They also don’t tire of evoking the Savita case. Just so, so cynical to be using such a tragedy as a vehicle to promote a much broader agenda.

Legislation has been due for 21 years. Long before the Salvita case.

Pure BS Vincent. Tragic cases like Savitas need to be continuously highlighted to get the powers that be to do their jobs.
Also, people like you seem to forget that Savitas husband wanted her story in the public domain.

@Vincent: What nonsense; the anti choice lobby does nothing else but calling upon stories from poor women who regret their choice of abortion. How about using tragedy there?

@Vincent – Would you prefer we continue to ignore women like Savita, Sharon Hodgers, Michelle Harte, TFMR, A, B, C and X because legislation supported by anti choice, anti women people like yourself?

Why do you have this need to control what women do? Why are you afraid of women choosing for themselves?

VD what a silly comment. sure thats just one lets forget about that. Happens again ahhh sure look things happen dont worry.

true im for giving all woman a choice. but we cant be dragged backwards by catholic youth defense. Probably in morning over pope quitting so not seen this yet. Personally if my partner was to fall pregnant i would not be thinking abortion but what if you learn child is going to have serious mental and physical handicap and not only is thats child life going to be miserable but its going to ruin the parents lives. In that situation i would be for it .

But each to their own if you dont want abortion simple then just dont have one :)

Man OTS.. The tragic case of Savita as far as i know was neglect by doctors/staff who it seem’s didn’t check a blood sample report after ordering one; not lack of abortion…

To all of the above- the main thrust of what the “X-Group”had to say in this article seems to be related to the suicide provision in the upcoming legislation and specifically the number of medical practitioners required to assess a potentially suicidal patient presenting themselves for an abortion. What has suicide got to do with the Savita case, exactly? The legislation will without question enshrine the supremacy of mother over child to the medical profession which was at the heart of the Savita case. Given that core issue has been accomplished- how can you regard evoking her name as anything other than cynical opportunism of the worse kind? They’re using a woman’s memory for marketing purposes. Irrespective of any pro-life or pro-abortion perspective you might have, that should be abhorrent to all.

@daisy- People like you? You’re why pro-choice activists are so often dismissed.

@stewie- so typical. 1). Bringing up the Catholic Church….it’s always pro-abortionists who bring up the Church. 2). Using exceptions ( in your case, baby abnormalities…but it’s unusually rape) to justify abortion on demand. If you’re so certain of the right to abort, why do ye feel it necessary to dress it and justify it using extenuating circumstances? Strange that…

Who’s bringing in abortion “on demand” Vincent?

At present our legislation stands at odds with our constitution.
The constitution says abortion is permitted when the mothers life is at risk including from suicide.
The legislation says any woman who induces miscarriage or anyone who helps her gets life in prison.

This needs to be cleared up. The legislation must reflect the constitution. The only way to get around the suicide clause is to have yet another referendum on it. The people have been asked twice already, the suicide clause remains.

The government do not have the constitutional right to bring in abortion “on demand” unless we repeal the pro life amendment. You assumption that the suicide clause equals abortion “on demand” is your assumption. Even the experts said that they didn’t see many suicidal women coming to them for help due to the highly restrictive process suggested in the expert report. They anticipate that those that can will still travel to the UK.

@Vincent are you going to elaborate on what drives your need to control me and my pesky opinions? Are you really that afraid of women like me who see old relics like you and your ilk as obsolete? You can’t lock us away in the laundries anymore!

@shanti-Thanks for the civics lesson. I was replying specifically to Stewie who did advocate Abortion on demand. If you don’t want one, don’t have one clearly infers if you do want one ..). And let’s call a spade a spade- this legislation is perceived by the pro-abortion lobby as only a next step. Remember Clare Daly at the 1st “Savita” rally- “we must legislate for X, it’s not enough, but its a start”. Anyway, my core point was the shameless ambushing of a tragedy…

Seriously Vincent. What is wrong with you?? Why is it your business what other people do with their life’s?

Well that’s the thing Vincent. In order for Ireland to widen access to abortion then the 8th amendment needs to be changed.

Personally I would welcome a referendum to widen access to abortion. But this will not likely happen at this stage, it seems that the option of another referendum was not on the table at this point, given the parameters set for the expert group.

In the meantime if our government could legislate for what the people voted for already it would be a good start.

@daisy- 1). I suspect I’m younger than you. 2). I have very little desire to interact with you at any level, let alone control you. 3). Re: your contention that I hate women- you’re wrong. I like them so much that I’m against killing them before they see the light of day. Now, members of the little know Pro-Life (but only if they’re boys) movement- that’s who you need to direct your ire at. All that said, I have a rule about not talking to crazy people so I’ll be ignoring you from this comment onwards. But hey, it’s been such a pleasure.

Lives, Graham. And other people can do as they wish with their own lives.

