanagh-S.Tyrone last time out ?
Personally, given SF support, albeit limited for abortion, I’ll be considering whether to support them in the future.
No word from other parties, who were conspicuous by their absence on Thursday night’s ‘The View’.