Irish PM doesn’t want to feel rushed into changing abortion law
Since I first blogged about this a few days ago, the death of Savita Halappanavar has caused a lot of understandable outrage in Ireland. It seems her highly avoidable passing has rudely awakened a generation of young people who are shocked their own health could be threatened due to the persistence of religious dogma.
Even more shocking, they’re about to realize change is impossibly slow, given the ones holding the reins of power have no interest in making necessary change, lest it upset the old guard:
“This is a matter that has divided Irish society now for a great number of years, and I am not going to be rushed into a situation by force of numbers on any side,” Prime Minister Enda Kenny told state broadcaster RTE.
I don’t give a damn if you feel abortion is wrong. That’s your own personal opinion, and as uninformed as it is, it doesn’t for one second change the fact they need to happen. Making them illegal or inaccessible places the lives of actual sentient beings at risk, whether it be from botched street abortions, or from countless medical complications caused by pregnancies. I don’t have to bring up the fact women were dying all the time before abortion was legal in America, do I?
Like drug prohibitionism, making something illegal doesn’t actually solve anything: it in fact compounds both the risk and the cost to society by making them the realm of black markets and underground economies. These are the real consequences of a confused sense of moral responsibility towards unborn fetuses (which tragically seems to end once they’ve taken their very first breath of air), and should not be ignored. Unlike our religious counterparts, it’s the material world we are concerned with, and the individuals who make up that physical realm. The supposed concerns of a make believe troll or bearded entity in the sky has absolutely no bearing on the procedures we undertake to save the lives of other human beings.
If there is any debate, it boils down to this: medical decisions should be pretty obvious considering one is based on simple logic, the other is based on the interpretation of a fairy tale about a guy pulling out on her brother’s widow, and getting killed by a vengeful deity.
It’s divided society alright: one side thinks people should have the ability to be treated for a medical condition based on science, and not religion. The fact some people are mad that abortions happen is irrelevant to their actual real need. And the victims of all this stupidity are women. Now, I wonder how a society still under the spell of a misogynistic, male dominated cult will react to the news there’s no real rush to ensure their well being is preserved so the feelings of superstitious ignoramuses can be spared?
“This is something that has to be dealt with rationally, and openly and truthfully and that is what will happen,” said Kenny.
Dealt with rationally? Do you honestly think the reason for these insane restrictions are logical and reasonable to begin with?