The most basic human right would be the right to life…

What about the woman’s right to life? Or her right to bodily autonomy? We are talking about legislating to ensure that women do not die needlessly during pregnancy, abortion on demand is many miles away from what is being proposed.

Mary,
there are large numbers of women out there, (& young women), with Pro Life views.
Not all ‘pro life’ people are misogynistic old men.

Unfortunate both will go hand in hand eventually, just look at England, America or Canada..

Abortion is an insult to humanity..

Bridget perhaps you don’t like it, and that’s fair enough, no one will ever ask you to have an abortion..
But if a woman’s life is in jeopardy then I would rather save one than lose both.

The Irish people have been asked about this twice and the Irish people voted to keep the X case in law. That is simply how it works. We have never been asked whether we wish to widen access, we have been asked to narrow it and refused.
Just because you do not like the decision does not give you the right to dictate to others, or to overturn the democratic consensus. The people have spoken, this must be legislated for.
Your personal choice to refuse abortion will not be affected, and abortion on general request will not be permitted either. Think of this as a compromise between both sides, one that saves the lives of women, who may well go on to conceive again – rather than allowing them to die and ending any hope of them giving life again.

Shanti..
1. I have said all along if a woman’s life is in jeopardy/ danger then best practice medicine as it is now should be given, even if it means the unintentional death of the unborn..
2. I don’t feel I’m dictating to any by claiming all life is important.

But those life saving procedures are abortions Bridgit. No matter what way you want to avoid it, that is exactly what it is. It kills the foetus.

In the case of ectopic pregnancy the only way to treat it is to deliberately kill the baby. Like I said to you above, the work around involves removing a large chunk of the woman’s reproductive system – when she has almost died from a rupture. It is still an abortion.

And in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities or women who are miscarrying anyway – the foetus is dying, it can’t survive so why deny the woman the choice of saying “end it now” rather than endanger her further or torture her with the knowledge her baby is dying inside her?

I respect your choice to refuse abortion. I sincerely hope you are never faced with a situation where one is needed. But I realise that women who do not wish to be pregnant will always find a way to end it – and without access to safe and legal abortion this can result on their deaths too. I would rather save the functioning living being than the potential one she carries.

Hippocrateeth, don’t you mean the fetus?????? After all you don’t seem to care what happens to the child once its born, all you people who want to do is deny women the right to choose, then you walk away once the unwanted baby is born, not giving a damn for its well being…..

Action for X does think of the children. The person at the centre of the X case was a child. A 14-yr old raped child. But you don’t care about her do you?

I think its you that doesnt and youre just using (like the sativa case) to further your cause for abortion on demand.

Like who? Youth Defense? (American spelling deliberate!) Iona? Life Institute? Do they have projects and grants available for women in crisis or new mothers in difficulty? Do they have a proper safe sex campaign that involves more than telling girls not to be sluts? Or are they just another group of anti choice, anti women control freaks who don’t give a toss about babies once they’ve been born?

Clare daly for one. I ciuld go on and on but i think you probably know them all anyway

It a democratic nation, or suppositly so. Clare Daly is entitled to her opinion. As has already been pointed out the X case ruling only allows for abortion on medical grounds, inclusive of the mental health of the patent. So lets implement the will of the nation as per 2 referendum, if we truly are a democracy. And leave the widening of this to the required future referendum to allow abortion on demand..

People seem to think that if you are Prolife you must be a member of Youth Defence or another such group; or support the clergy members who abused the innocent..
We don’t…
We may be members of a church or not but all are labeled the same…
Anti woman, anti choice etc all because we believe all life is precious,

But all the government is seeking to do is ensure that the legislation matches the constitution – which states that when a woman’s life is at risk from her pregnancy then a termination should be permitted. If life is precious then why don’t you care about the woman carrying it?

Strange..Who said i don’t care about the woman…
All life is important…
The best medical treatment should be available for all women, even if that means the unintentional death of the unborn.
Legislate for best practice medicine as it is…
All of the medical experts at the recents hearing ALL agreed that they could not predict which woman would commit suicide (because of pregnancy) They wouldst be unhappy to be put in that position..

Perhaps you have never lost a friend to that situation Bridget. But women do commit suicide when the option of getting to the UK is beyond their reach. And women die from seeking illegal abortions too.

And you can dress it up in fancy language all you like – your “necessary treatment that may end the life of the baby” results in women losing their Fallopian tubes and ovaries as a result of ectopic pregnancy. It’s still an abortion, whether you want to accept that fact or not. Just in order to satisfy your morals, that woman has to sacrifice a portion of her reproductive system and almost die.

If you truly oppose abortion then you are of the opinion that women with ectopic pregnancies should die. Because to abort means to end the development of the foetus, regardless of method or which pile of sand you choose to dig your head into. You seeing it differently does not change what the procedure does.

