Last week saw the first ever dedicated debate on abortion take place in the Dáil. It was an historic occasion. It was momentous. A small group of TDs tabled legislation to give effect to the European Court of Human Rights judgment that said the State was obliged to legislate for abortion in cases where it is already legal. Abortion is theoretically legal in Ireland (south) in cases that fit the terms of the 1992 X Case judgment – that is, where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman, including a risk of suicide. It does not include categories of risk to health, or rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality. In short it would allow abortion in cases where a woman would die should she continue her pregnancy.
Sinn Féin have a position of being in favour of legislating for abortion under the terms of the X Case, and in some other narrow criteria so voted in favour of the legislation, which in any event failed to pass. Party leader Deputy Gerry Adams outlined the position during the debate as follows; “Sinn Féin is not in favour of abortion. We believe all possible means of education and support services should be in place. However, in cases of rape, incest and sexual abuse, or in which a woman’s life and mental health are at risk or in grave danger, Sinn Féin accepts that the final decision should rest with the woman concerned.”
During the weeks of the lead-up to the debate I had a number of discussions with other republicans on the issue. Some republicans are adamantly in favour of allowing abortion on demand on the basis that they recognise women as people – as individuals who have the capacity to decide what is best for them, and what should happen to their bodies. The vast majority of republicans are in favour of allowing abortion in cases where there is a risk to the life or mental health of a pregnant woman. For the purposes of this discussion we must set aside the difficulties of deciding how risky exactly a risk has to be to a woman’s health before it becomes a risk to her life (does she have to have a 4% chance of dying or a 74%?). A very small number of republicans that I spoke to were not in favour of allowing abortion in *any* circumstances, and this view appears to be based in a misinformed belief that Ireland has the best maternal healthcare in the world. This is a myth.
The point is, that republicans probably reflect broader Irish society when it comes to varying views on when abortion is or is not acceptable. During the discussions that I had, one or two people said to me that they thought that abortion and decisions related to it was a “personal thing” and it wasn’t for anyone to legislate on. Aside from the fact that the “personal thing” argument is nonsensical (you’re not exactly allowing anyone the right to make a decision on this “personal thing” when you refuse to legislate on it - Contraception is a personal thing but needs legislation, so is adoption. Your right to privacy is legislated. Personal things require legislation), some of those people developed the argument further and said that it was not republican to legislate to allow abortion.
In fact, the correct republican position is quite obviously one which would be pro-choice.
Now, I would never be so sectarian as to suggest that one political party can claim ownership of republicanism, similarly to how I believe no single political unit or party can claim ownership of socialism, and I am loathe to begin dictating the terms of what is and is not “republican.” If I recall correctly, the 1916 Proclamation or the Democratic Programme of the First Dáil never specifically mentioned fracking or the need for Whistleblower’s Legislation, however republicans are quite happy to take “republican” positions on these issues because you can extrapolate certain things from principles contained in documents that republicans take their ideology from.
There are a few core principles that I think every republican can agree are truly “republican” regardless of their party affiliation; beliefs in freedom, anti-racism, economic and social equality - including gender equality. I don’t think anyone would dispute the idea that to be a republican you have to believe in equality between the genders.
Abortion for republicans should be an equality issue.
If you believe that women are people and therefore deserving of human rights, then the logical conclusion is that they would have a right to decide what happens to their bodies.
Which leads me to the issue of ‘foetal rights’; Nearly all of the republicans I spoke to about abortion and who were against it in general, grounded their disagreement with the validity of abortion rights on the idea that the foetus had a right to life that surpassed that of the pregnant woman.
I disagree with the notion that a right to life can be afforded to a *potential* human being above the human rights of the actual living human being that the foetus is contained in, however I understand the difficulty that people have with abortion if they genuinely believe the foetus is a human life deserving of the same rights as, say, a pubescent 13 year old girl. They believe the foetal right to life surpasses that of the pregnant woman’s right to healthcare, her right to self-determination of the person, her right to privacy, her right to bodily integrity among others. According to them, the right to life is so important it trumps everything regardless of the consequences.
The foetal right to life card is what anti-choicers generally pull out when they’ve lost the argument that women are people who should be allowed make their own health decisions, but some people who I like to think have better politics sometimes use it too.
