Sensitive and complex
I can’t read this calmly; it makes me quake and gibber with rage. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Ireland is messing with the human rights of women by not allowing them to get abortions to save their lives.
Taoiseach Brian Cowen said the ruling raised “difficult issues” that needed to be carefully considered. Speaking in Brussels, he said it was much too early to make any decision on whether legislation would be required in light of the court’s decision.
Minister for Health Mary Harney said the Government [would] take legal advice. Acknowledging the judgment was binding on the State, she said the Government would have to come forward with proposals to reflect it. “However, this will take time as it is a highly sensitive and complex area,” Ms Harney said.
What is highly sensitive and complex? What is highly sensitive and complex about it? Is it really “sensitive” to say that women should not be forced to continue a pregnancy that will kill them?
Both Cowen and Harney seem to think so (or to think that the Irish public want them to talk as if they think so). Both seem to think they can’t just agree that the state should not force women to let themselves be killed by pregnancies.
The Government robustly defended the laws and said Ireland’s abortion laws were based on “profound moral values deeply embedded in Irish society”.
It argued that European Court on Human Rights has consistently recognised the traditions of different countries regarding the rights of unborn children. However, it maintained that the women’s challenge sought to undermine these principles and align Ireland with countries with more liberal abortion laws.
“These principles” – the ones that claim a fetus has rights that trump those of a grown woman. “Principles” is the wrong word.
Translation : These profoundly phony values are so far up our arse that it will probably take an enema to flush them out.
Response : We’ll be waiting with matchboxes in our hands when you’re done flushing.
It’s “sensitive” and “complex” to admit that Ireland is still run by the RCC.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Sensitive and complex http://dlvr.it/BXTvX […]
The church has always viewed women as vessels for the incubation of male heirs. Even Aristotle thought that sperm was human seed, and that women contributed nothing other than a chamber for germination. That is why the bible raged against the spilling of seed. The thinking then was that sperm WAS complete human seed. And women were chattel, two legged breeding chambers.
Thank goodness we know better. (insert irony emoticon here).
I haven’t read the decision in detail – http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2010/echr/index.pdf?via=rel – but a few things stand out upon reading it. In Ireland abortion is legal in order to protect the life of the mother. This particular case is about access and information. Of the three applicants the court ruled against two of them. As near as I can tell the court ruled in favor of the third not because her life was in danger but rather because she didn’t have an effective clearly legal means by which to determine whether or not her life was in danger.
So in response to
That doesn’t appear to be the conclusion of the court. Rather it appears that the court is saying that Ireland has made it too difficult for women to determine whether or not they are entitled to an abortion in accordance with Irish law.
It seems like the decision is a step in the right direction. From what I read, however, the court unfortunately doesn’t have the power to require Ireland to legalize abortion in cases other than where the life of the mother is at risk.
Don’t forget, religion is profound, women are just women. And that, I am afraid, is precisely the outlook of the church, and why it should make anyone quiver with rage. What a disgusting organisation. And these are the people who say that we can’t have morality without god! And the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury were hanging on every word of the idiot from the Vatican. It does make one sick. And don’t think for a moment that this is just a Irish affair. The Roman Catholic Church may have made a hash of things in Ireland, but their the Wizard is still there, behind the scenes, pulling all the strings.
No, the court does not say that Ireland must legalise abortion, but it must not make it difficult for women whose lives are at risk to get permission to have an abortion. It is a very limited decision, and while in truth Ireland is breaching women’s rights, as the law stands, for all its profundity and sensitivity, the government doesn’t have to change very much. It still going to stink once they’re done. The pope won’t let Ireland go without a fight.
Sorry, I thought I hit the preview button, but I posted it instead, mistakes and all!
Religion is anti-life (thus the pro-life stance is so confusing), and so no surprise it is anti-women. Women give birth to new life not men, and certainly not a male-orientated divine creator. Why so much a hatred for life? Because at root, monotheism is a FEAR of women.
Thanks Jeff. Useful clarification (not to say correction).
I gather though from a BBC (Wrld srvc) piece I just heard that there is a de facto ban on abortion even when the woman’s life is in danger. The Beeb said the exception is in the constitution but not in the law, and that Ireland has been avoiding passing the law.
I’m only a third of the way into the whole 75 pages, but it sure seems complex. Ireland has managed to turn something simple – abortions should be legal but providers should be regulated to ensure they are trained, competent, and meet standards of safety, etc. – into a frakking legal mess. I hardly need to say that this is what happens when religion is allowed to influence the law.
When I’m home this is one of the hardest issues to speak with people about. Even normally rational people who are only nominally Catholic seem to be unable to tackle it.
