The 8th Amendment. Before You Vote...
The 8th amendment acknowledges the right to life of the unborn, with a guarantee to legally respect, vindicate and defend that right, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother. In the upcoming referendum we will be asked if we want this protection to be removed from the unborn, with an empowerment of TDs and senators to freely legislate for abortions. Some things to think about before voting…
Choice
When it comes to abortion, a right to choose is often raised. We make choices every day, some trivial, some more important – but choices are not necessarily rights. That is why we have laws. We could choose to steal a car or to punch someone at random, but there are rights in place that supersede these choices – in these instances, the other person’s right to not be punched or have their car stolen. The right to not be directly killed while growing in the womb is a very basic human right. The term ‘Trust women’ seems to have been decided upon by some who want to repeal the 8th amendment. However, is trust appropriate when the trust being asked for involves decisions to kill even a single human life in the womb? Should the new life in the womb not be able to trust that their right to life will be protected?
“I wouldn’t have an abortion, but who am I to stop someone else from having one?”
This thinking can be understandable and logical if there are no other rights infringed upon. For example, “I wouldn’t eat in that restaurant but I wouldn’t stop someone else from” works at this level. With abortion, as there is another human life in the equation, the logic doesn’t work. It is akin to saying “I wouldn’t kill my daughter but who am I to stop someone else from killing theirs?” The same applies when other rights are infringed upon: “I wouldn’t beat my spouse, but who am I to stop someone else from…”; “I wouldn’t steal a car, but…” Who are you? Hopefully, someone who understands that to be against abortion is to defend the most defenceless among us, whose right to life is under threat.
Is there no middle ground?
Often, when views are polarised to one side or the other, a middle ground is sought as being reasonable, and that can be true, depending on the situation. When it comes to abortion, however, it is literally a matter of life or death for the individual in the womb. For them, there is no middle ground, no grey area. It really is as black or white as life or death.
Often, those who seek abortion are traumatised, especially if rape, incest or disability is involved, and this is one good reason for an objective legal protection to be in place for the new life in the womb, innocent of the circumstances of their conception. It’s noble to want to help and support people; and sometimes people we know are involved; but any support we give needs to consider and respect the rights of these new lives too. Personal trauma can be treated, with great care and compassion, while protecting the new life in the womb. As human persons, they have an inherent right to such protection.
But is it really a human person?
Well, the short answer is yes. 100% of pregnancies that come to fruition bring forth human persons from the womb. Those persons do not just spring into existence when a law determines at what point they can be protected; or when someone arbitrarily decides at what point they might exist. Conception is the most scientific starting point for human life. Is it really scientific, for example, to believe a human life can be aborted because pain cannot be felt, or at a point when they cannot survive outside the womb? Even born children won’t survive without older people caring for them. In reality, what difference does it make if a life is ended immediately after conception; after eight months of gestation; three months after birth; or beyond? It is the same person that is being killed; a person which could, if circumstances or decisions beyond our control had permitted, have been you or me.
Are pro-lifers going to support those children when they are born?
This is often put to pro-lifers, but if I save a child from drowning, am I then expected to materially support that child for the rest of their life, or is the act of saving their life considered a good thing of itself? The child in the womb has the right to live their life, whether they are ‘wanted’ or not; and to advocate for their life to be saved is a good thing of itself. Others, on the contrary, do not have the right to directly and deliberately end it.
”Men should have no say, it’s a women’s issue.”
The (perhaps unintentional) sexism in this sentiment aside, the procreation of our race is very much a human issue, male and female. I am a son, husband and father and was once in the womb myself. In my family line, there were generations before me and, so far, at least one generation after me. At any stage in the past, if that line had been interrupted by abortion, I would not be here to write this, nor would my children be here, or any children any of them may have. Abortion affects entire generations. Yes, by nature a woman bears the new life for a short time within her body, but it is a new life, with two parents and a gender and identity of their own. Human life is very much an issue for all of humanity.
Abortions happen anyway, so why not legalise them?
This argument is also often put forth. However, underage drinking, drug abuse, murder and theft also happen anyway. Is this a reason to legalise them?
Are we not just exporting the problem, forcing women to go to England or other places?
If seen for what it really is, abortion should not be available in any country. Nobody is ‘forced’ to go anywhere, except perhaps the unborn child that may be travelling in order to be aborted.
What about cases involving rape, incest, etc.?
While this is, of course, tragic, traumatic and difficult, circumstances of conception are never the fault of the child in the womb. The innocent new life needs to be respected as such, while finding good ways (e.g. counselling, adoption, etc.) to cope with traumatic feelings and circumstances, with great care and compassion.
What about danger to the mother’s life?
Provision is already in place in Ireland, with the 8th amendment intact, for a pregnant woman to receive life-saving treatment, even if the baby should die as an unwanted, indirect, but even foreseen or inevitable result of such treatment. In this way, the unborn child is not directly killed, but given a chance to survive if possible, without endangering the life of the mother.
What about Savita (RIP)?
Had Savita Halappanavar (RIP) been adequately treated for sepsis, and the baby, while being equally respected, had unfortunately died as an indirect, unwanted, but even foreseen or inevitable result, those conditions for treatment are already in place in Ireland. Savita, it has been shown, died from mismanagement of sepsis.
