And to think that 40% or so of the people show up every Sunday to listen to one of those 12% tell them how they should live their lives… Insanity indeed.

Penelope , I’m not misinterpreting anything , I haven’t even interpreted anything so far , anyway , its already been well established by professionals at this stage that abortion is never a solution to the risk suicide , It should not be legislated for on these grounds because as we see in the UK it has led to an open door free for all abortion on demand situation that even the authorities concede is out of control . Even in the US they are trying to reverse some of the policies introduced by Libertarian groupings as they are destroying the Fabric of society .

I have no doubt that websites like this one , politics.ie and boards are infiltrated with Libertarian Bloggers who have nothing better to do with their lives than to spend all day posting “lets legalise everything” and we’ll all be so happy

You have misinterpreted much.. The only “experts” saying that aborting a pregnancy where a woman says she would rather die than be pregnant wont stop her trying to kill herself were the deluded anti choicers who seem to be immune to facts and science..

Yeah, they (or some other Pro-Life group) were out and about in Cork in the week leading up to Christmas. There were about 10 of them, and they had those graphic posters and were shouting at people through megaphones. It was so aggressive and in-your-face. Really destroyed the festive cheer around the place. If you’re against abortion, fine. Don’t have one. But don’t tell me what to do or force your opinion down my throat. I don’t care.

thats strange seeing as on facebook the pro life campaign has 28000 likes so far , in the recent vigil outside the Dail there was around 30 000 people in attendance .

the problem is that they dont get fair coverage in the Irish Media who are extremist Libertarians that want everything legal .. and if that does happen will they happy living in the society they just help create ?? I doubt it very much. I dont they will ever be happy people.

Firstly in terms of “likes” and how indicative they are of actual popular support – see here http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/07/04/who-really-likes-youth-defence/ or any of the blogs by Geoff Lillis (@geoffsshorts on twitter). Second the garda estimate of the march was 25000 and it was covered extensively in national media.

Finally – this entire article is about popular support for the liberalisation of abortion laws in Ireland. It’s happening. People want it to happen. Stop claiming to be in the majority.

Stephanie , why did 30 000 irish people turn out for a recent pro life vigil outside the Dail ???

You seem to have misspelled 25,000.

Hee hee, “extremist Libertarians”! As if there was anything “extreme” about stating that a woman should have control over her own reproductive system.

I think you’ll find that the only extremists in this debate are on the other side.

Whether 25,000 or 30,000 the population of this country is still >4.5 million, so neither figure is anywhere even *remotely* close to a majority! Sure, 30,000 people showed up for a Pro-Life march, but do you not think – especially given how much help was given to those who might otherwise have found it difficult to get to Dublin city centre – that it’s entirely possible (even likely) that that was a huge portion of those who support the Pro-Life campaign? Unless you’re actually hoping we believe that was a mere 5-10% of all the Pro-Life people in the country?

it is extreme to suggest a woman should have control over someone elses life thats living inside her , just because the life happens to be inside her does not mean she ‘owns it’ , nobody can own someone elses life and if you dont have ownership of something you cannot destroy it.

Freebies, you seem to be misinterpreting the basis behind this new legislation. This legislation does not allow a woman to pop into a clinic on a whim and have an abortion whenever she feels like it, but only if her life is potentially going to be put at risk, including from the risk of suicide. Doctors have admitted having to send patients abroad to terminate complicated pregnancies because the legislation wasn’t fully comprehensive here. The Master of Holles Street spoke in the Senate Chamber about how important it was to have the clarity of that particular piece of legislation. I’m not sure why you see fit to start posting about the numbers that protested against this legislation, it’s anything but pro-life.

Freebies, I can only tell you what I saw. What I saw was 10 to 15 people gathered with posters and a megaphone by the bike rails outside the Patrick St entrance of Merchants’ Quay shopping centre on Christmas week, garnering about as much public interest as a Big Issue salesman. According to this poll, 85% don’t give a fiddlers about the sensationalist youth defence trolls marching in Dublin. 30,000 out of a few million does not a majority make.

Why 25,000 people at a prolife vigil?

25,000 free bus tickets, each with added smug virtue, distributed through every parish in the country.

That 25,000 probably represents the entirety of the people sharing that view in the country.

