European Court of Human Rights rules that Irish abortion ban violates woman's rights

[removeduser_487563287433]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11342247

Ireland's abortion law is a barbaric archaism, a relic of Catholicism's traditional strangle hold on the country. If you visit even Dublin you will notice a large amount of anti-abortion campaign materials and protests, underlying a huge moral hypocrisy. These people will furiously attack anybody who defends abortion, but are quite happy to export thousands of unwanted pregnant women to the UK every year so they can have an abortion out of sight, out of mind.

The ECHR has ruled in the favour of one such woman who was forced to travel abroad to escape this persecution. The woman in question was in remission for a rare form of cancer, and feared it may return as a result of her pregnancy. Technically women are to be permitted an abortion in the Republic of Ireland if their life is at risk, but in this case it was found not to happen.

Hopefully this will require a change to Irish law and Irish women will no longer have to fear death or flee abroad if they have a dangerous pregnancy.

[gsoxx]

I assume there are quite a few abortion doctors in Northern Ireland making a living because of this.

[removeduser_487563287433]

No, Northern Irish abortion law is also a travesty. Irish women, North or South, need to seek treatment in Great Britain.

[Big War Bird]

Is there any evidence that pregnancy increased her risk for that type of cancer?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Beyond the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, you mean?

I mean I just need to gauge how stupid that question was.

[Big War Bird]

Beyond the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, you mean?

I mean I just need to gauge how stupid that question was.

The article doesn't say does it? It says the women asserted that their lives were at risk but I would think that even you could have picked up on that glaring omission.

Actually if read this related article there is an indication the woman was not at an increased risk for return of cancer. Though that is still unclear.

All in all I think this article is a good candidate for the Bad Journalism thread.

Meanwhile I do expect you to report for remedial reading comprehension lessons. You are shaming to me my pupil.

[GreyFox]

I think abortion is barbaric and should only be considered if the child has a terminal defect or the health of the mother is put at risk. Abortion should never be seen as simply another form of contraception.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I think abortion is barbaric and should only be considered if the child has a terminal defect or the health of the mother is put at risk. Abortion should never be seen as simply another form of contraception.

Nice to see you didn't bother to read my post or the article. Great input. Really.

[Manco]

I think abortion is barbaric and should only be considered if the child has a terminal defect or the health of the mother is put at risk. Abortion should never be seen as simply another form of contraception.

Strawman. There is no one at all who considers abortion merely a form of contraception.

[Copperknickers II]

I think abortion is barbaric and should only be considered if the child has a terminal defect or the health of the mother is put at risk. Abortion should never be seen as simply another form of contraception.

That's easy for you to say, you are not a woman, and probably not someone with a non-serious defect. Who benefits from pro-life? Not really the foetus, better to be dead (or rather, not to be alive in the first place, since a foetus is no more alive than a virus or, at most, an extremely basic invertebrate, so long as it depends on and weakens its mother) than to be born to a mother who doesn't want it, and certainly not the mother because you are forcing them to give birth, and then to raise a child they don't want, or are unsuited to looking after. Any ovum can become a human being, just because women don't give birth to every single one of those potential living things doesn't mean they are murdering them.

It's better to consider the foetus as a potential human being, and needless to say it is in the interests of both the mother and the potential to ensure that the birth happens in good circumstances and at the right time for the mother and father, so that it will have as good a quality of life as possible. We cannot possibly tell whether a child with a slightly debilitating genetic disease is going to be the next Einstein or Julius Caesar, but we can be certain that their life is not going to be up to the standard it would be had they been normal.

Contraception is an immoral device by which sex is portrayed as a means of pleasure rather than procreation. Have pleasure by all means, but not through the act of reproduction itself, unless you intend or do not mind having a child. The only 100% effective means of contraception is abstinence, it is irresponsible to have casual sex outwith a long term relationship. Obviously abortion can be a traumatic procedure for the mother, but she knew the risk she was taking when she had sex afterall. The child should not be punished for its parents irresponsibility, and in my view the best way of ensuring it does not suffer the adverse effects of unwanted pregnancy is to make sure it does not see the light. Rape excluded from that of course.