I suppose it might have a lot to do with the travelling anti-abortion roadshows the nuns used to take around Ireland and rope all the adolescents into. Full of gory pictures of dismembered foetuses. I remember when everyone used to wear a pin of two tiny foetus feet to show they were against abortion.
Tscha, back when knowledge and medicine was squarely in the hands of the priesthood, and wise-women daring to help pregnant women (such as by giving them a pain-reducer during the birth) could legally be burnt at the stake – the RCC knew what was right and wrong, good and bad.
Is it any wonder that these men are now “confused” and find these issues “difficult“. Have pity on them – they have no medical training, no experience of childbirth, no idea of genetics and only a limited knowledge of theocratic subjects.
The Taoiseach may even have been threaten with hell, a particularly insidious form of blackmail!
We must educate our politicians, inform them of their duty – to the people of their country (>50% are women!) not to Ratzinger.
Would these Irish values be the same Irish values that led the Irish State being complicit in the sexual, physical and mental abuse of children by agencies of the Catholic Church ?
Only if they, they need some new values. The current ones are crap.
from the Belfast Telegraph yesterday Cardinal Brady is quoted thus (underlining added):
“It does not oblige Ireland to introduce legislation authorising abortion,” he claimed. But the all-Ireland Primate acknowledged that the judgment raised “profound moral and legal issues which will require careful analysis and reflection by the Catholic bishops”.
So obviously Brady is in no doubt as to who is still running Ireland these days. And from the mealy-mouthed words of the politicians they’re in no doubt either.
Isn’t there some international convention that sovereign states (which RCC Inc. claims to be) do not interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign states (which the Republic of Ireland claims to be)?
Yes I do know it’s more honoured in the breach…….
There is a phrase used in Ireland to refer to the current position of Irish society as a whole towards the question of abortion: “an Irish solution to an Irish problem”.
Everyone in Ireland knows what the solution is – and there IS a solution – but it is considered uncouth to actually come out and say it. The solution is to use the unofficial Irish abortion provider. Ryanair.
Exporting the problem across to clinics in England has been the standard policy for the past two generations and conservative politicians in Ireland are loath to even contemplate changing that. When practical questions relating to the policy have come before the Irish electorate (usually pushed by rabid catholic fundamentalists) such as restricting the right to information about abortion or restricting the right of pregnant women to travel abroad (yes – this was proposed in the relatively recent past and put to the electorate to approve!) the public have tended to side with allowing the current situation of women being able to pursue abortions – but only if they do it abroad. The gross hypocrisy that this entails is part and parcel of Irish life.
As to what minister Harney means by “However, this will take time as it is a highly sensitive and complex area,”I think you need an Irish person to translate it into realpolitik language.
What she means is this: “It would be political suicide for a conservative party like ours, who derive most of our current support from the rural elderly churchgoing population, to pass legislation that allows for limited abortion, even in circumstances that save the life of the mother since this contradicts catholic teaching. Going against catholic teaching in an area like abortion is highly likely to lead to loss of this elderly conservative vote and thus loss of power by our party.”
One has to understand the recent demographic history of Ireland to get the full picture of why this situation of religious conservatism is present in Ireland in contrast to most of western Europe. In Ireland the formation of the state in the 1920s happened during a time when a lot of European politics was splitting in a left-right fashion. In contrast Irish politics split between two sides that based their politics on nationalism (one side wanted 32 county republic and the other were prepared to settle for a 26 county republic that didnt include Northern Ireland). The actual day to day politics of both sides was rather conservative and so there was little in the way of policy differences. Politics in Ireland rapidly descended into a sort of tribalism with nepotism and crony-ism being seen as normal. Whichever one of the two parties was in power tended to – banana republic style – put all their own supporters into the best jobs etc. This lack of a meritocracy led to decades of mismanagement of the economy and the unemployment situation was dealt with mainly through the promotion of emigration. In the main those that emigrated were those who were most disgusted by the political scene – which had the result of removing from Irish society of those most likely to want and promote change. During the highpoints of emigration up to 40% of young people would emigrate. Losing that amount of individuals of one generation has a profound effect on the overall political outlook and led to the current situation where conservative religiosity has such a hold on a modern European nation.
Cardinal Brady said ” “profound moral and legal issues which will require careful analysis and reflection by the Catholic bishops”.
Ah yes, Cardinal Brady.
Cardinal Brady, the moral voice of Irish Catholicism.
Cardinal Brady, who in 1975, sat in an office with two children who had been violently raped by the serial abuser ‘Father’ Brendan Smith and listened to their tales of horror.