Don’t forget the free iPads for the best photo set posted to YDs Facebook page!! Can’t forget the bribery.. Oh – and the Americans in the crowd..

Freebies – it’s interesting that you say a woman has no right over the life inside her – but somehow you have a right over her life because she lives in the same country as you? Why do you get to oppose legislation that could save her life? The life of a woman you have never even met? What right does that foetus have to live off the body of another person without their permission when no born person has any such right? Why?!

Quote Stephanie fleming “Freebies – it’s interesting that you say a woman has no right over the life inside her – but somehow you have a right over her life because she lives in the same country as you”

yes Stephanie , just like your parents do not own your life , you do not own anybody elses , therefore without ownership of something you cannot destroy it , you cannot go out and destroy your neighbours new car because it is not yours to destroy , likewise a woman who is pregnant does not own that life inside her , that life belongs to the unborn child , therefore it is not hers to destroy.

I never claimed a right over anybodys life , I merely defended the rights of a life that cannot yet speak up for its own rights

Defending the rights of something that may never be born one way or the other.. I just love this “right to life” nonsense..

There’s no guarantee that the foetus will ever survive pregnancy or birth, a large number of pregnancies miscarry all by themselves.. How can you vindicate a right that isn’t guaranteed?

Once the baby is BORN it has a right to life – and not to be murdered. But until that baby is out of the womb and breathing – you can’t vindicate that right without denying an already living, breathing, human beings right to bodily autonomy.

I’m more amazed that it takes so long to pass THIS law. They’re quick enough when money is involved.

I’m not sure the murdered baby would agree with you.

@ John – I’m a very liberal person and don’t generally agree with abortion but to give you a quick biology lesson – If the mother doesn’t survive, the unborn child doesn’t usually survive either.

If somebody accidentally gets pregnant but had a healthy pregnancy, then I wouldn’t agree with that person having an abortion!

That’s the spirit John, we may as well just let both of them die.

I’d like to see it implemented full stop. The 4,000 Irish women a year choosing to have abortions should be able to have them here with the support of their friends and family.

Test

The wording of the question in a poll should by regulation be displayed with results. Word crafters in media are experts in spin.

@John Foody – The only reason I’d disagree with you is because I don’t think the choice should be there. As I said, if the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy then common sense has to prevail. Just my opinion.

John Hayes, a foetus doesnt have a say.

@ john Haynes im not sure the dead mother, wifeless husband and mother less child will agree with you

Everyone is speaking about dead mothers here but could someone tell me a figure for this in the last 20 years?

I’d doubt there’s that many. But I’d say there’s a lot of miserable mothers with messed up dysfunctional families. Mothers who had no choice and instead of getting pregnant being a blessing it was the end of all their hopes and dreams.

Yes James. Her name is Savita Halapanavar.

This from the same John Hayes who wrote on another article this morning that he left a man having a fit in a pub toilet for someone else to find and help. Full of concern for the unborn but no compassion for the living. Get back under your bridge.

That’s exactly what I was thinking Ciaran..

Does it matter what any of us think about termination? 4,500 women a year travel regardless of what I or anyone here thinks.
It’s a probable fact, prolife and prochoice will likely not agree anytime soon, so what’s the point arguing over who the murderer is, or to what extent we should allow the dreaded terminator machine in Ireland.
As long as we are dispatching cheap flights to the UK it doesn’t matter. If a mother is going to get a termination all the will in the world is not going to stop her. We see that in the US where private clinics provide “terminations” that wouldn’t pass for butchering in an abattoir.
It’s not about the foetus, hell it’s not about the mother. It’s about providing safe care. Safe, proper, standardised care. If you’re against that you’re against equality, you’re against women, you’re against family.
Today alone 13 women are boarding flights to the four corners of the UK. That’s before we account for those who travel to other countries, those who self medicate. These women are your daughters, sisters, mothers, wives, colleagues, friends.
Make it safe for them, make it so that instead of having the woman feel like a criminal (say nothing of the fact that it takes two to tango), and essentially saying “you don’t exist, now shhh”.

Well said James. Always the voice of reason!

Zedabelzer: One life (which we still dont know exactly what happened) compared an untold number for the sake of convinence.

There’s that word again “convenience”. Being pregnant is not comparable to being unable to find a parking spot.

