Last week, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland did not sufficiently protect the constitutionally guaranteed right of a woman to have an abortion (if her life is endangered) through adequate legislation. Of course, this is not the way in which the media reported it. From headline reports to opinion pieces, almost all commentators on the verdict got it wrong. People on both sides of the abortion debate rushed to make their voice heard. On the right you had Youth Defence who opined that the verdict was "intrusive, unwelcome and an attempt to violate Ireland's pro-life laws". On the left you had CNN who carried the headline "Court condemns Irish ban on abortion". The core of the ruling centres on Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution which states:
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
This article was introduced into the constitution by means of a referendum in 1983. 27 years later and despite a Supreme Court ruling on the issue in 1992, the government has still not introduced legislation as the constitution clearly promises to guarantee women the right to have an abortion if their health is threatened.
Of course, once people start reading more into a story than is actually there, you end up with all sorts of crazy shit coming out such as the Youth Defence article above. Look, we signed up to Europe in 1973 and reinforced this commitment through various treaties such as Maastricht and Nice and Lisbon. We are also signatories to the UN and European conventions on human rights, the latter of which is the document which founded the European Court of Human Rights at the centre of this story. We chose to be involved in a unified Europe and current economic conditions not withstanding, we have been better off because of it. It is, therefore, just a little bit preposterous to suggest that the EU shouldn't safeguard the rights of its citizens.
Leaving aside the current case for a moment, the recent media storm brings the topic of abortion back into the public sphere once again. On one level, people have to realise that the debate over abortion is never going to go away, at least as long as religion exists. On the other hand, the government must put legislation in place which safeguards the rights of all citizens. Also, the key points of the legislation must be based on reasonable conclusions made from concrete evidence. There are several issues which combine to make abortion the social hot-button that it is. By taking each one in turn, however, it is possible to determine a reasonable approach to the overall issue.
The first and most important issue is the point at which life begins. The pro-life movement usually begin from the position that life begins at conception and therefore any abortion results in the death of a person. Unfortunately, these people cannot proffer any substantive evidence to back up this claim. Even those who use their religion to guide their view on abortion (the majority of pro-lifers) cannot rely on their religion to back them up. Anyone looking to the bible for an answer will only find this:
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul
This would mean that life begins when the blood begins to flow which is day 22. However, despite claims from some god-botherers to the contrary, we don't make laws based on the bible. We use, or at least should use, medical criteria to decide medical matters. In this case, a reliable existing method for determining when life begins. We have a defined criterion for when life ends, the cessation of brain activity. Therefore by mirroring this, we have a solid basis for determining when life begins, which is 9 weeks after fertilisation. Given the normal course of events for a woman when determining whether or not she is pregnant, an upper time limit of 2 months would be a reasonable starting point in determining a window for legal abortions.
The next most important question is that of the health and the rights of the mother. At its most basic level, this argument, which is the basis of the recent court case, deals with the rights of a woman to safeguard her own health. There is no easy solution to this problem. In most cases, you have two patients with conflicting interests which you have to try and balance between speculative and definitive diagnoses. The one thing I will say is that it is the first duty of the attending doctor to act in the best interest of the mother since she is his patient. Each case should be reviewed on an individual basis where a panel of doctors can review all the evidence. In the end, though, I think that if there is a real risk to the health of the mother that abortion should be permissible. After all, we are humans, not salmon, nobody ever intended for us to expend our lives for the sake of offspring.
Another issue which requires treatment is where the act of conception itself involves some degree of trauma for the mother, i.e. rape, incest etc. I know that the pro-lifers consider all life to be sacred, regardless but what compassionate person would condemn a woman to carrying with her a living reminder of an unspeakable act. That's torture whatever way you want to dress it up.
There are so many more other issues but those above are the ones which, if not the most important, are certainly the ones which attract the most attention. The issue as a whole is delicate and for a lot of people involves suffering and heartbreak but it is something which we must debate with a clear head and even temper.
I have to say, though, that the most disturbing aspect of the abortion debate is the argument against abortion that is promoted by some groups is nothing short of disgusting. There are quite a few people out there, who argue that, if abortion were legalised then women would be lining up to get them. They reason that abortion is a temptation and women, who seek to live a promiscuous life without consequence, use abortion as a means to maintain that lifestyle. That's just batshit crazy. It is based on an utterly perverted view of women and the people who argue in this fashion are usually men (though not always) and more often than not Christian. The Bible has always forwarded the view that women are sinners and bereft of redeeming qualities but this is nuts. For most women, having an abortion is often the worst day of their lives and the worst decision they'll ever have to make.
Finally, this whole story has reminded me, to a certain extent, of the debacle surrounding the opening of pubs on Good Friday this year. There is a certain argument to be made in this regard and with censorship in general that personal choice should be considered. If you are a "good" Christian, then I'm sure that you wouldn't drink on Good Friday, just as I'm sure that you wouldn't get divorced or have an abortion or watch porn or anything else that your mythology forbids. The fact that you wouldn't, though, doesn't mean that anyone else shouldn't. We're not all Christians and we're not all bound by the strictures of your mythos. There's no reason why we should live by Christian morals or even respect them. As Ricky Gervais so neatly stated earlier this week:
You are entitled to your own opinions. But not your own facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment