Fair enough, Jim, I can live with that: just as long as you accept that those of us who think a cult of patriarchal celebate ‘fathers’ with an atrocious record on children and women have no place dictating womens’ personal lives and health issues; and that because we think women have a right to primacy over a foetus we are not as the insulting implication has it anti Life.

Fair?

I made it clear that that nobody on any side should be insulted over their opinion. Just as I don’t think you should insult those who have a different opinion to you Damien.

I don’t.
I prefer to be constructive, unless its initiated by an oponent. Then I return the serve.
Just as I never initiate violence. But will defend myself as, not being an iniator of violence, I came to the conclusion I am a slightly more valuable human than those who do. And certain insults can deserve a smack on the snot.

That is where you and I differ then Damien. I don’t agree that simply because somebody throws an insult it gives me the right to throw one back. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Once you start then you’re in the middle of it. In such a circumstances I would simply point out my disappointment that somebody can’t have a discussion without resorting to insult. Ironically to use a Christian metaphor I would try to turn the other cheek!

I try to avoid insult(it wastes energy); but when delivered unwarranted it often requires returning, to discourage the perpetrator from repetition.
It is a form of bullying. Bullies often take silence as a sign of success. It helps them to receive a little of their own medicine in return, I feel.
I also feel it may protect someone less thick-skinned than my hoary old self from future acts. I have made friends with people I formerly fought with. Its not that rare.
Paragonic virtue I cannot claim. When I say some insults deserve a hiding I mean when lies are perpetrated in public.
The law does not protect us plebs from the slings and arrows of slander and libel. Thats only for the solvent. We must defend ourselves lest lies go viral.

A few times in the workplace, people have tried to bully me and I slapped them down (metaphorically!) quickly and sharply. They immediately stopped what they were doing and we got on ok after that. So I’d have to agree with the general point Damien is making. Meeting a bully with silence is handing him/her victory.

I grew up in Crumlin in the 50s and 60s..it had its rough edges. I’ve worked in factories, building sites and fishing boats. I’ve been beaten up by Britsh racists and Australian who didn’t like me talking to Aboriginal people and a variety of random Irish thugs(usually in gangs, I’ve surprised a few big lads). I’d be an ex pacifist. Which means its better I walk away, which I usually do.
I have no desire to do time for some idiot. But running away gives the bully a joy I begrudge him, or her.

Sorry Petr but I have never suggested silence as an approach. To be honest I’m not sure how we got to bullying here but even accepting that premise I’m not saying you shouldn’t respond to a discussion. I’m simply saying that it is possible to respond without insult. Argue the facts, even against somebody who may insult you. Point out the fact that an insult shows a lack of ability to discuss and debate properly.

Work situations are completely different. Most workplaces have procedures against bullying. Finally there is a complete difference with regard to physical bullying. Everybody has a right to defend themselves against a physical assault. But again that is a completely different debate to what we are talking about here.

Crichton is a Vatican mouth piece,she is anti choice.

People can have their own opinions ! Why do the pro abort fascists want to exclude people who have different views ?

Because Anthony. The pro choice side respect your personal beliefs that abortion is wrong and will never force you or any of your family to have one against their will.
The pro life side disrespect other people’s choices and reckon everyone should live by their rules. We aren’t the ones denying you anything..

@ Anthony Hesketh, fair dues to you for proving my point that some pro-lifers are so dogmatic, dictatorial and repressive.

I am struck by the irony that you accuse those who are pro-choice of being fascists when it is the pro-life lobby which enshrined its pro-life position in the Constitution and which so aggressively seeks to deprive pregnant women of their fundamental right of bodily integrity and their right to equality of status.

The reality is that it is a significant section of the pro-life lobby which is fascist, fundamentalist and which has successfully enshrined its sectarian religious dogma into our Constitution.

Rape is not the fault of the child, that is not am excuse to murder it! Obviously a very horrific situation for anyone but it won’t cover or justify murdering am innocent life, there are morning after pills available also! Abortion in my opinion is an horrific act on any innocent child!

Anna
Why wouldn’t either the so called morning after pill or a D and C within twenty four hours be the standard of care in the case of a rape such as the horrific one you mention. Without any real chance for conception to take place then what would be the issue. Surely abortion would therefor be completely unnecessary.

Looking forward to seeing how many red thumbs Sinead Fox will accumulate today!

Michael due to the vicious attack on this poor girl she was not physically able to get a morning after pill or D n C. within 24 hrs .We have a duty to care for innocent people who are attacked by thugs. That care should not be inflicting our opinions on them but give them the choice to do what the feel can help them live a normal life.

Can Sinead and/or Michael explain the difference in a morning after pill and an abortion in such cases? Surely both are removing a potential life?

I must say though, the idea that a lady could possibly even think about such issues right after such a traumatic event is completely ludicrous and may even expose a complete lack of understanding and empathy around such an event.

Sinead, rape is also a pretty horrific act on any person. If that siutation in India had happened to me, there would be simply no amount of counselling that would make me come to terms with carrying a forced pregnancy. It’s a total invastion of the person’s bodily autonomy, something which has already been violated without their consent and is not up to you, me, or the rest of the Journal readers to pontificate on what they should or shouldn’t do to aid their recovery.

Tomy
The morning after pill is perfectly legal here in Ireland and since conception is something that takes place up to seventy two hours after sexual intercourse then the idea that a pill used the morning after could hardly be called an abortifacient but particularly where a diagnostic test has not confirmed it.

I think what your really saying there is:

“I will use semantics and bluff to explain this”

@ Tomy Iona: The morning after pill is considered to be contraception not abortion. The morning after pill works by preventing implantation. Abortion can only occur after implantation and it is at this point that the right to life of the unborn contained in art. 40.3.3, as stated by the Supreme Court in Roche v Roche. “There can be no miscarriage without carriage.”

I get what the terms mean – and how they are considered. It just interests me that such distinctions are made. This is a debate where the language needs to be questioned.

Especially when pro-lifers use the word “murder” to describe the abortion of a fetus which is a result of rape

Only 118 red thumbs so far Niall!
I perfectly understand the reality of rape and the horrors it brings believe me! But it is still not an excuse to murder another human! Everyone is talking about a mothers choice, what about the babies choice!?? Rape is an exceptional circumstance also so should not be the single basis for allowing for abortion, these are still babies and should be treated as such!

Fortunately pregnancy resulting from rape is rare . The stats suggest 0.006 or something similar . Abortion would not be needed if medical help was sought immediately but even if it wasn’t , surely it doesn’t justify abortion in all cases

Rape victims do not necessarily report the crime, as most rapes are carried out by family members or by people who hold an understanding of trust with the family.
The morning after pull is effective the morning after, it’s efficiency is greatly reduced after that, though does still work in some cases.
The last thing a victim if rape wants to think about is the possibility of pregnancy, if one turns up at an A&E unit in Ireland within a measurable amount of time, the staff will assess the situation, and refer the victim to the appropriate service.
Unfortunately, given that the time frame between the rape being carried out and being reported is usually measurable, it is not possible for the morning after pill to be used, as its use would be pointless.
Very often, if a woman falls pregnant as a result of rape, the first time this will come to light is when she goes to her GP because she’s got stomach cramp, or morning nausea, or has indeed, just missed her period.
Victims of rape have more than enough to be dealing with without the added consideration that she may well fall pregnant as a result. Termination, whatever your thoughts on the subject, absolutely must be provided to these women if they request it, and absolutely must be done freely as it is not of the woman’s own choice.

There is logic I am sure in there some where Sinead Fox.
You are against abortion , but it is ok to take morning after pills.
What is the difference as you see it please?

James Connolly
You and I do not often agree BUT I think your above comment and explanation is excellent and I just want to say well said .

Excuse me while I call complete and utter shenanigans on Anthony Hesketh’s stats there. You have pulled that number out of thin air (or possibly your *ahem*).

Why not just quote Todd Akin and get it over with? Conception rates as a result of rape is the roughly the same as conception rates as a result of consensual sex. Some studies have it higher but absolutely nowhere has it at “0.006″ A number Anthony doesn’t even qualify! Is that 0.006 rapes in every ten? In ever hundred? Is that a percentage?

I strongly suggest you do not speculate the facts while discussing the right to bodily integrity of women. Especially women who have been raped. It’s not speculation for them, it’s reality. At least show enough respect to actually do your research.

Pregnancy arising from rape is rare, however, so is termination as a result of emergency intervention. Does that mean we don’t allow this to happen? Certainly not, we have to provide a service where a woman can feel safe, secure and confident that the care she receives is if high quality, stands to scrutiny, and is of verifiable standard.
The fact is that most pregnancies will be as a result of accidental unprotected sex in whatever form it takes. However the fact is that these are already happening. ~4,500 terrified women will leave for foreign shores this year, and the reality is that the majority of these will be for “social” reasons. Some will be as a result of birth defect, some as a result of rape, some as a result mental health.
Allowing termination does not mean an increase in the numbers seeking termination, nor does it mean a decrease in the numbers. It does mean that instead of having 4,500 women leave the country, 4,500 will receive appropriate care here.
The fact is, admit it or not, that the only the only thing that changes when you allow termination to be available to women is the number of maternal deaths that take place as a result of termination. They decrease.
Anyone who is against termination is against safe healthcare in a safe environment. Anyone who is against termination is against 50% of the population accessing reliable healthcare, shame on you.