What I cannot fathom, is how the republicans I know who will defend the right to armed struggle in particular conditions, can marry the idea set out above (that the right to life trumps every other right) with the idea that armed struggle in *any* condition is a legitimate option. If the right to life is so important that it can transgress the rights of another person’s right to privacy or bodily integrity, then surely there is no point at which a republican can defend the taking of another person’s life. If the foetal right to life is supreme to a pregnant woman’s right not to live in poverty, then the logical conclusion is that the right to life of a British soldier occupying West Belfast in 1987 reigned supreme to the rights of people to live in peace and not be oppressed – because the right to life – if you believe it a foetus has life – trumps all because it is supreme to all other rights.
If you believe that armed struggle is acceptable in certain circumstances and with certain conditions it is acceptable to take the life of another, then the unavoidable conclusion is that the ‘right to life’ of a person (or the foetus that you have awarded it personhood) is not absolute in all circumstances. The logical conclusion is the right to life does not trump all, and thus the foetal right to life does not surpass all of the pregnant woman’s rights.
If the response to this argument is to say that a British soldier in 1980s Belfast somehow gave up his right to life by virtue of the fact that he occupied Ireland, then it is inconsistent to say that the *right* to life that trumps all other rights, in all other circumstances. For republicans who believed in (at one point or another) the legitimacy of armed struggle, there is no way around it.
Republicans, throughout the recent conflict, argued and acted in accordance with the principle that the right to life was not absolute. Facing oppression and the denial of fundamental human rights, republicans took up arms to resist - knowing that in doing so, lives would be lost. Republicans believed that the violation of the right to life of another to defend the rights of the nationalist community in the Six Counties was a legitimate and moral choice. This was not an easy choice to make, but it was a choice that they believed was right, and in the long run for the betterment of their community and wider society. It was a choice most modern republicans would agree with even while regretting profoundly the suffering caused by the necessity of making that choice.
The anti-choice argument hinges on the belief that in any and all circumstances, the right to life of a foetus is superior to the rights of a woman to self-determination, to privacy, to freedom, to independence, to make choices about her bodily integrity.
The natural extension of the anti-choice argument is that women are to be oppressed, forced by the State to carry a foetus to term regardless of their personal choice, or the psychological or physical damage this can inflict on them, and their families. In essence, anti-choicers believe that the State should, for example, stand up for the right of the rapist to force a woman to bear his child, and those who hold this view and claim to be republicans, argue that Sinn Féin should use the mechanisms of State power to ensure this happens.
But if you consider yourself a republican, and acknowledge that gender equality is a core principle of republicanism, then it is quite obvious that the logical conclusion is to favour a woman’s right to choose regardless of the circumstances.
Either women are equal in all circumstances, or they are not.
27 comments:
Would you suport abortion on demand?
Read the article FFS
Would you suport abortion on demand?
Yes.
Free, safe, legal and on demand.
Republican? but then differentiates between north and south...
anyway, an interesting arcticle, but what would be your views on the males right to choose? it seems the fathers views are constantly ignored when it comes to abortion. The fathers want or need for a child is never considered.
Republican? but then differentiates between north and south...
anyway, an interesting arcticle, but what would be your views on the males right to choose? it seems the fathers views are constantly ignored when it comes to abortion. The fathers want or need for a child is never considered.
Hi Shane. Thanks for the comment.
I could cut and paste the previous discussion we had, but for the purposes of those not privy to it I'll reiterate; a man does not have the right to impose his view on what a woman should do with her body.
There is no father's right, when there is no child. We are discussing a woman's body. Not a child.
Steph
I don't share your views but as a pro-lifer/anti-choicer who happens to be Republican your article did make me think. So, on that basis fair play. As Voltaire/EBH said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
A really well constructed argument. Thank you.
Gender Equality is one of the most relevant Republican principles today, so I think it should be one of the most discussed also.
I happen to regard the foetus as having the right to life, on the grounds that it's potential life. (another debate entirely) That said, I fully agree that the right to life isn't absolute (a good point, that was well made) and that the rights of the pregnant woman must also be respected, and given equal consideration.
