Why isn’t there a vote by the people? It’s for the people! I am well able to answer for myself! I make my own decisions and always have, there should be a referendum.

I get confused when people say they’re in favour of legislation that gives the right to abortion to women who’ve been raped. Who decides if they’ve been raped or not? Even in cases that get to court, we have an abysmally low conviction rate in this country. And those trials happen well after any baby conceived in the assault would have been born. So what’s the story? How does it work in other countries?
Such a proposal seems misogynistc as well. In denying a woman abortion because she conceived by consensual (sp?) sex but granting it to the woman who was raped are we not in the tradition of seeing pregancy as a punishment? “Okay; Woman A you were raped so you can have an abortion but as for your friend Woman B, that hussy who had sex by choice and may even have enjoyed it, well, there’ll be no get out of jail free card for her.”
And if abortion law is about protecting the foetus, such a proposal makes no sense at all. Why should the circumstances of our conception influence the level of protection we recieve from the state? If we accept the “right to life” of the foetus, how can we pick and choose which we protect?
I don’t know and there are no easy answers. There seems to be a consensus to bring in abortion but with limitations. Instead of limitations such as the circumstances of conception or the mental health of the mother could we not stick to limits amenable to empirical measurement. an obvious one would be age of the pregnant woman. Another would be weeks of gestation. Set an early limit, accord it as a right to all women and let the lawyers and the psychiatrists find other ways to make money.

So are they in favour of abortion or in favour of the limitations? It’s a bit open to interpretation

The article is misleading – as this report points out, only 218 GPs and 106 GPs in training responded – not 750 as the article implies. Also this is really old news! The study was released in November 2011. Is the Journal releasing it now in a hope to bolster the push for abortion. Surely not :)

http://www.youthdefence.ie/latest-news/bogus-claim-that-over-half-of-doctors-support-abortion-doesnt-stand-up/

Ah no comments from the anti-lifers here. Must be because 75% of doctors agree with it only for special circumstances (like most normal human beings) and no calls for outright baby killing.

This “recent” survey was published in November 2011, and was roundly rebuffed at the time for its inconsistencies.
Responding to the poll at that time, spokesperson Dr Ruth Cullen, said that the survey “failed to take account of key facts and distinctions”.
Dr Cullen said: “Crucially, the survey ignores the vital ethical distinction between necessary medical interventions in pregnancy and abortion which intentionally ends the life of the baby.
“For this reason alone, the survey sheds no new light on the abortion debate.”
She also pointed out that Dr Murphy’s survey continuously uses the expression “termination of pregnancy” throughout.
Dr Cullen continued: “It is important to note that not all terminations are induced abortions. Birth is a termination of pregnancy as are necessary early deliveries where the baby may be extremely immature. But there is a profound ethical difference between such terminations and induced abortion, which directly targets the life of the baby.”
“As other surveys have shown, when these clear ethical distinctions are pointed out to respondents, it elicits a very different answer,” she added.
Dr Cullen also took issue with the survey’s finding that four in 10 respondents believe that “a woman’s healthcare suffers because of the requirement to travel to have a termination”.
She remarked: “The survey asks doctors about the possible effects on women of having to travel for abortion. However, remarkably given the most recent evidence showing the adverse effects of abortion on women, it fails to ask them whether they have encountered women who suffered from undergoing abortion itself.
Robust peer reviewed research highlighting these adverse consequences for women from abortion have appeared in the British Journal of Psychiatry and other authoritative publications.
Dr Cullen also suggested that there were “very legitimate questions” that could be raised about the methodology used in Dr Murphy’s survey.
She noted: “For example, even assuming that a correct representative sample was chosen initially, only 44pc of those who were written to replied.
Such a sample, Dr Cullen said “could not be considered as a scientifically representative sample”.
http://prolifecampaign.ie/?page_id=1850

@Sakipol –

Well said.

It’s important to remember that the pro-life movement opposes abortion ie the intentional targetting of the unborn child in the womb. In an abortion, there is no other intention in mind apart from ending that life. Saving the life of the mother is not related to the sole purpose which is to bring about the death of the unborn child.

In cases where the mother’s life is at risk, she already receives all of the treatment she needs in Irish hospitals – even if this results in the indirect and regrettable death of her unborn child. This is medical treatment, accepted by the Irish Medical Council and internationally recognised under the Principle of Double Effect. It is not an abortion.

In the case of rape or foetal abnormality, there are serious questions regarding our right to make a call on whether the unborn child in each case is entitled to her right to life.

The unborn child is not responsible for the crime of her father.

Equally, there are many profoundly disabled people who live happy lives – what message do we send to them and their loved ones if we allow abortion in the case of disability?

Regarding the validity of this study, from a scientific standpoint:

1. This has not been published in any peer-reviewed medical journal – most likely because it does not meet the standard.
2. A 44% response rate would not usually be considered a adequate rate for reporting, and certainly not for publication.
3. This article does not explain how the questions were phrased. In particular, the question on medical life threatening conditions would be nice to see. No doctor, or sane individual would suggest that a woman would be denied life-saving treatment in pregnancy, and this may have been smudged in the questions to include this circumstance under the umbrella of abortion, which would inflate the support for “abortion”. Possibly. But I don’t know. The methodology wasn’t described adequately.

In any case, the WHO has said Ireland is the safest place in the world for pregnant women. We should be proud.

Never agree to murder always protect life and always protect the most vulnerable the unborn child.Cherish life not destroy it.

Whats a limited abortion!? Just chop off its leg and break its arm?