No check the stats . I do not demean or denigrate the experiences of women who have been raped but it is verifiable that the incidence of pregnancy from rape is thankfully extremely low . Of course this is related to an episode of rape not repeated rape

I have checked the stats and you’re wrong. The rates of conception as result of consensual and nonconsensual sex are almost exactly the same.

If you would like to continue to make this claim then provide me with a source for your “stats”.

Here are a few you might like to read

RCNI reports that 75 women who presented to their centres became pregnant as a result of rape in 2010. 75 cases in Ireland in one year. Ten of those women chose to terminate their pregnancies and our government forced them onto Ryanair flights to avoid dealing with them. And those are just the ones we know about. (http://www.rcni.ie/menu.aspx?Menu=438)

You could also read Holmes et al (1996) paper which found that 5% of rapes resulted in pregnancy.

Or you could admit you’re wrong and stop perpetuating that ridiculous lie.

While I may be in agreement with you, the story highlights letters from both sides of the debate. In fairness, there are some pro-choice arguments that I personally feel are a bit far removed from being rational too.

The debate has been pretty much around at what point development of an unborn deserves to have the right to life applied to it. There is much more to talk about.

There is such a thing as a positive abortion story, but the taboo of expressing them is preventing such stories from being seen.

But the reality is that the pro life movement in general engages in more divisive, bitter and downright disgraceful tactics than the vast majority of the pro choice side do.

I would be just as critical of those on the pro choice side who use personal attacks instead of rational debate. But they are few and far between compared to the likes of Youth Defence, who will seemingly do anything to further their ’cause’.

I’d rather a doctor make that decision to be honest.

Unfortunately, Declan, debate has to have a part of getting to that point. Otherwise it actually gets worse.
As Nero said, ‘Rome wasn’t burned in a day.’

I’m pro choice but would you support full term abortions? That logic supports it.

@Damien. Ok if there is a debate it should be doctors and psychologist s and women of child bearing age. Everyone else can bud out.

For me, the pregnant woman takes primacy(as opposed to some ‘equality’ with her dependent foetus). Her chosen doctor and family advisors and the father of the POTENTIAL child would have to be included.
The law has to have a say(we try to live in a civil, law-governed society)but those ethical principle are mine. I will defend them unless someone convinces me I am wrong. I always remain open to persuasion, if the persuader is equally open to honest rationality. And I try to give the benefit of the doubt to all concerned.
Can I take it you are a doctor or psychologist so?I am simply a parent, though I have studied the latter subject.

@Damien . I am not a doc or any mentioned but I believe a woman should have the support structure around her to make a decision in the event of possible death or a unborn is not compatible with life. There is too many with different agendas it should be about protecting foremost the woman’s life then the unborn.

What special insights or training do doctors have ? The problem with abortion lies in the fact that it is killing the developing child . The crux of the matter lies here . What is the moral status of the foetus ? Doctors have no more insight or special expertise than anyone else on this matter . Hence the need for widespread and rational debate excluding no position .

‘.excluding no position..’.

Sorry. Its an adult subject for adult debate.
Youth should stick to their partying and learning.
I would also exclude celebates who call themselves ‘fathers’; as a father myself who resents their ignorant and inexperienced intrusions from a point of arrested development and suspended intelligence locked in deferential dogma.
Primarily it is a woman’s issue, especially experienced mothers. Men should listen more. We cannot get pregnant.

And the principle voice must remain the pregnant woman, whose life takes precedent over, not some theoretical idiot’s ‘equality’ with, her dependent foetus’s.

She says she’s glad she’s bound by the party whip system. Does that mean she can use this to squirm her way off the hook? She’s a pathetic excuse of humanity, if she hasn’t got the guts to speak her own mind on something this important.

Actually, doctors from a number of specialties are trained to carry out a number of obstetric procedures, termination is one of them, as it sometimes is done in a state of emergency where an obstetrician is not available. Doctors (and midwives) have a special insight, in that we are fully trained in the procedure, fully trained to deal with the aftermath physically and psychologically.
The problem is that people who do not understand what termination is are getting involved in the debate, and not enough of us who are in a position of knowledge are getting involved.
I’d agree though; termination involves everyone, not just those of us who work in the area, but mothers, fathers, families, clinical staff….