Shanti
Where should I start..
No I have never had a very close friend die by suicide , but I have been involved with people who have been very suicidal through my work…
With lots of help, councling, listening, caring , showing that there is always another option out of any situations, have all helped..
when people think they have no hope, help, no other choice they are very depressed, suicidal, but most people (not all) can and do come through it…

2.. In any of my comments on here I have never dressed anything up ever.. Always plain simple language works best I find then there can be no confusion.. Which brings me to My next point

3.. I “TRULY oppose abortion” and i do NOT think any woman should die…
For you to say that is strange to say the least because I have said it several times already..

4.. Abortion as far as I’m aware is a medical term for natural or unnatural death of the unborn..eg miscarriage..BUT there is a HUGE difference between the intentional and unintentional death of the unborn.. And that will never change…

The fact of the matter is that you can’t change the definition of something because it doesn’t sit well with your feelings on it.

Either you accept that sometimes abortion is necessary or you don’t. This “medical procedures that may unintentionally end the life of the foetus” is just trying to call an abortion by another name, it’s still an abortion. Either you oppose it or you accept that it is necessary in some cases.

It would be far kinder to offer a woman having an ectopic pregnancy an abortion, than to cut her open and take away a chunk of her reproductive system. It would be kinder to give a woman who’s baby is dying anyway the choice to “take them off life support” if that terminology makes you feel better about it.. It’s still abortion though.

The government aren’t looking to open walk in abortion clinics. They’ve been dragging their heels on this most basic provision for 21 years, what makes you think that we are looking at an about turn on policy? The current agonising over it is most likely finding a way to ensure that it is used as infrequently as possible, or simply putting it on the longest finger they can, as they and the other lot have done since 1992..

I’m sure some of the present government are not looking to have “open door abortion clinics”…
Unfortunately as I and others have said before that won’t be the end of it… It will be challenge, dates and “reasons” extended…
You can disagree with me if you like but you know it is a fact..
once it is legal in any country, when we make “exception” for certain “conditions” on who has the right to live and who to die…
it will eventually become acceptable….
Just take the example of England, America Canada.. Is that really what we want for our country.. No I don’t think so..

“We” don’t know if it’s what “we” as a country wants or not Bridget.

“We” as a country passed the 8th amendment in 1983 for no reason whatsoever as abortion was illegal anyway. It led to the X Case after which we were asked to confirm or reject the terms of the X Case. We voted to keep the suicide clause in, we voted for the right to travel and we voted for the right to information.. As we have discussed before – this would perhaps indicate at the very least, Ireland does not have a clear cut “pro life” majority.
In 2002 we were asked to remove the suicide clause again and we didn’t, so whatever way around it you want to twist it this is what we the Irish people voted for.
Now it is time for legislators to legislate. I’m sorry Bridget, but this is the government doing what the majority told them to do twice over the past 21 years. Whether its a back door or not is irrelevant, the people spoke, the government must follow.

1: “we” didn’t ALL vote to keep the suicide clause in, we voted to not allow abortion in certain circumstances , the option offered wasn’t any better..

2: the government should keep its promise.. Full stop..

3: ” back door or not”…hmmm that says a lot doesn’t it!!!

But I guess we will just have to wait and see won’t we..
I know I wouldn’t want it on my conscience that I in ANY way supported or helped the INTENTIONAL killing of the unborn, because it will be abused, misused by so many people and you know that too.. But I suppose that is for you and you conscience…

Both of the referendums set to exclude the risk of suicide as a legitimate reason for termination. The 2002 one would have even given prison terms for it had the bill and accompanying act been passed into law.
Could you please detail you specific reason for voting no, because it seems – based upon the text – voting yes would have guaranteed abortion on the grounds of suicide remained illegal.

Which promise should the government keep? Labour promised to legislate for the X Case, as they are legally obliged to do. Our legislation contradicts our constitution, it says anyone involved in an abortion gets life imprisonment – so how is the doctor supposed to ensure that they do not fall foul of this act without checking with the Supreme Court first? In an emergency that’s simply not practicable.

I make no secret of the fact that I feel the 8th amendment should be repealed. However, until it is, abortion on request (calling it on demand makes it sound like a sky TV package) will remain illegal. This is a separate issue, and we can debate that when the time comes.

There’s no guarantee that a foetus will ever be born. How can you guarantee a right to life of the unborn when you can’t prevent a miscarriage? It’s ludicrous. Meanwhile there’s an already existing woman and the only thing in this world she owns is her. I don’t have the right to force her to carry a pregnancy, and neither do you.

well said Francis,
I have male friends & family who, like you, have ‘pro life’ views, – but are afraid to speak out, because they will be labelled ”anti woman”.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I always encourage male friends, to speak out, if they so wish, & not be silenced. This issue also also affects, fathers, brothers & husbands.

X-factor. LOL :)