What that Counsel then argues is merely a legal argument and this case was nothing to do with the qualified rights of the unborn but the freedom to travel.

Quotes:

Lawyers representing the rights of the unborn child in the Miss D case have said it is protected under the constitution until it dies.

They said that regardless of its condition this is a live foetus and its right to life is the same as that of any other foetus or child.

Lawyers for the unborn said that longevity does not come into play in any way when measuring a child’s constitutional rights and there is no logic in seeking to define the current status of a foetus with reference to what will happen after birth.

Mr Connolly, for the unborn, is making his submissions in response to the legal challenge by Miss D who wants to travel to the UK to have a termination because her baby has a fatal brain condition.

Medical advancements mean this is no longer the case.

Since 2004, doctors in the Netherland have implemented the Gronigen protocol which looks at dealing with severely newborns.

Under this protocol, doctors don’t attempt to keep the child alive where the child’s medical team agree the child is in severe pain, there no chance of improvement and the parents consent.

If there is no consent from the parents then the child is given the best possible medical care.

This is a rare situation. Statistics from 2003 showed only 4 infants died in this manner.

A report was also issued in England by the Nuffield council on bio-ethics. They asked is it always necessary to try and prolong life.

The council focused on grossly premature babies and firmly established that a baby born with less than 24 weeks gestation has a limited chance of survival but it is possible to keep them alive but they are generally severely handicapped as a result.

The Council suggested that any child born after less than 22 weeks should be left to die. Over 23 weeks then the baby should only be resuccitated if parents ask. 24 weeks and over, give all the care you can.

This behaviour differentiates itself from euthanasia in that this is refusing treatment rather than taking deliberate steps.

Also, I haven’t read the entire thread but nowhere in Irish law does it state that the foetus has an equal right to life to the mother.

The 8th Amendment doesn’t state that a foetus is a living human being, it just gives it a qualified right to life.

You make a very reasonable argument and it probably represents the way I thought for a very long time. However, I think what swung me was the idea that an unborn foetus with no chance of independent, sustainable life would be treated equally under law as the mother.

That just doesnt make sense to me. I am really reluctant to introduce feminist theology into this discussion, but there is certainly a school of thought that would argue that the idea of the sanctity of the unborn was yet another constuct of the early church to dominate the female. It can be seen as a control method. Indeed in the early church, coitus interruptus was seen as damaging as abortion or contraception, as it was seen as the woman avoiding pregnancy.

I am beginning to be more convinced that a woman has a right to make decisions about her body and all the cells that grow on that body or in that body. I am not the best proponent of this argument, as I am developing my thoughts on it.

Cahal
You’re right about my CV. I nursed in Ireland and many states on the East Coast and south of America. I also nursed in Ireland before becoming involved in social services and the voluntary sector. I still work in that sector, but lecture in social science.

A statement that goes to the heart of the abortion debate, and explains why many people with otherwise similar views can be divided on the subject of abortion – when does a developing human being become a person, and when does a living foetus have a “living life”?

Personally I cannot accept that inadequate lung development, one of the primary barriers to viability between twelve and twenty four weeks, is a valid justification for non-therapeutic (or social) abortion of a foetus with a functioning brain and central nervous system – a foetus that is alive and kicking in the womb.

I would go further, and say that from the point where a unique human being starts to develop he or she starts to acquire rights – certainly no later than ten days after conception, when all identical twins have separated and, much more rarely, fraternal twins may have merged.

I can understand why people regard a developing child as a cluster of cells. It’s not intuitive to empathise with a baby in the very earliest stages of development – but it is rational.

I suspect more people will feel empathy for developing children as the full implications of scientific discoveries in genetics and ultra-sound are absorbed. After all, it took time for Darwinism to become understood and accepted, and even in the twentieth century we saw the absurdities of creationism and social darwinism, including the compulsory sterilsation of disabled women in Sweden.

That doesn’t mean that a developing human being has an absolute right to life in all circumstances, or that we should have no compassion or empathy for the mother. I suspect we will get to a situation where therapeutic abortion will be permitted where there is a substantially elevated threat to the life or health of the mother, and abortion will be legalised in cases of rape.

I appreciate that still leaves many women – and men – with the agonising choice of giving up a baby for adoption, or accepting the gruelling, exhausting, wonderful 24/7 responsibilities of parenthood. I know that those who choose to have an abortion don’t do so lightly, but I think they’re wrong, and that society has a duty to protect the rights of developing human beings, just as much it should protect the rights of neglected or abused children.

