In opposition to abortion on demand
I said I wouldn't touch this one with a barge poll because it is such an emotive issue, but I can't resist. If you can't get worked up about a life or death issue, you may as well not blog at all.
Let's preface all of this by saying that I disagree with legalised abortion on demand, but I approve of abortion in exceptional medical cases. So the following can all be considered in light of my opposition to abortion on demand.
It's hard-coded into your mindset - either you're for or against it. Whereas the debate over gay marriage and divorce involves individuals and the decisions they make concerning only themselves, the entrenched views in this debate sees the Pro-Life supporters never swaying from the opinion that abortion affects two people; the mother and the unborn baby. The law in Ireland currently supports this view. However, the numbers who support either argument may change depending on how new voters make up their mind.
Central to forming an opinion on the matter is the whole issue of when it's (don't extract any meaning from my use of the word 'it') a bunch of cells and when it's a human. As expertly pointed out by a commenter Mental Meanderings, a scientific answer is needed before judgment can be made and laws can be changed in Ireland. Contrary to what Fiona DeLondres says, it is my belief that it does not come down to a decision that's based on faith or religion.
The latest point in any pregnancy when a woman can have an abortion in the UK is currently 24 weeks. I will not employ Youth Defence tactics and show you what a foetus looks like at 24 weeks (this is dealt with in another 'big debate'). But to me a foetus at 24 weeks has all the characteristics and outwardly appearances of a human being. If it looks like a baby, it's a baby. End of. However, this only pushes the argument to an earlier point in the pregnancy. Is the morning-after pill just another form of abortion?
I have nothing but respect for Fiona DeLondres's writing to date but when she says that emotion has no place in this debate, she is profoundly wrong. Emotion seeps from every corner of this issue. To treat the issue with sterile detachment would be wrong. Teenage girls feeling like they have no choice but to terminate lives inside their bodies involves emotion. A teenage father who has little or no say in whether he is willing to be a father has emotions. The girl's parents, who are ashamed of her daughter's humping in the bedroom next door, are emotional. In the whole gay marriage debate, a lot of what Fiona spoke of was about the merit of recognising the emotion and love between people of the same sex. Double standards a go-go.
The libertarian in me says that a lot of this is caused by ordinary Irish folks' prudish attitude towards sex. They have trouble imagining their daughter having sexual intercourse with a boy. How cold you must be to shun a daughter, a sister or a niece when she's in trouble? How lacking in compassion you must be to make her feel like her only option is to travel to the UK to have her offspring terminated?
A bizarre element of this debate (read also as yet another row between DeLondres and Waghorne) is the comment from Richard Waghorne that a blog is not the place to discuss this issue. Why on earth not? What could preclude this debate from happening in the blogging community? However, he has wavered and will give his opinion on Sicilian Notes.
The fact that some women elect to have an abortion because their lifestyle cannot accommodate any disruption is truly tragic and grossly self-centred. If you make the decision not to treat contraception seriously, it is this blogger's opinion that you must not shirk the responsibility of pregnancy. I will not accept the argument that it's easy for us men to say this and that we're not in any position to comment. This post contends that the foetus is the equal product of its mother and its father and it should therefore follow that the father gets a say in the foetus's fate.
We now have a young population, the Church doesn't hold as much influence on its flock and money has become more important to society. People are more educated and more inclined to rationalise debate in their own heads. In short, individualism has taken told. This all spells danger for the unborn. If science can keep a-pace with the mé féinism, pro-lifers can look forward to protracting this debate.
The pain of giving up one's progeny for adoption is very real. But adoption must be considered as a viable alternative to termination. This country has seen a shortfall of children for adoption and many couples are travelling great distances to adopt. The decision to terminate a pregnancy has left many a scar and the subsequent guilt felt by women after taking this drastic action has been well documented. Surely there is a case to be made for weighing up both options.
I'm not intellectually equipped to have a ding-dong battle with Fiona, but I'm not going to beat myself up over this. Like every other pro-lifer, I'm making this a moral issue - one that's packed to the rafters with emotion.