What about ‘fatal foetal abnormality’?
‘Fatal’ is a cloudy term here. Many live much longer than initially expected, and doctors can get it wrong, even misdiagnosing such defects. But even if expected ‘quality’ or length of life is not, by some thinking, considered to be good enough, those still in the womb have a right to their only shot at this life, with the cards they have been dealt, as we all do. Some hands of cards may seem poor to us, but who really knows how the cards will fall?
Disability
Eradicating disability can be a good thing, but one does not kill a person with a disability in order to eradicate disability, or to ease personal trauma. There is a new life in play that has a right to live that life, no matter how short or long it may be, or how many challenges they may face. We all, I would say, have challenges to face. Many of us know someone with Down syndrome. Some are trying to suppress the use of images of people with Down syndrome in this campaign, but the images give a human face to the statistics. In some countries, where abortion has ‘progressed’, around 90% of children diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome are aborted. My own daughter has Down syndrome and no, she is not an 'angel'; she can be stubborn, difficult and push the boundaries. She can also be a great joy to be around. Others are aborted for relatively trivial matters such as cleft palate. It ought to be enriching that so many people with such a variety of physical or mental challenges are living their lives among us in Ireland. This surely doesn’t make us a weaker, regressive or backward nation, but one more mature, inclusive and strong. The 8th Amendment is child-centred. It recognises the equality of the new human life that has been created, one that could have been you or me.
Final Thoughts
A worldwide desensitisation of what abortion is and does has happened over many years, with the use of euphemisms and devaluing of life. Such desensitisation has led to abortion even being seen as healthcare and a good thing. The reality, in all circumstances, is that a new, human life is killed. That is the reality. It seems clear that a push is in place to eventually have abortion on demand in Ireland. There are those for whom this is a goal. The provision of abortion as a treatment for suicidal ideation, against medical advice and evidence, was a step on the road to the type of abortion on demand that has happened in other countries. Elsewhere, abortion has been introduced with restrictions and, bit by bit, has expanded. It’s naïve to think this wouldn’t happen in Ireland. It seems like a well-established device, in politics or otherwise, that the best way to introduce and increase something is gradually, making it sound as ‘good’ as spin might allow. If the 8th amendment is repealed, it would be a fair bet that more campaigns to lift restrictions on abortion would quickly follow. The 8th amendment values both mother and child. Please vote to keep the 8th amendment.
Thank you for reading.
Epilogue to this blog here... After the Vote...an epilogue
Choice
When it comes to abortion, a right to choose is often raised. We make choices every day, some trivial, some more important – but choices are not necessarily rights. That is why we have laws. We could choose to steal a car or to punch someone at random, but there are rights in place that supersede these choices – in these instances, the other person’s right to not be punched or have their car stolen. The right to not be directly killed while growing in the womb is a very basic human right. The term ‘Trust women’ seems to have been decided upon by some who want to repeal the 8th amendment. However, is trust appropriate when the trust being asked for involves decisions to kill even a single human life in the womb? Should the new life in the womb not be able to trust that their right to life will be protected?
“I wouldn’t have an abortion, but who am I to stop someone else from having one?”
This thinking can be understandable and logical if there are no other rights infringed upon. For example, “I wouldn’t eat in that restaurant but I wouldn’t stop someone else from” works at this level. With abortion, as there is another human life in the equation, the logic doesn’t work. It is akin to saying “I wouldn’t kill my daughter but who am I to stop someone else from killing theirs?” The same applies when other rights are infringed upon: “I wouldn’t beat my spouse, but who am I to stop someone else from…”; “I wouldn’t steal a car, but…” Who are you? Hopefully, someone who understands that to be against abortion is to defend the most defenceless among us, whose right to life is under threat.
Is there no middle ground?
Often, when views are polarised to one side or the other, a middle ground is sought as being reasonable, and that can be true, depending on the situation. When it comes to abortion, however, it is literally a matter of life or death for the individual in the womb. For them, there is no middle ground, no grey area. It really is as black or white as life or death.
Often, those who seek abortion are traumatised, especially if rape, incest or disability is involved, and this is one good reason for an objective legal protection to be in place for the new life in the womb, innocent of the circumstances of their conception. It’s noble to want to help and support people; and sometimes people we know are involved; but any support we give needs to consider and respect the rights of these new lives too. Personal trauma can be treated, with great care and compassion, while protecting the new life in the womb. As human persons, they have an inherent right to such protection.
But is it really a human person?
Well, the short answer is yes. 100% of pregnancies that come to fruition bring forth human persons from the womb. Those persons do not just spring into existence when a law determines at what point they can be protected; or when someone arbitrarily decides at what point they might exist. Conception is the most scientific starting point for human life. Is it really scientific, for example, to believe a human life can be aborted because pain cannot be felt, or at a point when they cannot survive outside the womb? Even born children won’t survive without older people caring for them. In reality, what difference does it make if a life is ended immediately after conception; after eight months of gestation; three months after birth; or beyond? It is the same person that is being killed; a person which could, if circumstances or decisions beyond our control had permitted, have been you or me.