I think it's only right we need to legislate for abortion in the case of rape, incest, sexual abuse, and threat to the woman's health (mental or otherwise). I think you made those points well in your argument; however, there seems to be a bit of a logical jump in the final paragraph, from proving that, in those conditions, abortion was justified (even with the foetal right to life) to concluding that abortion should be available on demand (even with the foetal right to life).
I know that you don't regard the foetus as having a right to life, but my understanding was that your discussion was working with that assumption, so as to undermine it. (If I'm wrong here then excuse me) And it's also late, so I want to cling to that excuse, also!
Your argument for abortion, in all cases, hinges on the idea that the woman is entitled to make the decision as to whether or not she should have the child. Certainly, a woman is capable of making that decision.
In the case of foetal rights, however, then there are two individuals' rights present, in which case the woman is not entitled to make the decision for both of them, and so there is a need for state intervention. One individual is not entitled to evaluate their rights and someone else’s, and take action on that – that’s the job of the state.
I don't think you've done enough to reach the conclusion that abortion, in all cases, is justified, (given that the foetus has the right to life) for that reason. But I would be interested in your thoughts, as I have a sneaking suspicion that I've missed something.
Finally, this is a great name for a blog - I look forward to reading more in the future.
Chris - with apologies to Voltaire...
"I disapprove of how you control your body, but I will defend to the death your right to control it"
I hope that makes you think.
Cillian if the feotus's "right to life" is negated by rape then why not because a woman does not want to be pregnant, cant afford to raise a child etc. In terms of the feotus I dont see the difference.
In no way do I mean to disregard the awful crime of rape.
Unfortunately the only republican party that's pro-choice is the IRSP. They did a fair bit of work on the issue in the 70s but I don't think they've been particularly active in recent years. Éirígí are holding internal discussions on the matter at present but that could probably go either way in the end.
Oisín, because in that case, I would consider the number of woman's rights infringed to be greater than that of the foetus, so they should be offered the choice.
In 'normal' cases, I don't consider the number of rights of the woman violated to outweigh that of the foetus.
It's not a matter of the right being negated Oisín, so much as each individuals' rights being evaluated and then compared.
I should also add that if the government is not to legislate for abotion 'on demand', then I think it has a responsibility to provide for a high quality and accessible system for adoption.
Oisín, because in that case, I would consider the number of woman's rights infringed to be greater than that of the foetus, so they should be offered the choice.
In 'normal' cases, I don't consider the number of rights of the woman violated to outweigh that of the foetus.
It's not a matter of the right being negated Oisín, so much as each individuals' rights being evaluated and then compared.
I should also add that if the government is not to legislate for abotion 'on demand', then I think it has a responsibility to provide for a high quality and accessible system for adoption.
Hi Cillian,
Thanks for the comment. Google blogger is being all kinds of stupid this morning so I have to post this in two parts.
Part 1:
I wrote this piece purely to look at the inconsistency of ideas put forward by people who would argue the legitimacy of armed struggle and then go on to argue the foetal right to life being absolute, so it does for the purposes of the discussion, use the premise “if a foetus in your scenario has a right to life…” then what happens...
For this particular discussion I felt it wasn’t useful to start discussing foetal personhood or when “life” or “human life” begins. I disagree that a foetus is a person and that it has a right to life above that of a pregnant woman’s, but we’ll have to park that for a moment.
Anyway, I don’t think there is any logical jump made. My point was that if you accept that women can make the decision to what happens their bodies in only some circumstances, then the logical following conclusion is that the rights of the foetus trump those of the woman – rendering her unequal in those circumstances . Where a pregnant woman wants to have an abortion, and the State or an individual refuses to allow it, there can be no equality in that situation. There is no compromise. Either the pregnancy continues or it doesn’t. If it continues against her will, then her position as a human is rendered unequal and we are in to the broader gender equality discussion, as *her* rights are subservient to another individuals.
Sometimes I can be appear a bit erm, unforgiving (as Oisín would probably attest to!) in these arguments so I should probably clarify I don’t believe that people who hold these inconsistent views start out from the point that “women are unequal and therefore underserving of abortion rights”, but I think when they give them due consideration, it is actually the logical outworking of their thoughts.
You regard the foetus as having a right to life, on the grounds that it’s a potential life, but this life can be extinguished on the grounds of the rights of the pregnant woman in certain cases such as rape/sexual abuse, incest, or a general threat to health.