Cardinal Brady, who had the opportunity and reason to do what any decent human being would feel compelled to do – report the matter to the police and led the law take its course.
Cardinal Brady, who instead forced the children to sign statements of silence backed with threats of excommunication and hellfire.
Cardinal Brady, who allowed Smith avoid the law for his crimes and go on to rape and abuse many more children.
That Cardinal Brady.
Sigmund. Yep – that’s the one! A bulwark against the appalling prospect of secularization (by militant atheists who have no moral compass, don’t ya know).
It actually is quite a complex situtation, but only because the government allowed it to be. Effectively the Irish Supreme Court had already established that the government must change the legislation, they didn’t and that’s why the case ended up in Europe.
The state interpreted the consitution as providing absolute protection for the fetus. Absolute being at the cost of the mother in effect. Once it develops and is born however, it doesn’t have absolute protection in fact a as child under state care it is subject to abhorent care. So yes, the state imposes a rule that abortion is illegal and then doesn’t have a support mechanism once the child is born. And of course as an adult your right to life is limted depending on the circumstances.
The Supreme court ruled that this wasn’t the intention of the constitution in the event of a threat to the life of the pregnant mother and as a result new laws were needed. If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court provided a clarification on the Constitution so it wouldn’t require a referrendum, just new legislation. I could be wrong.
However, all Irish politicans would be frightened of introducing legislation legalising even a small minority of abortions. In effect, they would rather kill the mother than their careers. Thankfully, the likes of Ryanair meant we didn’t have that situation, but mothers had to travel to the UK.
I still wouldn’t hold my breath, currently the Government is looking to introduce unconstitutional retroactive legislation to prevent some middle ranking banking employees getting the comission they’re owed from 3 years ago despite the High Court ruling they must be paid, while allowing the senior banking officials and corrupt senior civil servants walk away with life long multi-million pensions and bonuses.
Thanks for that capsule history, Sigmund; very interesting and helpful. Thanks for all the background, Irish commenters.
YOu know, all this Irish stuff aside, what will the longterm effects of an impoverished birthrate have on Europe in 20 years time.
Abortion has been legal in Canada’s Québec province for many, many years now and has served in the long run to undermine the society.
The francophone proportion of the total population of Montréal has dropped below 50% for the first time in history, and the city is losing its french appeal and character. And the francophones complaining about their own anéantissement are also the biggest boosters of abortion.
In fact the brithrate here has been so low for so many decades now, that it has become impossible for the province will ever recover even if there were a major baby-boom, and it is doomed, thus, to eventual extinction.
If women ( and men) don’t want to have children, then that’s their choice, but what is surprising is how so few of them actually understand all of the (mostly) negative ramifications of that choice.
And it’s interesting to see the turn of events now taking place as the population rapidly ages. The tenors for euthanasia or, as they lke to call it, “death with dignity”, are becoming louder and are being encouraged because the elites realise that many of the boomers, including the boomer women who had abortions, cannot be supported in their old age with the public resources available, and so it’s as though they’re all slowly being lined up for “death with dignity” because that’s the cheapest and easiest cost-cutting measure available.
Sure women have every right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, it’s just that so often the pregnancy isn’t so much unwanted as economically unviable. Young people need to be encouraged to have more kids, they need more financial support, more subsidies, more daycare, more maternity leave etc, etc. I also think that to this end adults, both men and women, who reach the age of 45 and still haven’t had any children should be forced to pay a ‘fertility’ tax to help offset the cost of raising kids by those who’ve mustered the courage to have had some.
You know, there should be no free lunch and no freeloaders on this.
Another unexpected consequence of abortion has been the deresponsabilisation of young men. Many young guys in their 20s will just up and leave their girlfriends if the latter decide to keep their unwanted baby, and many young women are coerced into aborting in order to keep the relationship going, to keep the apartment they’re living in, to keep the car ( joint loans) etc, etc.
50 years ago it was said that men ‘forced’ women to keep their offspring, but today it’s often still the males who decide whether or not a women keeps her child; it’s just that they invoke, because so many of these males just don’t want to grow up, a very different set of reasons for forcing a difficult decision on women.
Abortion isn’t nearly the beguiling thing it’s made out to be. It can even become a tool of coercion and manipulation when brandished by selfish, narcissistic males intent on maintaining their free ‘n easy lifestyle, they free ‘n easy sexual habits.
Oh dear god.
Ah, using the tax code to punish and moralize about citizens’ private behavior, that always goes over well.