I have not insulted you personally.

I do not wish for there to be a cut off point at 24 weeks. I am pointing out your mistake in assuming that there is a 24 week cut off point in Northern Ireland when there isn’t.

I do not agree with abortion at any gestation.

I cant believe that, knowing now that there is no cut off at 24 weeks, you still agree that it is OK to force an abortion upon a non consenting woman, even if that means abortion to full term.

Forcing an abortion is not the same as a blood transfusion. During a blood transfusion you dont have to kill anyone.

Your reference to the unborn as clumps of cells is mean.

When you can say that one life is greater than another, then no life is priceless any more.

Forced abortion is acceptable to you, but I always thought that the right to abortion arguement was based on the right to choose? For the woman to do what SHE wanted with her body. Seems now that her choise is not so important anymore.

I would only say that you should really think through this abortion thing. When you care so much about other people why not care about the unborn?

I’m not an MD. Going by your own information, which you provided yourself, you said the baby would die after a few hours or days I think. Before it is dead, I am assuming it is alive, unless there is some quasi-dead/alive state I am unaware of.

” Just answer that please.”

You betcha sport.

“And for the record, I do not belong to a pro choice group. I exercised conscientious objection to absent myself from abortion procedures while I was nursing in New York.”

Nursing in New York ehh! Your resume must be the length of my arm. Fair play.

In case you didn’t finish reading my post, I agree that the baby should be euthenized in this incident.

Thats a far cry from supporting the kind of abortions-r-us attitude prevalent in the states though.

I think the focus in Ireland should be on reducing unwanted pregnancies to the point where abortion isn’t even a factor. In that way we can bypass the abortion arguement altogether. Surely we can agree on that.

You are now starting to direct personal insults at me, and I unerstand your tactic.

I find myself agreeing completely with Animus on these issues.

Perhaps the best thing is to bring this back to the legitimacy of my original post. That is the point of origin of my argument, and I re-iterate it. A woman carrying a foetus with abnormalities and no chance of life should have the option of aborting it.

On your other points regarding the controversial guidelines on abortion for NI, you are making some points that I heard on a recent radio debate, and you are correct. We should make sure that the 24 week rule for abortion is enacted and does not have to go to law for decision. I agree with you that abortion should have a 24 week cut off point and it should be more clear.

As to forced abortions? Well, same as I said with the blood transfusions for Jehovah witnesses, or fanatics that believe prayer cures illness. There are times when it may be seen to be cruel to force treatment, but if there is a lack of capacity or other circumstances and a clear risk to the life of the mother, well yes, the foetus gets aborted. I have looked on the net, but cannot find any case where it has happened in NI, perhaps you can enlighten us.

As to the final point: when little babies like Madeline McCann are safe from paedophiles, well then I will worry about clumps of cells that stand no chance of survival.

You misunderstand the point of the discussion.

We were talking about FORCED abortion, where the woman does not consent, as provided for in the guidelines.

Its hard to discuss this with you as you are getting erratic.

The section you have quoted from the guidelines refers to the 1945 Act and relates to the offence of Child Destruction, which is an offence only relevant when the child is “capable of being born alive”. This is nothing to do with a cut off point for abortions. Why hav.e you referred to it

The 24 week limit does not apply.

Incidentally the guidelines are also wrong in their treatment of the 1945 Act. They miss out section 25(2). A gross oversight.

In this country there is no right to commit abortion, either in law or morally.

You obviously are going to believe whatever you want, and it is sad that you would protect the life of a foetus over a mother to the point that you would sacrifice both. Truly sad. I have to agree with MissFitz here; better to look after the vast numbers of children who are living in poverty and misery with parents who are incapable and incompetent of showing love and compassion than to worry about the hypothetical and very rare cases of which you are ranting.

If you support the proposed guidelines in NI then you support abortion to full term.

I am not wrong on the Law. It is illegal to force an abortion on a person against their consent in Northern Ireland. The guidelines are clearly n breach of the law in this regard.

Your point about lackng capacity is not relevant, a person who lacks capacity cannot legally consent and therefore cannot have their refusal to consent over ridden, which is the issue being discussed here. (re s. 2.9 to 2.13 of the Draft Guidelines)

Tell me if there is a pregnancy condition which requires direct abortion to save the life of the mother. I cannot prove that there isn’t, precisely because non exists.