Are pro-lifers going to support those children when they are born?
This is often put to pro-lifers, but if I save a child from drowning, am I then expected to materially support that child for the rest of their life, or is the act of saving their life considered a good thing of itself? The child in the womb has the right to live their life, whether they are ‘wanted’ or not; and to advocate for their life to be saved is a good thing of itself. Others, on the contrary, do not have the right to directly and deliberately end it.
”Men should have no say, it’s a women’s issue.”
The (perhaps unintentional) sexism in this sentiment aside, the procreation of our race is very much a human issue, male and female. I am a son, husband and father and was once in the womb myself. In my family line, there were generations before me and, so far, at least one generation after me. At any stage in the past, if that line had been interrupted by abortion, I would not be here to write this, nor would my children be here, or any children any of them may have. Abortion affects entire generations. Yes, by nature a woman bears the new life for a short time within her body, but it is a new life, with two parents and a gender and identity of their own. Human life is very much an issue for all of humanity.
Abortions happen anyway, so why not legalise them?
This argument is also often put forth. However, underage drinking, drug abuse, murder and theft also happen anyway. Is this a reason to legalise them?
Are we not just exporting the problem, forcing women to go to England or other places?
If seen for what it really is, abortion should not be available in any country. Nobody is ‘forced’ to go anywhere, except perhaps the unborn child that may be travelling in order to be aborted.
What about cases involving rape, incest, etc.?
While this is, of course, tragic, traumatic and difficult, circumstances of conception are never the fault of the child in the womb. The innocent new life needs to be respected as such, while finding good ways (e.g. counselling, adoption, etc.) to cope with traumatic feelings and circumstances, with great care and compassion.
What about danger to the mother’s life?
Provision is already in place in Ireland, with the 8th amendment intact, for a pregnant woman to receive life-saving treatment, even if the baby should die as an unwanted, indirect, but even foreseen or inevitable result of such treatment. In this way, the unborn child is not directly killed, but given a chance to survive if possible, without endangering the life of the mother.
What about Savita (RIP)?
Had Savita Halappanavar (RIP) been adequately treated for sepsis, and the baby, while being equally respected, had unfortunately died as an indirect, unwanted, but even foreseen or inevitable result, those conditions for treatment are already in place in Ireland. Savita, it has been shown, died from mismanagement of sepsis.
What about ‘fatal foetal abnormality’?
‘Fatal’ is a cloudy term here. Many live much longer than initially expected, and doctors can get it wrong, even misdiagnosing such defects. But even if expected ‘quality’ or length of life is not, by some thinking, considered to be good enough, those still in the womb have a right to their only shot at this life, with the cards they have been dealt, as we all do. Some hands of cards may seem poor to us, but who really knows how the cards will fall?
Disability
Eradicating disability can be a good thing, but one does not kill a person with a disability in order to eradicate disability, or to ease personal trauma. There is a new life in play that has a right to live that life, no matter how short or long it may be, or how many challenges they may face. We all, I would say, have challenges to face. Many of us know someone with Down syndrome. Some are trying to suppress the use of images of people with Down syndrome in this campaign, but the images give a human face to the statistics. In some countries, where abortion has ‘progressed’, around 90% of children diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome are aborted. My own daughter has Down syndrome and no, she is not an 'angel'; she can be stubborn, difficult and push the boundaries. She can also be a great joy to be around. Others are aborted for relatively trivial matters such as cleft palate. It ought to be enriching that so many people with such a variety of physical or mental challenges are living their lives among us in Ireland. This surely doesn’t make us a weaker, regressive or backward nation, but one more mature, inclusive and strong. The 8th Amendment is child-centred. It recognises the equality of the new human life that has been created, one that could have been you or me.
Final Thoughts
A worldwide desensitisation of what abortion is and does has happened over many years, with the use of euphemisms and devaluing of life. Such desensitisation has led to abortion even being seen as healthcare and a good thing. The reality, in all circumstances, is that a new, human life is killed. That is the reality. It seems clear that a push is in place to eventually have abortion on demand in Ireland. There are those for whom this is a goal. The provision of abortion as a treatment for suicidal ideation, against medical advice and evidence, was a step on the road to the type of abortion on demand that has happened in other countries. Elsewhere, abortion has been introduced with restrictions and, bit by bit, has expanded. It’s naïve to think this wouldn’t happen in Ireland. It seems like a well-established device, in politics or otherwise, that the best way to introduce and increase something is gradually, making it sound as ‘good’ as spin might allow. If the 8th amendment is repealed, it would be a fair bet that more campaigns to lift restrictions on abortion would quickly follow. The 8th amendment values both mother and child. Please vote to keep the 8th amendment.
Thank you for reading.
Epilogue to this blog here... After the Vote...an epilogue
Beautifully written truth, is really difficult to comprehend how so many who have been given life desire to extinguish this right for others.
ReplyDeleteAny particular reason why comments are being deleted?
ReplyDeleteI don’t know, I haven’t deleted any.
DeleteIt was set to registered users, I’ve enabled comments for anyone now. Maybe that will help.
Delete