[Erlinggra]

I think abortion is barbaric and should only be considered if the child has a terminal defect or the health of the mother is put at risk. Abortion should never be seen as simply another form of contraception.

and if you ignore a few crazy women who purposefully get pregnant to have abortions (i.e not contraception, but insane) it never is.

Exactly what is it they are fleeing from? The consequences of their actions?

nope the consequences of math. Read on

In this day and age, with the many methods of easily available contraception, there is no reason why abortions should need to be carried out in a case where both mother and child are perfectly healthy.

Yes there are plenty of reason because contraception fails.

Fun with math and fun facts. The majority of people who have abortions use contraception.
Condoms have about a 2 % failure rate.
The pill for women can have a failure rate of 0,3 -8 %. (depending on brand and usage)

That means that if a couple has sex with just one form of contraception i.e condoms there is a 2 % chance to get pregnant if it is that time of the month. Being that quite a few people do exactly that; it is mathematically impossible that some people don't get accidentally pregnant.

I don't even have to do the math as 2% is a pretty high chance, and there is more than 50 people in you local area (provided you are not on either of the poles) having sex right now.

[HansDuet]

Well, European court of Human Rights is spot on.

[Armenum]

Ireland should be reprimanded for allowing religious doctrine to influence its laws and policies. Issues like abortion in public society should be justified by science not religion.

[GreyFox]

Ireland should be reprimanded for allowing religious doctrine to influence its laws and policies. Issues like abortion in public society should be justified by science not religion.

It's not a religious stance, it's a moral one.

[Armenum]

It's not a religious stance, it's a moral one.

Moral issues most of the time stem from religion.

[GreyFox]

Nice to see you didn't bother to read my post or the article. Great input. Really.

The constitution already allows abortion in the event that pregnancy places the life of the mother in danger. You just need to research more.

[Phier]

Remember only when you can kill your children in the womb are you truly free.

[Mangalore]

Remember only when you can kill your children in the womb are you truly free.

That is a very true statement. people seem to be a bit confused about the meaning of "can" and "have to" though. I know a lot of women who are happy that they can decide about wether they have to have a pregnancy and at the same time would feel very hard pressed to decide that they can kill their cute little baby toddler in their womb.

[danzig]

That is a very true statement. people seem to be a bit confused about the meaning of "can" and "have to" though. I know a lot of women who are happy that they can decide about wether they have to have a pregnancy and at the same time would feel very hard pressed to decide that they can kill their cute little baby toddler in their womb.

And this is why I cant stand prolife or proabortion groups who seem to see the issue in terms of numbers and "winning"..its almost like either one celebrates anytime a baby is aborted or not. My only issue with abortion and women is I believe laws should take into account fathers who pretty much have zero say in the matter.

[Phier]

And this is why I cant stand prolife or proabortion groups who seem to see the issue in terms of numbers and "winning"..its almost like either one celebrates anytime a baby is aborted or not. My only issue with abortion and women is I believe laws should take into account fathers who pretty much have zero say in the matter.

Celebrating every time an abortion is prevented makes sense logically if you hold that life begins at conception.

Celebrating when there are more abortions at best makes you warped and at worst some kind of monster.

Fathers can have no rights or the entire abortion house of cards falls down. Either an abortion is the moral equivalent of getting a hair cut, or its a human life with full rights. There isn't much grey area.

Of cures women shoudl decide if they want an abortion, religon is a thing in the past, and it has been replaced by free will (thank god for that)

One need not believe in the invisible sky daddy to think that abortion is wrong.

Now I can't even begin to understand people who do believe in the spirit in the sky who think abortion is ok, they will have some splaining to do if they are right, unless they worship Baal.