Well, would I be able to file for an exemption if I had impregnated many women do to my “free-n-easy” sexual habits but, through no fault of my own, the women I was with had abortions? I was, after all, diligently getting women pregnant, but they—those selfish women!—kept terminating the pregnancies. That seems to me to be a fair exemption. What supporting documents would I need to produce?—clinic records, paternity tests, sworn affidavits from all my baby-mommas (none of this is terribly intrusive, is it?)? What about women who aren’t able to get pregnant at all?—do they get a tax exemption? And how would we verify their barrenness, exactly?
You know, it might be a better idea to just extend the already popular “sin taxes” we have here in the States. Cigarettes and sugary drinks are taxed more, so why not just apply a “sin” tax to all abortion procedures? If we taxed abortions at 500%, only the wealthy could afford them and we’d have fixed the problem. Ta-da!
Oh dear god
Well, that’s what about 90% of French Canada is beginning to say followed by the exclamation:”What on earth have we done!”
There is a whole side to abortion, an absolutely disastrous side, that has been placed off limits and about which any and all discussion is verboten.
And it is an aspect of this whole issue that, provided you’re not filthy rich, you’ll neither escape nor avoid in the long run.
I don’t care what French Canada is beginning to say.
And you’re conflating abortion with contraception.
Sauder:
You mean people like me, who’ve never been able to get steady long-term employment, but gets used as disposable temporary cover so breeders can walk back into their 2-income lifestyle after parental leave, which leaves me (as a single woman) with no income when I’m thrown out of work again?
Sauder – Speaking as a Canadian (Ontario, sorry), I’m surprised you left anything out about immigration in your apocalyptic extinction story. Or Canada’s gay marriage laws – maybe that’s harming the birthrate too! *rollseyes*Anyway, abortion in Canada is tacitly legal – we actually have no abortion laws and haven’t since 1969. All attempts to limit them since then have failed, and the procedure is available through provincial medical providers. Pro-choice and all that.
Sauder, I for one found your essay quite interesting. Would you be so kind as to give us another on the long-term effects of exponential population growth?
Sauder; you don’t speak for french Canada – you speak only for yourself.
As for your proposal to tax the childless at age 45, has it occurred to your limited mind – ah no, of course it has not – that many of these people are not childless through choice. Lovely thought to tax them extra. But perhaps you mean people like me, taxed all my working life (50+ years) at a higher rate because I had no children – fewer deductions you see! – forced to subsidise the education of other peoples’ children through my county taxes – I have always paid the same rate as people with ten children. Plus there are no programs to help me if I become indigent (these programs again supported by my taxes).
Didn’t Adolf Hitler have a program to encourage, if not force, germans to have as many children as possible?
I think you need to reconsider your illiberal position.
Oh dear God, indeed. Where did this moron come from from?
Sauder, I for one found your essay quite interesting. Would you be so kind as to give us another on the long-term effects of exponential population growth?
A Muslim majority Europe in which some of the most intolerant forms of Islam will predominate.
Being fluent in french, I can assure you that the situation in France is becoming absolutely desperate.
With the coming dieback of the boomers, coupled with an exponential population growth of N. Africans ( the second generation is having as many, if not more children than the first) a tipping point is now being reached beyond which the country will never recover. Italy, Spain, Greece, Holland and many other are all in the same boat. What is so enlightened and progressive about being goaded into committing suicide?
You know, people react to my comments by calling me stupid, by calling be simple and by calling me a moron and by mounting displays of not-too-subtle “sarcasm”, but you know, I can at least do basic math.
Can any of you?
The trouble is, Sauder, it’s not just a question of “basic math,” it’s a question of what one does. You jump without argument from claims about “basic math” to claims that people who don’t have children should be taxed and (apparently) that abortion (and contraception?) should be illegal.
You’re also oddly euphemistic when it comes to the crunch. Your first set of claims are that Francophones in Quebec (or Canada in general?) are being outnumbered by more procreative people, and that there will be a Muslim majority in Europe. Your second set are that abortion (but you really mean contraception in general) should be illegal and that people who don’t have children should be taxed. But those two sets don’t join up, because you omit to say the icky bits. What you mean is that contraception should be illegal for Francophones in Canada and for non-Muslims in Europe, and encouraged if not mandatory for what you take to be their opposites; and that childless Francophones in Canada and non-Muslims in Europe should be taxed while childless Others should not be taxed, indeed should perhaps be rewarded.
But you don’t really want to spell that out, do you.
Holy Crap… Is Sauder really decrying all the brown- I mean non-european language speaking- babies taking Europe and French-Canada from all those decent white- I mean european language speaking- folks? And blaming this “problem” on all those white- I’m sorry, european language speaking- women having so many abortions that their population can’t grow? I think I feel sick to my stomach….