From the guidelines:

Termination of pregnancy beyond the time at which a child is ‘capable
of being born alive’ is governed by the Criminal Justice Act (NI) 1945,
which provides a statutory defence against the offence of child
destruction where the act which caused the death of the child was
done in good faith for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother.
Exactly the same principles (see paragraph 2.5) apply in such a case.
In other words the legal justification for carrying out a termination of
pregnancy in Northern Ireland is exactly the same both before and
after the time at which a child is capable of being born alive. This
follows from the Bourne decision and its application to the Northern
Ireland legislation. The 1945 Act does not prescribe a time period
beyond which a child is ‘capable of being born alive’. This would
therefore be a matter of evidence in the event of a prosecution in
Northern Ireland.

It’s not an issue that keeps me awake at night to be honest, and I think that its humane to abort in certain circumstances.

You spoke of forcing people to have medical treatment, and I can say that I have seen in on many occasions in my life. I have seen court orders for people to have blood transfusion against their will, I have seen Courts decide against parents who refused to administer insulin. In Tennessee, many people believed in the power of prayer over conventional medicine, and I have seen medical treatemt being administered under order.

None of it was pleasant, and it is without doubt a moral dilemma. But the basic point is that EXISTING life is sacred. A foetus before 24 weeks is not viable and is not worth a living life.

What I have seen in my time, and what does bother me still, is images of abused children. I can never forget the first murdered child I took care of in ER, nor many of the subsequent abused and battered children.

If you want to campaign for something, campaign for the rights of living chidlren who are abused, beaten and murdered. Better to terminate an unwanted pregnancy than risk a living child being tortured.

The 24 week legal limit is under the Abortion Act 1967 which is not in force in Northern Ireland.(Although a disabled baby can be aborted to term in England)

The Northern Ireland law is the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 and the Criminal Justice Act 1945. Neither of these prescribe a time limit as they are dealing with criminal offences.

The abortions which are done legally are those which fall under the common law offence, based on the Bourne Case 1937.

There is therefore NO gestational limit if the case falls under the common law exeption.

So, now I have explained the law to you, do you want to answer the question I posed?

I had the courtesy to answer your question.

The fact that you thought the 24 week limit appied to Northern Ireland is a frightening example of how inadequate these guidelines are.

Im not sure you really know enough about this subject to be discussing it at this level.

I suspect you’re just trolling here, but no one supports abortion at 35 weeks. No one. Having done a quick Google trawl, I find that some birth defects may be severe enough to place both mother and foetus at risk. Unless you are a doctor prepared to argue this point, the onus is on you to disprove. Point 1 – you are incorrect. It was not illegal to sterilise women with learning difficulties against their will in many places; it was not considered GBH, any more than sectioning someone if they are felt to lack capacity to make an informed decision. Point 2 is plainly incorrect and you are not only belligerent but quite wrong. Point 3 is a statemtn of fact, not a reason for anything. It is not common to require abortion to save a mother’s health, but sufficiently common to be termed therapeutic abortion.

The legal limit for termination is 24 weeks, so at 35 weeks you have a viable foetus.

Look, you are obviously very anti abortion in all circumstances, and I feel sad for you. I think its very intolerant and short sighted,

The answer to the made up situation that you have pulled out of the air is NO she should not have an abortion forced upon her.

Reasons:

1. It would be ILLEGAL to committ an abortion without consent in ANY circumstances.

You would be commiting GBH on the girl and Illegal abortion/Child Destruction on the baby. Very Serious.

2. There is no pregnancy condition which requires a direct abortion to prevent the death of the mother. (If you know of one tell me there are lots of doctors who would be interested.)

3. I am a Catholic.

What about this situation:

A 17 year old girl is in care and 35 weeks pregnant with a child she loves. She would never consider an abortion. She has the same imaginary medical condition as the girl in your example.

Answer me this

Should you FORCE and abortion on her and her child?

An underaged girl can be forced to abort against her will if that will save her life.

Now can you tell me who is the more vulnerable in this situation:

A 14 year old severely mentally handicapped girl who has been raped and becomes pregant. On examination, it is found that she cannot safely carry this child for medical reasons, and that if she continues she will die.

Answer me this, and no more than this.

In this case, should an abortion be performed to save the life of the mother??

These are the situations the guidelines are dealing with, not some other made up situation that you are pulling out of the air.

I have not twisted any words.

Fact: These guidelines state that an under aged girl can be forced to abort against her will.

Fact: You accept that.

Fact: I find forced abortion brutal.

Fact: Forced abortion in any circumstances is illegal.

Question: Why is forced abortion in the guidelines and how can you defend it?

Fact: You are getting upset because you cant justify forced abortion.