Leaving the category of a general threat to health aside for a moment, I think it’s useful to look at the other categories that you mentioned in the context of a foetal “right to life” and I would ask you to develop what is special about those categories that would mean that the pregnant woman’s rights assume supremacy over the rights of a foetus but not in others.
@Cillian
(Part 2)
Abortion in cases of rape;
In the case of a pregnancy as a result to rape/sexual abuse, most people who would allow abortion on those grounds do so on the basis that either a) the woman never consented to being pregnant or b) that carrying the pregnancy of a rapist to term would be so traumatic that no woman should ever be forced to do it – it is acceptable because the woman’s rights win out over foetal rights.
If it’s a case that you accept a), well you can go down the road of acceptability (of abortion) for lack of consent, to acceptability for failure of contraception (she did not *consent* to be pregnant) and so on – and then logically allow abortion in the cases of unintended pregnancies in general based on a lack of consent to be pregnant.
If it’s a case that you accept b) then you are in to the realm of arguing that a woman should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term because of the resulting trauma – and her rights win out over the rights of the foetus. If one accepts the rape trauma point, then one must accept that there are other scenarios where a pregnancy may not result from rape, but to carry the pregnancy to term would result in extreme trauma (rape does not hold a monopoly over women’s trauma). I don’t want to derail the discussion completely by providing hypothetical examples but I’ll briefly mention cases of domestic violence, extreme poverty, and inability to cope with another child and so on.
The point is, that if abortion is confined to rape/sexual abuse cases then society becomes the arbiter of women’s trauma, and logically a woman must fulfil a specific *type* of trauma in order to have an abortion. If that is the case, then I would ask what is it about that specific type of trauma that makes it ok for an abortion to take place? You have already acknowledged that a foetus has fewer rights than a pregnant woman in those circumstances, but how do we begin to measure required trauma levels? PTSD indicators? Or would a general level of suffering suffice?
(All of this is aside from the fact, that I am in no way comfortable with any person saying that a woman must face trauma in order to have an abortion at all but, I digress.)
@Cillian
(Part 3)
Abortion in cases of incest;
This is something that seems to roll off the tongue of most people who argue for the provision of abortion in rape/sexual abuse cases and yet I’m not convinced that anyone really gives it all that much consideration.
If the pregnancy from incest is as a result of an abusive relationship, the rationale provided in the rape/sexual abuse category should suffice.
However there are people out there that actually engage in *consensual* incestuous relationships. On this point, it isn’t useful to get derailed in to a discussion on incest in general, but the *consent* part is important to the discussion of validity of abortion on those grounds.
Generally most people are against incest because their gut reaction is “ick,” and when it comes to incest and pregnancy, most people’s thoughts are grounded in “Ew, incest and pregnancy – that kid would be seriously disabled.” At this point most people have made the logical leap to allowing abortion on the grounds of foetal abnormality despite the *consent*, because in truth the societal repulsion at the idea of incest is based in a disgust or fear of disability – and I think most anthropologists would agree. The major point here is, that the woman’s right not to continue the pregnancy from incest becomes supreme to the foetal right to life, so if you are not making a comment on disability, why should it not in all other circumstances, even where the pregnancy resulted from consent to sexual intercourse?
You stated ; “In the case of foetal rights, however, then there are two individuals' rights present, in which case the woman is not entitled to make the decision for both of them, and so there is a need for state intervention. One individual is not entitled to evaluate their rights and someone else’s, and take action on that – that’s the job of the state.”
This is a point which I completely disagree with.
Individuals evaluate their own rights all the time. There is a concept of sexual and reproductive rights in international law, and that encompasses your right to marry and found a family etc. On a basic level, it also includes your right to have sex. You decide whether you consent or you do not, and you never give up your ability to consent and the State has no role in deciding for you how or when that should happen. You have a right to bodily integrity so you cannot simply discard another person’s consent in cases of sexual intercourse.
However ever if you arrive at a point that you accept the State’s role to regulate the reproductive choices of women, they you are arrive in a place where the State would also have a role in forced abortions. The resulting conclusion is that women’s rights are fundamentally *less equal* to those of a foetus.