James. We know what happened. And when the inquiry is complete what will be your excuse then? Go ahead and red thumb my comment. You’re pretty much the only one who green thumbs your own.

There won’t be one. That will be the first case of it happening in Ireland that I know of. I don’t visit here to get a green thumb pat on the back for like indeed deluded liberals.

John Hayes is a trolling account. Don’t feed the.troll.

There’s been others James (Attley), I can’t remember the other famous ones name. Then there’s all the women who go through with suicide while pregnant who never get so much as a mention.
But of course – because you are unaware of them, they didn’t happen..

so… all the people who have special needs in our society today should have been aborted?

It think that poll shows most people in Ireland are against abortion on demand but at the same time recognise that it is needed in special circumstances. So where are you getting that the pro-lifers don’t care once a baby is born?

im just asking that based on what Kevin said by the way. read the middle of his post! its there is black and white.

Did I say that? Stop twisting my words and inferring that l somehow look down on special needs people. If people can handle/provide for their special needs children and ensure there is going to be someone to look after them while their gone, great! Otherwise don’t have the kid and spare your child and self the unnecessary pain and misery. @James – So? Just because you support abortion in the case of the mother dying doesn’t mean anything in reference to the baby.

Actually Risteard that’s not what Kevin said at all. He was talking about babies that have no chance of survival outside the womb. But go ahead and push your agenda anyway.

i twisted nothing and inferred nothing. i asked a question, not a statement. and you did clarify it for me. your reasoning is sound to someone who would agree with that viewpoint. sounds too close to eugenics for me though

Risteard, the person expected to be pregnant and raise that ‘special needs’ kid will be the one to decide if its born. No one else.

zedabelzar, he used commas to separate the conditions and put “or” in front of the last condition. this would suggest that all conditions are not dependant of eachother.

and my agenda is pro choice. my ownly issue is abortion for contraception and also, mens rights with regards to their input. the extreme cases are not for discussion with me.

Tommy, if that’s how the legislation is passed and possibly voted by the people, so be it. but all it what it is, eugenics.

‘…its there is black and white…’
Risteard, that is the problem with you ‘pro-life’ people. Choosing to only see things in black and white stops you from seeing a lot of the details.

i was referring to text on the page.

and im not pro life.

Well said Kev

Risteard you are clearly stirring. Kevin was absolutely clear on the fact he was talking about fatal abnormalities. James the article here does not show that the majority are against abortion on demand. It states 37% are in favour of it. It would be wrong to infer from that that 63% are against it as clearly there will be those with no opinion or the ‘I don’t knows’. Maybe Hugh could add the figures for those who are against and on the fence when it comes to abortion as a choice for all women.

Risteard what particular rights in terms of a man’s input are you discussing?

ciaran. it was clearly stated he wishes to include mental disabilities. which last time i checked, are not fatal. also, how do ye even diagnose that in utero?

the rights of a male to decide the fate of his offspring. more so, the flagrant disregard for the male in this situation. if ye think males just contribute dna, would ye be in favour for removing the legislation that allows the courts to force a male to pay maintenance if he wanted nothing to do with his offspring?

No he mentions that example as one of a number of possible causes of fatal abnormalities. Which is not to say that all disabilities are fatal or that all disabilities should be grounds for abortion. In fact he is not even saying that a fatal abnormality should result in abortion but simply that it should give the right of abortion to a woman if she chooses. Your short comings in basic English comprehension are not Kevin’s fault.

Hi Rísteard, Firstly I must ask – if you think a man should be allowed to stop a woman having an abortion do you think he should be able to force her to have an abortion?

Second, as it happens either parent can seek financial assistance through the courts should one biological parent decide they don’t want to be involved in the child’s life. Not just men.

Thirdly, he is entitled to a say in the fate of his offspring, he is not entitled to a say in what her body goes through.

No if a child has a disability, special need I’m sure the parents are more than willing to go ahead with their pregnancy!
It’s in circumstances where the baby will NOT survive once outside the womb that terminations should be allowed! And I am not talking about if there is a % that the baby will survive because I’m sure many parents would wish for every bit of hope!

