Obviously it’s not. We had a referendum on leaving it out as grounds for an abortion. Two if my memory serves correctly.

And we rejected it. And if we had another tomorrow, it would be rejected again.

To omit it from legislation would be an enormous insult to democracy.

Sorry, didn’t click reply. Why it posted as one, I don’t know.

Gerard, that comment is the exact opposite to what Shatter says in the above piece.

If thats the case Gerard you have nothing to fear from calling such a referendum. The only argument raised against pro-life referenda is that they might pass.

No one thinks this referendum will pass when two others have failed. The objection is that pro lifers will ask for referendum indefinitely because they don’t like the two answers they’ve been given.

Eventually the Catholic Church’s power in Ireland will wane to irrelevant and just like they lost the contraception, divorce, place of the church in the constitution etc debates they will lose the right to put pregnant women & their doctors in prison for deciding not to proceed with a pregnancy. It’s only a matter of time.

Does anyone seriously think the Catholic Church or ANY church has a future? People are better educated, less fearful of authority and are breaking away from the brainwashing and as more do it religious belief will die. It’s only logical.

Women in Ireland will eventually have the rights that will remove the need for them to have to fly to the British to terminate their pregnancies.

Apologies, that was for Sean Beag’s comment – first comment on this thread!

My point was that a medical issue which only affects one gender cannot be used as a in a comparison of gender rights.

Perhaps you are missing the equality part of it.
Either sex should have all relevant medical treatments available to them.

What you are advocating Mary is abortion at the request of the mother regardless of health issues and that is fair enough for you to have that opinion but it would have to be passed by referendum for it to become law. It is unlikely to get majority support but as I stated above, perhaps this should be put to the people along with other scenarios to put it to bed once and for all.
It might end the campaign of trying to get abortion in under the guise of unusual medical cases and the pretense of concern for the mothers health. Watching Ivana last night consonantly referring to the recent Savita case with fake concern when she was actually delighted this case gave her a stick to beat the pro lifers with was a bit disturbing I thought.
On the other hand, the majority could now feel the same as you and wish for more liberal abortion laws which would be fair enough too, that is proper democracy at least and not this false debate we are all having.

As I mentioned in the poll thread the Irish people have voted twice in referendums to keep the provision that if the female is suicidal that abortion / termination should be available. Why should we vote on that again?

Well I think for clarity is better to vote again, it was 10 years ago, a lot has happened since and the last time was a bit of a botched question anyway. Anecdotal evidence lot of pro lifers voted against it because it didn’t go far enough. It would still have a decent chance of getting through, but either way , much clearer questions to the electorate would seem fair at this stage given all the latest confusion.

We have voted twice, once in 1992 and again in 2002 to remove suicide from the terms and both times we said no.

We voted once on the pro life amendment, in 1983. I as a woman of child bearing age was not afforded the right to vote in that particular referendum.

If we are going to have a referendum. It should be on the pro life amendment. It’s long overdue.

This then would have the same problem as a ‘first past the post system’. If you put more than 2 options down, the chances that one option gets >50% support decreases.
In your example, with 4 options, you could end up with a situation where, e.g. the most popular measure gets 30% of the vote. Your model would say that this would get enacted into the Constitution, notwithstanding the fact that 70% of the people didn’t vote for that measure.

In any case, such a measure would be unconstitutional under the current model for amending the Constitution under Article 47.1: Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall, for the purpose of Article 46 of this Constitution, be held to have been approved by the people, if, upon having been so submitted, a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast in favour of its enactment into law.

You left out rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality..
Which would dilute the votes even further unfortunately..

Ferg
perhaps you should not comment if you do know the difference between a 6week old cells or a 7.>8 or 9 month fetus ?

Your reply is exactly why I don’t like to comment. You offered no response to what I said and your comment makes out that only those who know all the facts can comment. I don’t know all the facts which is the reason I asked a question. I figured I’d get plenty of red thumbs but I find that pretty tragic when no one has actually responded to my question.

Good comment Ferg, I’m not aware of any other law you are allowed break in the state when you are suicidal so not sure why this would be any different. I’m sure people feel suicidal over their debts but it doesn’t mean they can steal, not pay their taxes etc.