Published by Colm.
Let's preface all of this by saying that I disagree with legalised abortion on demand, but I approve of abortion in exceptional medical cases. So the following can all be considered in light of my opposition to abortion on demand.
It's hard-coded into your mindset - either you're for or against it. Whereas the debate over gay marriage and divorce involves individuals and the decisions they make concerning only themselves, the entrenched views in this debate sees the Pro-Life supporters never swaying from the opinion that abortion affects two people; the mother and the unborn baby. The law in Ireland currently supports this view. However, the numbers who support either argument may change depending on how new voters make up their mind.
Central to forming an opinion on the matter is the whole issue of when it's (don't extract any meaning from my use of the word 'it') a bunch of cells and when it's a human. As expertly pointed out by a commenter Mental Meanderings, a scientific answer is needed before judgment can be made and laws can be changed in Ireland. Contrary to what Fiona DeLondres says, it is my belief that it does not come down to a decision that's based on faith or religion.
The latest point in any pregnancy when a woman can have an abortion in the UK is currently 24 weeks. I will not employ Youth Defence tactics and show you what a foetus looks like at 24 weeks (this is dealt with in another 'big debate'). But to me a foetus at 24 weeks has all the characteristics and outwardly appearances of a human being. If it looks like a baby, it's a baby. End of. However, this only pushes the argument to an earlier point in the pregnancy. Is the morning-after pill just another form of abortion?
I have nothing but respect for Fiona DeLondres's writing to date but when she says that emotion has no place in this debate, she is profoundly wrong. Emotion seeps from every corner of this issue. To treat the issue with sterile detachment would be wrong. Teenage girls feeling like they have no choice but to terminate lives inside their bodies involves emotion. A teenage father who has little or no say in whether he is willing to be a father has emotions. The girl's parents, who are ashamed of her daughter's humping in the bedroom next door, are emotional. In the whole gay marriage debate, a lot of what Fiona spoke of was about the merit of recognising the emotion and love between people of the same sex. Double standards a go-go.
The libertarian in me says that a lot of this is caused by ordinary Irish folks' prudish attitude towards sex. They have trouble imagining their daughter having sexual intercourse with a boy. How cold you must be to shun a daughter, a sister or a niece when she's in trouble? How lacking in compassion you must be to make her feel like her only option is to travel to the UK to have her offspring terminated?
A bizarre element of this debate (read also as yet another row between DeLondres and Waghorne) is the comment from Richard Waghorne that a blog is not the place to discuss this issue. Why on earth not? What could preclude this debate from happening in the blogging community? However, he has wavered and will give his opinion on Sicilian Notes.
The fact that some women elect to have an abortion because their lifestyle cannot accommodate any disruption is truly tragic and grossly self-centred. If you make the decision not to treat contraception seriously, it is this blogger's opinion that you must not shirk the responsibility of pregnancy. I will not accept the argument that it's easy for us men to say this and that we're not in any position to comment. This post contends that the foetus is the equal product of its mother and its father and it should therefore follow that the father gets a say in the foetus's fate.
We now have a young population, the Church doesn't hold as much influence on its flock and money has become more important to society. People are more educated and more inclined to rationalise debate in their own heads. In short, individualism has taken told. This all spells danger for the unborn. If science can keep a-pace with the mé féinism, pro-lifers can look forward to protracting this debate.
The pain of giving up one's progeny for adoption is very real. But adoption must be considered as a viable alternative to termination. This country has seen a shortfall of children for adoption and many couples are travelling great distances to adopt. The decision to terminate a pregnancy has left many a scar and the subsequent guilt felt by women after taking this drastic action has been well documented. Surely there is a case to be made for weighing up both options.
I'm not intellectually equipped to have a ding-dong battle with Fiona, but I'm not going to beat myself up over this. Like every other pro-lifer, I'm making this a moral issue - one that's packed to the rafters with emotion.
Published by Colm.
|