There are many pregnancies where the only thing that’s keeping the baby alive is the mothers body, many babies in these circumstances have brains that didn’t develop, skulls that didn’t close, No kidneys, no amniotic fluid and in this circumstance the baby would be getting crushed by their mothers organs because there is noting protecting the baby not only that but the baby practices breathing with amniotic fluid so if there is none this means when the baby is born and tried to take its first breath it will suffocate infront of its parents!!!! How could anyone justify that a pregnancy in these circumstances still go ahead??

So just to clarify that there is a BIG difference between a baby with a disability, and a baby that can’t survive outside of the Womb because of their disability! Do some research before you throw out stupid statements !!!

stephanie. im saying he should be allowed to give up all rights in the cases of paternity if he doesnt want the child if its brought in as a woman’s choice. including paying maintenance. since the pro choice side is says mens roles in reproduction is to provide sperm, see this to its natural conclusion and make women wholly responsible for children then. but don’t do an opt in / out of responsibilities for men when it suits ye.

Then it seems that your issue with regard to men having a choice in abortion lies not in whether or not men should have a choice in abortion but in them having a choice to pay maintenance. Forcing women to carry through with a pregnancy is not some sort of punishment because men can be sued for child support. And I reiterate – women can be sued for child support too.

In Risteard’s defence, I don’t think he is trolling, or that he’s a pro-lifer. Perhaps it’s poor phrasing, but this statement – “If the fact that a baby is definitely going to die upon birth, be in extreme pain, mentally retarded/disabled, or born disfigured” – definitely implies, intentionally or unintentionally, a belief that a foetus with detected mental or physical disabilities should be allowed to be aborted, quite apart from whether or not it stands a chance of surviving outside the womb.

On a side note, and as a sibling of someone with quite severe mental and physical disabilities, I can say that such a child being born in difficult economic circumstances, or too parents unused to dealing with such a condition, does not necessarily prevent the child from enjoying a rich and happy life. It’s just like having a ‘normal’ baby: a matter of learning to cater for your child’s (in this case, more complex) needs.

Like I said, this is maybe not what Kevin meant to say. But given his phrasing, I can understand why Risteard came to this conclusion,

look at the Magdalene laundries and see how the Catholic Church treats the born. They need numbers to put money on the plates at mass and leave large donations so they can exist and thrive

men are also stakeholders in the reproductive process. should they not be consulted?

Until men are pregnant then they dont get to decide for the woman.

why?

Your right the father of the child is also a stakeholder , but my argument still holds ..it’s there business no one else’s

ok… just so we’re clear on this… the male has rights but the female can ignore those rights?

@Risteard I’m not saying that in a good relationship the couple won’t make the decision together. But even then the woman must have the final say. Otherwise in less amicable circumstances a man could force a woman to have an abortion against her will

kristine, that’s true and I’ve no point against it. but conversely, the woman might be in effect robbing the male of his ownly chance to reproduce, or cause psychological issues that could lead to suicide, which men have higher stats for. it could also occur that the male gets the financial burden put on him against his choice as the law will rule n favour of the mother if she chased maintenance to the courts.

Rísteard, are you just nitpicking for the sake of it? If the woman does not want to go through with the pregnancy, why should a man’s opinion matter in this case? True, a man supplies the DNA to start the ball rolling, but after that, it’s all down to the woman putting there body through the stress of a pregnancy. Do you expect that if it came down to it that somehow a man’s opinion would trump that of a woman’s despite her not wishing to bring the pregnancy to term? This would almost be next to impossible to force via the courts, and the case would more than likely be dragged out beyond the 9 months term.

No it’s just her rights , are more important than his ,and the unborn foetus … And without a doubt her rights are much more important than some pro life busy body who doesn’t even know the people involved .

im no nit picking nor am i pro life. my issue is the whole abortion issue has become so blinkered to protect women’s rights, that mens rights she being ignored.

and thanks for stating that since her rights are more important, you don’t believe in a society where everyone’s rights and voices are equal.

Rísteard, specifically talking about pregnancy, again, you’re nitpicking. Comparing it the rest of society is a bit of a stretch. So where do you stand on the rights of a rapist to their offspring? By your logic, they should they have entitlement if a woman should get pregnant, as their rights would be infringed otherwise. Nice one.