I don’t think it’s good enough to draw lines around women’s reproductive rights on the basis of rape, incest etc. and not fully explain why it is acceptable in those scenarios and not others. If your argument is about a right to life of a foetus being supreme in most circumstances to woman’s rights, well then the conclusion is she is an unequal being.
And that chara, after a very longwinded way of saying it, is why it is actually you that has made the jump here and not me. ;)
@Seamus
You're right that the only pro-choice republican party is the IRSP but I'm not sure what activity levels they have in general so I'm not sure it's something to hold against them specifically!
I just wish other republican parties had followed suit.
Part 1/2
Congratulations Stephanie, this is truly a thought provoking piece. It takes me back many years, when in a meeting of like minded republicans, a claim was put to one of the assembled, in the order of “you can’t call yourself a republican if you think that”, a huge charge, against a person who shouldered the republican struggle all their adult life, which resulted in the loss of their active support. An off the cuff remark maybe, by someone who did not know better, but wide scale damage done as a result.
The point that I make is that republicans who have grown & witnessed republicanism in practice may not have the text book reference or footnote that they can refer to which defines or sums up their sense of republicanism in 140 characters or less! There are those on the right on some issues within republicanism & on the left, Sinn Fein is no exception. It is that inner sense of justice & equality which defines a republicans common sense view of the world, & although I enjoy reading your rational with its strict intellectual discipline and a desire to prove a straight line of thought on this subject, alas I think it is not as straight forward and nor can it be.
This point was highlighted as you talked to many republicans and as you stated they all hold differing positions, as it should be. You asked how can a republican stand up for freedom and justice by facing the might of the British Empire in Ireland with all the courage, determination & selflessness needed to bring about change but on the other hand not defend abortion, and you are correct it is all about the right to life and who is given the power to decide.
We all have a right to life, which includes the volunteer & British solider, The Mother & fetus or child, how do we stand in moral judgment or is it legal judgment or even financial judgment or plane old bias judgment, of one over the other? Who’s interests should we serve? So many questions, but not so many clear answers.
To draw conclusions and similarities between the armed struggle and abortion by basing an argument on the right to life is tenuous but arguable, which again takes us back to the old “nothings ever black and white”. what you argue is that, legally a person does not exist until they draw their first breath, Legally!! No passport, PPS number, or birth certificate, you don’t exist, have no rights and don’t count in any consideration. But this is not the case, since 1995, parents have the opportunity to register their stillborn children. Why, because they did exist and it was felt that there was a need for the parents to mourn them. Ask any mother or father who patiently waits the birth of a child if the foetus should not be considered a child, or if they don’t dream for their future as a teenager!
2/2
Republicanism is not mechanical and nor should socialism be and there is no correlation between facing an armed British solider imposing his/her will or that of their masters, on the Irish people. The point you miss is that the volunteer makes their own decision and is willing, for right or wrong, to face their own death as a consequence. The war was fought by two opposing forces both holding their own views but sadly this was not fought on the Hurling pitch but on our streets and people died as a result. I have never heard one volunteer talk or gloat about their actions! It was the desire that we republicans and our children, could have the right to life, to live our lives in peace justice and freedom in our own country that made armed struggle necessary not the right to life to be exploited to keep us in bondage. But you can hardly equate the selflessness of a volunteer with that of a high paid consultant?
To bring the abortion issue into the sphere of the armed struggle does in my view great disservice to the abortion debate. Nothing is black and white and nor should this issue be argued in black and white prose. Yes it is the woman’s body but what of the man? (for another day maybe)The Sinn Fein position, as not being for abortion on demand, is one which republicans should be able to ideologically support. We must face the gray areas and set these out clearly and explain the circumstances so that we all understand. That is not a weak position to hold but a strong one. Republicans are for gender equality in everything life provides and on this issue even more so but if a woman/wife/partner decides as a form of contraception that an abortion is her option where does this leave her man/husband/partner?
To determine that for a republican to be republican we must accept, agree or espouse your view of the woman’s right to choose regardless of the circumstances, as this is equality, will have a lot of republicans scratching their heads wondering what they have been at all these years and are they really SDLP or Fine Gael supporters because the third person in the room for consideration is the child/foetus!