Patricia perhaps you can tell us when a bundle of cells becomes an unborn child.

It’s not at all the same thing. We’re talking about the state not just failing to provide terminations, but making it illegal to do so. It would be more like the state prohibiting the bank from doing a deal with the man in debt and forcing it to repossess his house.

The focus on suicide is because we’re apparently not grown up enough to talk about whether women should be entitled to a free choice, so we’re restricted to talking about cases so outrageous that they would have embarrassed Romania under the Ceaucescus.

What the mainstream media seems determined to ignore is that Shatter is coming as close as any justice minister has come to saying that free choice wouldn’t be the end of the world.

educate your self Ferg, look at the laws of other countries, ask why the church has so much control over the law and what women can or can not do.
read a few books

Interesting Emily, you want abortion on demand but you will settle for abortion if the woman claims to be suicidal. This is because it is impossible to prove one way or the other if someone would be more or less suicidal after an abortion. So in reality and over time women would have abortion on demand which is what you want. This really is the nub of the pro choice position but as things currently stand it is against the will of the people.
By all means call for another referendum and argue your case, but don’t pretend you only want abortion because of women’s health issues.

Thanks Emily. I agree with you on the point that the focus on suicide is a giant cop out by the government. It’s an argument that doesn’t make sense to me. And you’re right, we do need to grow up and face it head on rather than ignore a reality.
I guess what it all boils down to really is when we believe life is life instead of a bunch of cells (let’s not argue about that here though!).
Patricia – stay classy.

Well Ferg you have crystallised the whole problem and moral hazard with the suicide argument. In no other situation would we consider the the prospect of suicide as grounds for taking a decision with harmful outcomes for an innocent second or third party. Why should it be acceptable if that innocent second or third party has yet to pass through the birth canal anymore than if they have yet to pass Go on a monopoly board.
The Supreme Court has opened a pandora’s box here.

G, I did not say
(a) that I want abortion on demand
(b) that I would settle for abortion on the grounds of suicide, or
(c) that it is a women’s health issue

You’re welcome to rubbish my comment, but please don’t make up what it says.

And the majority of people do support abortion. Two referenda to reverse the X case have failed, and the right to travel for an abortion was upheld. The effect of this is that people have endorsed abortion for Irish women, as long as it doesn’t happen on Irish soil.

As Shatter put it, a British solution to an Irish problem. I would put it somewhat less politely.

@G – Just to clarify, because legislating (with the suicide ‘clause’) might result in “on demand” abortions further down the line (quite probable), the first group must be excluded from potentially life saving intervention?

You are willing to put people lives at risk because further down the line something else might happen?

I said this on another article, but this would be how I would look at it.

1st trimester.
The embryo / foetus starts out with pretty dismal chances of survival. Up to 80% of pregnancies fail in the first few weeks. By the end of the first trimester the foetus’ chance of survival is still only 50/50.
For this reason I can make peace with abortions at this stage of pregnancy. Most unplanned pregnancies are currently aborted within this timeframe in the UK.

2nd trimester.
This is when the scans and tests start. Your baby might not have miscarried, but there’s still a chance of complications either with mother or baby. If these complications arise, and the woman’s life is at risk, or the baby will not survive anyway, I can make peace with abortion at this point and for these reasons.

3rd trimester
At this point in pregnancy the foetus has a 50/50 chance of surviving birth, and should be given the chance to do so. I can’t make peace with abortion at this late stage. If there are complications then labour should be induced and the foetus should be given every chance of survival.

From my reading of the expert report they shared my views on the last trimester and I strongly doubt that even when legislation is enacted, abortions will be permitted at this stage of gestation.

no,its not like that at all.

It’s exactly like that Sean. If you struggle comprehending written and spoken English and if you have talked only to your parish priest for the last 3 weeks of debate on this issue, there could be no other interpretation of his comment.

Not really sure if you are trying to insult me there Ciaran. I presume so. Pretty pathetic really.