@ Risteard, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen somebody argue against abortion on the basis that to do so represents a risk of suicide to men.
Also, just because men are contributors to the reproductive process doesn’t mean they undertake any of the health risks or physical tolls associated with reproduction. For that reason, I don’t think a pregnant woman should be obliged, either legally or morally, to ‘consult’ with the man. Ultimately, it is the woman who must sustain the pregnancy and give birth. Whether or not she wants to do that, is really up to her.
Do you think it would be acceptable for a ‘stakeholder in the reproductive process’ to say, “Actually, no. Even though you don’t want this and even though it will change your body and your life forever, as a co-contributor to this zygote, I’m putting my foot down, I want this baby, so we’re having it. Have a nice day.”
?

Good grief. Women and young girls who are pregnant as a result of rape are expected to live with it. Women are expected to remain pregnant even when it might put their health in serious jeopardy. Women are told that if they’re feeling suicidal during pregnancy, they’re probably just faking it. But it’s MEN whose rights are being ignored.

no. i don’t believe that at all but as i said earlier, they’re extreme special cases.

and you’re right. its completely unethical to allow misandry to be so flagrant in one aspect of society but demand equality everywhere else. if people want equality, they should want it at every level.

It’s one thing to have equality in almost every facet of society, however, when it comes to pregnancy, this is one area where men cannot lay claim to be doing the hard job here, so in that instance, I do feel that women’s rights should take precedence here. I’m sorry if you don’t feel that way. Nothing is cut and dry, there are always exceptions to the rules, and this is most definitely one of them.

The right to bodily integrity is not misandry any more than the fact that men can’t give birth is misandry.

men not being able to give birth is a biological function. that’s not misandry

Indeed. Much as men not being able to undergo an abortion is not misandry. Your attitude appears to be that though you can’t go through either of these things, you are still entitled to a say in what happens. I’m never going to undergo testicular cancer, but I still don’t have a say in my partner’s medical treatment should he ever be unfortunate enough to require it. Even if it does present a potential threat to my last chance to reproduce.

Rísteard, aside for you’re completely pointless argument, I just want to say: women getting pregnant by rape, or being controlled reproductively by a partner is NOT that much of a special case.

90 women became pregnant through rape only last year.

So please, stop with this nonsense.

steph. having testicular cancer is a disease that is fatal. having a child isn’t. granted, there are cases when it can be and I’ve said already they in those cases, it should be permitted.

same with rape. there is enough infringement of peoples rights in that one.

that said, the bodily integrity argument you make is bogus. simply not having sex or using contraception can sort that out.

You do realise that there is no 100% effective form of contraception? Pills and condoms can fail all the time. As for abstinence, are you suggesting that a husband and wife never be allowed to sleep together in case she gets pregnant one day?

If a man’s “only chance to reproduce” involves forcing a pregnancy on a woman unwilling to undergo it, there is something incredibly suspect about his way of pursuing his goals…
ie- clearly no prior consultation with said partner. Would he be a fit father, i wonder?

Is a man’s body “occupied” by a pregnancy in a sense equal to the way a woman’s is, Risteard? If so, then you may have a case that should be carefully considered.

Because, yes, everyone, male or female, DOES have a right of bodily autonomy.

And, I will defend YOUR right to bodily autonomy, Risteard, vigourously, do you hear me? Vigourously! In every circumstance, including your potential pregnancy.

thank you. i feel very loved and supported.

I agree with Risteard here. A child should be born to parent(s) who want that child. That’s the best for both the parent(s) involved and the child. If a man does not want a child and a woman does, the man should be able to opt out of any financial support for that child from the very beginning when the woman knows where she stands and can make an informed decision as regards progressing with her pregnancy. This will require the availability of legal abortion. No person must be forced to be a parent against their wish. Being a woman, I feel it is wrong that women have children against men’s wish and then sue these men for money. If a woman wants a child for “herself,” she should also know how to support the child. If a man wants a child and a woman does not, then the man will have to find a woman who would want a child with him. Parenting is responsibility for the rest of one’s life and forcing it upon someone is simply wrong.

you’re right. technically, abortions do make for an effective form of contraception.

Risteard, I didn’t say anything about abortion being an effective form of contraception. It is a very expensive form of contraception. I honestly feel that if any woman is using it as such, it’s better for that (possible) child and society that she’s not becoming a mother.

fair points, i retract my earlier statement so.