Republicans can hold differing options and should be fee to express them, if not, then we will have slipped into a totalitarian party dictatorship, where the party top brass sets the mood with an activists only role to pass that message on to the wider public. This is not republicanism and it is not Sinn Fein. Leadership must not be confused with having all the answers, or being the keepers of what republicanism must mean. Leadership is listening, understanding and acting with courage. It is knowing where you are and where you need to be, communicating this and then collectively deciding how to get there.
As you rightly stated the proclamation made no provision for Fracking etc but it is our sense of what we are that allows us to take intelligent positions on matters such as these and thank god (who or whatever that might be for you) we hear many different voices because I have never heard one with all the answers!!
Who ever the 'anonymous' person is - well said, was getting a little tired of this 'you can't call yourself Republican unless...' nonsense which seems to be creeping in. I think you point on the comparison with the volunteer soldiers and a child of the womb to be spot on too. While many Republicans may agree with you Stephanie many others do not. This does not make us any less Republican. Interesting piece though Stephanie, I look forward to reading more.
S.
Stephanie never said "you can't be a republican unless...". She simply makes the very clear argument that most people would include gender equality as an important part of republicanism and if you believe that a woman is not equal by saying that she does not have control of her body then you are in conflict with an important part of the ideology you claim. You can be insulted or dislike this but that is a logical reality, in order to be a supporter of gender equality you must see women as equals and believe they should be treated as such.
I really don't get the argument that it is wrong to say that something is unrepublican or something is the right positiojn for republicans to take. Its an ideology and in the Irish context it has some very clear guidelines. If it didnt it would be worthless and I think it actually is worth something to be a republican.
hi
i have a huge problem with all of this
. If the foetal right to life is supreme to a pregnant woman’s right not to live in poverty, then the logical conclusion is that the right to life of a British soldier occupying West Belfast in 1987 reigned supreme to the rights of people to live in peace and not be oppressed – because the right to life – if you believe it a foetus has life – trumps all because it is supreme to all other rights. If you believe that armed struggle is acceptable in certain circumstances and with certain conditions it is acceptable to take the life of another, then the unavoidable conclusion is that the ‘right to life’ of a person (or the foetus that you have awarded it personhood) is not absolute in all circumstances. The logical conclusion is the right to life does not trump all, and thus the foetal right to life does not surpass all of the pregnant woman’s rights.
because i'm a pacifist i suppose. but i still think you're alright. and i do believe in abortion on demand. so. ah fuckit; i dunno,
itchybollix
Part 1:
Stephanie, thanks very much for putting so much work into your response to my thoughts - I'll apologise in advance, because I don't have too much time presently to respond to them in as much detail, as I would like, but I'll give it go:
[b]Rape[/b]
I would certainly be of the view of the b) case you have outlined, and would not have much time for the a) argument.
I think it is incredibly unfortunate but also inevitable that "society becomes the arbiter of women’s trauma", in this case, because it's not just the women involved, but also the foetus's rights that need consideration, and I consider there no other way that a foetus's rights could be taken into account without the state intervening. (see below)
[b]Incest[/b]
You're very right, insofar as that this simply rolled off the tongue. I had rather foolishly connected it with the rape/sexual abuse category, but I don't necessarily see any problem with incest.
So I haven't given it much consideration, and will simply have to concede this point. As such, given the negative side effects of incest can be covered under the sexual abuse category, I don't think incest justifies abortion.
This raise another point, I’m perfect willing to accept that there may be other cases (that I haven’t mentioned) which given consideration could justify an abortion – such as extreme poverty and inability to cope with another child.
Now, I would hope that the woman would be able to give up the child for adoption immediately, (responsibility of the State to provide) and so the infringements of her rights would only take place during the pregnancy. If the state were to provide some form of social allowance during pregnancy, for pregnant women in such an extreme, and I stress extreme, situation, so that they wouldn’t be financially burdened (as a result of the pregnancy) then I don’t think her rights would be infringed adequately to outweigh that of the foetus; however, if the state failed to provide that, then I think there is a reasonable case to suggest that abortion should be allowed in that circumstance.
