Abortion, Miss D and Fundamentalism

OK, lets start this hot topic with the position;

When an organism is dependent on another organism for its survival, its rights are limited to those that the host organism chooses to provide it with, or in the case of parasites, the host organism becomes aware of the parasite and chooses to either continue supporting the parasite or remove it.

When an organism begins to support itself in some way (for arguments sake: breathing) then it can be said to have taken the “responsibility” to continue to do so or not do so to its own benefit or detriment. An organism breathing in this way can be seen to have the autonomous right to continue to do so since it does not require the assistance of another organism.

We can extend this to the issue of abortion. Before the point of birth the mother (host) of the foetus (parasite) is providing at least 50% genetic material, she provides the oxygen, nutrition and raw materials for the generation of the foetuses biomass. It is, in effect, the product of the mother’s body.

The foetus provides no tangible benefit to the mother.

The foetus has taken no responsibility as an organism to support its own continued existence and without the altruistic intervention of the mother, or a surrogate, it will die.

At this point, it is the altruistic and non-obligatory intervention of the mother sustaining it.

If the foetus independently takes the responsibility to breathe for itself (i.e. its autonomic functions cause it to respire) then it can be viewed as having taken the responsibility for this from the mother and with it the right to continue to breathe without interference.

In other words, taking the responsibility to continue breathing confers the right to reap its benefits without being hindered by another organism in that process.

From this we can infer that the mother, who is providing the above mentioned resources and is the sole entity supporting the foetuses existence. It is her altruistic and non-obligatory responsibility to support the foetus and therefore she possesses the “right” to cease supporting the foetus without interference from those who have no “responsibility” invested in the foetus.

Therefore, we can say, that the right of abortion belongs to the mother because the responsibility to continue the support of the foetus is hers.

Now. I can understand many people getting upset that this is a very cold and dispassionate argument and they would be right. It is intended to be, because I am attempting to show a rational view of the subject, without the emotional and religious hysteria that tends to follow it around.

Others would say that it is coldly immoral, indeed they have said as much. Again, in a sense, I would agree – but only from the perspective that morals are no more than an arbitrary, individualistic and human invention and aside from certain altruistic instincts and genes evolved for the benefit of the social creature man is, they do not exist in nature.

We, as a society however, do have moral judgements and decisions to make. As such it is often very difficult to find an answer to the difficult and emotional issues such as abortion. We, as a society (or rather enlightened societies whose laws are not based on religious adherence), choose to place arbitrary limits on the length of time a mother can wait before having an abortion, about 28 weeks usually. After this point, it is usually expected that the mother will give birth and where the infant (at this point) is not wanted it can be put up for adoption, except in some circumstances where the foetus is severely deformed or incomplete (lacking brain functions, serious illness, short life expectancy).

I deliberately qualified my point by mentioning enlightened states that do not base their civic laws on religious teachings or opinion. I did so because it draws a distinction between the UK and the US, where on the whole laws are secular, and to Ireland, where the basis for much of our laws are indeed based on religion and the various teachings of a single faith, namely Roman Catholicism.

This is the issue raised by the MISS D case, harking back to many other cases in the 80’s and 90’s. The run down is this; The HSE (health services board) have decreed that the 17 year old girl in question may not travel outside of the boarders of Ireland because she intends to have an abortion and have informed her than this would result in arrest and prosecution by the Gardai.

Abortion is illegal in Ireland under all circumstances except where it directly threatens the life of the mother. The fact that the girl in question is considered a suicide risk has not been taken to indicate the pregnancy is a threat to her life.

The case boils down to the following facts;

The HSE have arbitrarily decided to restrict the travel of a 17-year-old girl who has committed no crime.

The HSE have concluded (or at least set precedent) that no woman who is pregnant should be permitted to travel abroad to countries where the abortion laws are different to our own on grounds that those people may break our laws while in a different and entirely sovereign country.

This implies that the Irish laws are superior to those of the UK, US and any other country who permits abortion.

It also implies that the restriction of a persons right to travel is applicable under these circumstances.

Taken to a logical conclusion, and trusting that the state does not wish to use the law in an a-la-carte fashion, does this not mean that any woman travelling abroad would have to undergo a pregnancy test to ensure that they are not transporting a foetus to a country where it could conceivably be aborted? Or would we meet half way and apply a statistical lie detector test to determine whether a woman intends to have a foetus aborted?

I make this argument because of my own feelings towards the issue of abortion and the Irish Constitutional position on abortion.

It is my firm opinion that the MISS D case is an absolute disgrace and amounts to the theocratic restriction of peoples rights in a perverse Irish Taliban like system. It is also my firm opinion that a large number of Irish laws are religious in basis and have no place in a secular society (regardless of what the Taoiseach may feel in regards to “aggressive secularists”). These religious laws include the stance on abortion, the Good Friday Law, the issue of blasphemy is a limit to free speech and the states attitude towards marriage both traditional and non-traditional.

I believe it is time that we re-evaluated our internal systems and decided whether we want to be a theocracy or a democratic republic.

Thank you for reading this far. It was a long one but you made it. Congratulations. Go and have a cup of tea, or a pint in the local