Unless your idea of abortion involves time travel and other inter dimensional stuff I don’t see how getting an abortion can prevent someone getting pregnant! Or do you just not know the meaning of the word contraception?

Yeah, and if you don’t like slavery just don’t buy one

They just long for those old great times when women had no say and men worked day after day. On Sundays, they went to the church together. So now they think that if they force all women to have no say in relation to pregnancy, everyone will be back in the church and divorce will also disappear. Yeah, not to forget about the evil of contraception that should also be banned somewhere on the way to these perfect old times :)

Polls mean nothing 65% of the people believe that

Yeah but what about the other 36%

Another poll was taken and 75% of people don’t know what a 100% is …unfortunately your in that 25%

Your in the 75% bracket sorry

good job there Stephen!

If a baby can live and breath independently outside the womb then its a baby

So you would deem this not newsworthy? What about the dozens killed in India last night? There are more issues than just the balance sheet of this country, and to a woman whose life is at risk because of pregnancy, I’d say the last thing on her mind is the state of the economy.

Grow up and realise that the social issues in this country, and indeed across the globe, are just as important as our financial worries, if not more important! If you don’t want to engage in issues like this, then don’t. We won’t miss your ‘enlightening’ views on these matters!

Gareth, India was news, RIP,
This issue is done to death, we have our own views, there not changing , lets vote and move on

Shay,
Do you think the world stops turning because we have a recession?
There are other issues, equally as important that need discussing.

Danny, maybe your minds not made up on this issue, in which case this article is relevant to you

So, should all articles in the media be about the recession and nothing else? Thats what you said in your comment.
Your comment was in the same vain as those ‘slow news day’ comments.
If the article isnt relevant to you, why bother reading it, let alone commenting? If other want to read and comment, that’s their decision.

Not what I said, but want you wanted to hear,
Nothing better to divert the masses from economic issues,
Carry on, enjoy, maybe someone will change their mind, in which case this issue is worth discussing

I’ll do a quick poll of the office Mícheál….

Why would that matter? If you think there is an unfair journalistic bias on this site you are free to visit one of the many other news sites online. Eventually you will come across one which shares your particular world-view.

Nice to see Chuck following the usual tack of presenting what he thinks is the counterargument then arguing with it. Try going for the ball and not the man Chuck. You might be surprised.

No answers there, then

Chuck,
I’ve provided answers to these exact questions more times than I care to remember, however I will answer again.
Where is the line drawn? It depends. In other countries where termination is not restricted, for “casual” terminations it is drawn at 20-24 weeks gestation. For medically / surgically necessary terminations there is no limit, but trust is placed on the doctors to act on behalf of both mother and baby, saving both if possible.
Why do we draw the line at 20-24 weeks for “casual” terminations? Well because that’s the earliest point that a foetus is potentially able to survive outside the uterus, provided access to a Neonatal ICU is available. In many countries where termination is available, they are required (either by law or ethics) to provide a service with immediate access to a NICU, to cover the potential viability of a foetus.
Why no line for medically necessary terminations? Well the answer is obvious I’d have thought, there are a number of conditions where termination is the only possible route to take, preeclampsia, cardiac arrest, ectopic pregnancy…
As for being vague, well contrary to belief that medicine is black and white, it’s not. It’s exceptionally vague. What works for one person doesn’t necessarily work for another. In order to overcome this debate people need to realise that the solution is not black and white, it’s every colour in the spectrum. People have to trust doctors, midwives, nurses, clinicians… We don’t just randomly carry out procedures, we are regulated, we are answerable for our actions, you have to trust us to do what it is that we are trained to do, that is, save lives.
As regards your claim that we can already act to save the life of the mother, first: saving the life of a mother is not good enough, We need to be able to act to save the health of the mother and second: we cannot act in all cases until it is too late, miscarriage being case in point, where any attempt to save the life of the mother is essentially in vain. It’s too late to do anything.

Chuck Farrelly: “The first question is where the line is drawn? The important question is why do you draw it there?”

The line is drawn where the median voter thinks fit. Because we’re a democracy.

Funny Chuck – I’ve answered that question many times too, and my answer was along the same lines as what James has said.

Are you from Summerland by any chance? You seem to travel with a Wicker (Straw) Man permanently by your side..