*I apologise for the seafóid, that is the formatting, in my previous comment*
Part II:
State and Individual’s Rights
With regard to my point on rights and the state. Of course, an individual is entitled to evaluate their own rights; however, I am not entitled to evaluate your rights and my rights, and then take action on it, which would affect both of us.
In life, people's rights clash regularly, and it's up to the state to find the fairest solution, so that the level of infringement is least. The woman's right to bodily integrity clashes with the foetus's right to life - in some cases, the woman's rights would be greater infringed (==> abortion) and in others they would be less infringed (==> give birth). Your article has proven that either case could occur.
In the final point of your argument, however, you’ve assumed that the latter case could never occur. (I don’t think you’ve offered evidence for that). My position is that either case could occur.
We’ve discussed issues such as rape or sexual abuse, and I’ve highlighted that I think in those situations the state can claim quite clearly that the foetus’s rights will be outweighed. It’s not right to assume that will always be the case, which is what would happen if abortion on demand was allowed. Equally, as you would rightly argue, it’s not fair to assume the opposite either – that it will never be the case outside those categories: it obviously will. So I think there needs to be much broader categories as to when an abortion is appropriate, (allowing for things like extreme poverty and domestic abuse) but it should still not be ‘on demand’.
This comes down to how we then measure those rights, the greatest problem (perhaps others may find greater) is that I am not offering any specific method to measure those rights. That said, I’ve no doubt there are a number of methods to choose from.
Incidentally, in an ideal world, I would like to see a setup, where there could be some form of judgment made, with very clear guidelines given as to when an abortion should and should not be allowed. These guidelines could address issues of health, income, etc. So that cases can be considered on a specific basis. The only trouble I see with this is that it’s far from workable, given that it’s important these systems are accessible – this is disappointing.
@itchybollix
We don’t see eye to eye on everything but at least we do some of the time ;)
@Anonymous
Part 1
Thanks for taking the time to read the piece and comment.
I wouldn’t necessarily phrase my view as bluntly you can’t call yourself a republican if you don’t think that but I have respect for the fact that this is what will be taken on it. The point of my article was essentially to try and highlight the hypocrisy of arguing against abortion rights from the point of view that there is an absolute right to life in all circumstances that is proposed by some republicans who also support armed struggle. My issue is with the intellectual inconsistency of that argument. Either the right to life is absolute, or it isn’t. It cannot be a little absolute for the foetus in every single circumstance, and not absolute for the British soldier. The point wasn’t to make comparisons between abortion and armed struggle, but to point to the inconsistency of the absolute right to life argument proposed by some.
I understand that there are some ideas which people have differing views on, and it would be open to interpretation whether they are “republican” or not. I think it’s more helpful to set aside that principle for a moment and look at it in terms of; is gender equality a pillar of republicanism? I don’t have any problem with saying that I think it is. So park that for a moment and ask, are abortion rights a core part of gender equality? I certainly don’t have a view of saying that, yes, a woman’s right to make reproductive decisions whether she should or should not have children are a core part of being equal.
If I wrote an article that stated that racism is not a part of republicanism and if you are racist you aren’t republican, no one would bat an eyelid.
The rationale behind it is if the foetal right to life argument is negated by failing to establish personhood, then the argument that the State or another individual has a right to decide that a woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy against her will, then same arguments would apply to allow the State or other individual force her to have a termination against her will (something which I would argue as strongly against).
On the right to life issue and concerns of judgment, there may be questions without immediate answers, but it is clear that as people in the 6 Counties were best placed to judge what actions to take in relation to events that concerned them, just as pregnant women are best placed to decide what happens to them.
You haven’t established any reason *why* personhood should be awarded to a foetus and that this should override *all* other rights that a woman has (and “because it just is!” is not an adequate argument.
@Anoymous (Part 2)
A foetus is a potential human being. A human being must by definition, be a separate individual to another human being. The foetus resides within another human beings body and they do not gain status of human being by being within a human. There can be no right to life of the foetus because a right can only be awarded if you have the capacity to exercise that right, otherwise it’s not applicable e.g. free speech, shelter, sustenance, physical autonomy. Something that is not *alive* cannot exercise a right to life. If one agrees it is potentially alive, that is by definition, a recognition that it is not *alive*. An anti-abortion activist arguing to protect “potential life” could presumably regard male-masturbation as comparable to abortion on that basis and seek to have it criminalised. Hell, sure ban condoms. At least the Catholic Church was consistent.