Pregnancy is not a disease or an illness or a disability. It is only experienced by women. So it is pointless trying to bring gender equality into the the debate. The abortion debate will always focus on balancing the right to life of the unborn child and the right to choose of the mother. Bringing in ridiculous arguments will not change that. The only way the abortion issue will be advanced in this country is by coming to a consensus on when exactly a foetus becomes a child.

Definition of fetus (foetus):
noun (plural fetuses)
an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

No debate to be had here as far as the Oxford dictionary is concerned. I wouldn’t dream of insulting your intelligence when you are doing such an admirable job of it all by yourself.

A typo? Really? That’s the extent of your ability to debate a point? So do I take it you would allow for an abortion up to the day before birth or has your eagerness to look smart prevented you from actually making a point?

I made no comment over a typo, there are two spellings of the word as you can see above. As you can also see above there is a point when foetus becomes child, many call it birth. You seem to be calling for a debate on when a foetus should attain the rights of personhood. There may well be a debate to be had on this topic. Science tells us that a foetus has slim to no chance outside of the womb before 22-24 weeks of gestation. As a result most modern countries that allow for abortion limit it to this time frame. So why don’t we debate this, using these terms and leave children out of it as clearly they are out of it, the womb that is.

Your grasp of semantics is excellent. It must really help you talk down to people. You should be proud.

In any case, while viability outside the womb may be a good standard to go by, it is also worth noting that the brain and nervous system develop much before that. So I myself don’t believe that the standard should be based on an ability to live independently but should be more focused on mental capacity.

Sean, actually no.. The parts of the brain required for survival don’t form until closer to week 20. For example, foetuses do not have the capacity to feel pain up until this point. There’s a brain stem and *most* of a brain there, but it’s not capable of becoming conscious until around this point of gestation.

Semantics are important if we are to debate the real issues. I’m 5’8″, there are very few people for me to talk down to. I take your point on the perception of pain being a development that should be considered.

The terms state that abortion is only to be made available when there is a risk to the life as distinct from the health of the mother..
When you oppose that, two die each time. The foetus and the mother.

Shouldn’t be too hard to get a couple of psychiatric consultants to examine a person and the circumstances and make a decision on her condition. People seem to think it will be a case of a woman walking into her doctor and saying “I’m suicidal, gimme an abortion”. It’s more likely that the person will be treated for their mental condition first.

abortion is already in demand its just you have to go to the uk for it . today in average there is about 13 women making that trip . personally i think that making these women travel over to the uk is wrong. and it is just adding to the stigma attached to it .

People travel to Amsterdam to smoke pot in cafes, is it wrong to make them travel?

g people smoke weed in ireland too. ypu can buy it here too. you dont have to travel to amsterdam to get a hold of weed. where as to get a abortion you have to travel unless you wanna go to a unlicensed person to peform this .

I must have missed when the right to travel to smoke pot in the Netherlands was enshrined in the Bunreacht na hEireann. It’s the only crime constitutionally permitted to travel to commit!

But Sean, why wouldn’t it be a case of “I’m suicidal, gimme an abortion”? That’s what happened in the UK. In fact it happens to such an extent, they don’t even bother asking anymore.
A case of “I want an abortion because it’s a girl”. Doctor: “Fine. Suicide risk so”.

According to the WHO, “Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence”. Also, “The cost of conducting a safe abortion is up to one tenth of the cost of treating the consequences of an unsafe abortion.”

It is time to join the modern world where people accept that not everybody holds your religious/moralistic view and deal with what is actually happening – not what you’d prefer was happening.

Yes we do. It was a mistake. It is fixed.

I’m assuming you can see the irony of your condescending comment coming from a person who calls him/herself ‘Sammy Sausages’!?

must be great craic pointing out somebodys incorrect use of grammer .

*grammar :)

That amendment should never have been passed. How do you guarantee rights to something that cannot exist without being inside another person? How can you grant it equal rights without completely removing the woman’s right to bodily integrity?

It was a mess of a referendum pushed in at a politically fraught time. Most women of child bearing age today were under 18 when it was passed. It’s time we got to vote on it again (seeing as how it directly affects us).