I had the discussion about the issue of stillbirths and death certificates. We must respect the pain of women who miscarry and support their right to recognise her child (as it would have become) but that does preclude allowing other women to determine for themselves whether they’ve a bond or not for what is remaining, a potential life.
Regarding issue of death certificates for stillbirths – the current practice in the 26 Counties is that a woman who delivers a stillborn after 24 weeks, can apply for a Stillbirth Certificate and a death certificate. You must have the Stillbirth Certificate to register a death certificate. The Stillbirth cert stipulates that there was no live birth. If the stillbirth takes place before 24 weeks you cannot apply for, or be issued with Stillbirth Certificate. In some jurisdictions, the point at which a certificate may be issued varies. In some, you may not receive one at all. It is a relatively recent practice which only started in 1995 in Ireland, and in the ‘60s in some states in the US. There will be no issue of birth certificate.
At all times during discussions of miscarriage and stillbirths it is important to remain sensitive to those who have gone through such painful and traumatic experiences. No person should do or say anything that will try to undermine their experience of pregnancy. Some women do not apply for Stillbirth Certificates and some do. It is a decision for each of them to make for themselves – as with their pregnancies. However, it is a legal fact that in many jurisdictions the issue of a death certificate for a stillborn after 24 weeks is not a legal acknowledgement that there was life, but an administrative decision to allow stillborn burials in grounds, in places where there are laws and by-laws stipulating that a death certificate must be produced to allow a burial to proceed. It has nothing to do with ‘life’ being acknowledged, and has nothing to do with a woman's right to abortion.
On the question of where it leaves the man/husband etc - I don’t want to be crude, but when a man has sex with a woman he doesn’t deposit some kind of “ownership” inside her. A man’s trauma over an abortion he didn’t want to happen, is not supreme in the trauma scale over forced pregnancy. I’m happy to allow a woman make decisions concerning her reproductive capabilities without the say-so of anyone else. It’s perfectly ethical for a woman to decide whether to have an abortion or not and it’s up to her whether she includes a man in that; she owns her own body so she can do it against the wishes of whoever she pleases; emotional trauma of the man is not a reason to endorse forced pregnancy; and it is only the woman’s opinion that counts when it comes down to it.
@Cillian
Thanks for your comments. My point throughout this whole discussion is that it is simply logically inconsistent to make an argument against a woman’s right to choose (in all circumstances) based on a foetal right to life argument that the foetus rights outweigh the woman’s, and simultaneously propose allowing abortion in case of rape or other trauma. To do so, is to say to negate any legitimacy to the notion that a foetus has a right to life (in any circumstances). I generally like to look at these ideas in practical terms, and the idea that you could have an objective trauma scale for women to seeking abortion would be quite cruel. In that scenario, a woman would be compelled to jump through trauma and risk hoops to avail of treatment, when trauma is subjective, and realistically a woman is best placed to know what the effect of a pregnancy will be on her (physical/medical risks aside).
On the adoption proposal – I understand why people who are uncomfortable with abortion propose this, but I think it disregards the enormity of the impact of pregnancy on a woman, regardless of whether an adoption takes place. A “social allowance” during pregnancy is all very well and good, but we still live in a society where you are at a massively increased risk of losing your job on becoming pregnant. You still have to give birth. You can’t just take an hour off at lunchtime, give birth and rock on back to work. To suggest that a payment during a forced pregnancy would mitigate any infringements of rights is a bit disingenuous towards women. Pregnancy, especially one against your will, is not an easy ride. You can theoretically negate financial burden, but you cannot erase the psychological and physical burden of forced pregnancy. Women cannot be paid off like that.
It also, of course, lends legitimacy to the view, that women do not have agency of themselves, or a right to self-determination of the person. Nothing should reside within a woman’s womb against her will.
Regarding the rights argument – I outlined my view of that in answer to the Anonymous commenter above. A woman has personhood, therefore has rights. A foetus does not have personhood, therefore it does not have rights.
Interestingly, your last paragraph points towards a regulation model that sounds remarkably similar to the text of the 1967 British Abortion Act – which is, unsurprisingly, workable.
Post a Comment