@Anthony

Doctors have to deal with life and death situations, often under stress and with the available limited information.

How much experience do you have?The idiocy of your question suggests not a lot.

You are a bigot and on reflection I would exclude bigots !

We all know what termination means . Are you suggesting we leave it to experts ?…, mm look at the damage that so called experts have done in the legal system in the UK. People jailed on the basis that experts suggest that ‘no one else could have done it , your honour ‘. !

Kingstown
Isn’t that the point? Am I missing something but didn’t the Minister ask for respectful debate? Why, in such circumstances do you believe that she’s not entitled to her own opinions and beliefs?
Please do explain………….

She can’t have it both ways. Whether it’s gay rights or abortion, her position is emphatically conservative, religion-influenced and non-liberal. That’s what used to bemuse me when she was the FG spokesperson on equality when they were in Opposition: her ethos is already a hinderance to such a job. Her tweet on gay marriage that caused all the furore made her position untenable. We know her colours and we know what side she will be campaigning for. She has threatened to resign if a pro-abortion law is “too liberal” (a handily vague and unspecific measure that lets her keep her job AND bang the table).

What is the point of this debate if she is so welcoming of the party whip on the final vote. Bit of usual buck passing by another minister.

Equality is a relative concept not an absolute one . Hence it is not discrimination that men cannot bear children or women be fathers. The European court has in fact determined recently that opposition to gay marriage cannot be said to contrary to civil liberties . I am not arguing for any form of discrimination. We all should stand equal before the law but it does not mean that the law treats everyone as if we were the same . Gay people should be afforded every right and duty of every citizen in the country . But the state of marriage ,essentially a heterosexual fertility rite based on the bearing of children , need not be given to all . Why aren’t civil partnerships sufficient ?

Oh, Anthony, where to start? Not every heterosexual couple wants or can have children. Yet they still have the right to choose to marry. Many same-sex couples have children and that is not going to change. I won’t have you dismiss my marriage as a mere “fertility rite”, thanks very much: the connection between my wife and me is about way more than our kids. We could have had kids without marriage – many of our contemporaries did; many of our kids’ contemporaries likewise. The notion that marriage should be reserved for us straights as a means of protecting the species hold no water. Who is going to decide against marriage and/or children if gays are allowed to marry? Who is going to leave their husband/wife if gays are allowed to marry? Who is going to stop having kids if gays are allowed to marry? Why not make every marriage a civil partnership until a viable pregnancy is established and upgrade it then?

Twisted logic sir !

It’s your logic Anthony.

@ Anthony Hesketh, I looked at the questions and propositions posed by Chris Dunphy in relation to your rejection of gay marriage and I saw no twisted logic or sophistry.

As I see it, you find it easy to assert absolutist positions but you avoid any substantive engagement when your own “reasoning” or proposition is challenged.

Looking at your posts, it is as if the period of the Enlightenment and the movement away from religious fundamentalism never happened.

In any event, Chris Dunphy has neatly exposed your absolutism and lack of rationality. Zealotry deprives its victims of the power to reason and to engage in rational debate.

I note also that you throw around personal invective with gay abandon. That tells a lot.

Welll…it wasn’t really a choice..I’ve a confession to make…it was all fictitious…I inspired a bored Jew in the desert one day with that fairy tale…and it just ran and ran. And then Cecil B DeMille got hold of it and the Ten Bleeding SUGGESTIONS…shit..communicatin with you Terrestrians is some bummer.

LOL, Damien!

I totally agree! Anyone chairing these debates need to know the facts so they can actually call them on the nonsense they just “make up”. But they are NEVER called on it, it’s so frustrating.

Absolutely – far too much throwing out of opinion as fact around this issue.

The problem is what are we to vote on? A narrow system based on the X case, full abortion of demand or some other form of compromise. Polls show a rather confusing outcome depending on what question you ask.

Eircomsucks
Please provide us with just a shred of evidence to show that our Members of the Dail could sell their vote to the pro life Lobby what’s you you suggest.I would be particularly interested to see how they would purchase a vote from the pro choice side of the House.

Michael J Collins, if history has thought you nothing its that money talks,.

We’ve seen it in every country in the world and we’ve seen it in Ireland, people are fools if they think money in relation to land re-zoning is the only money that has passed hands.

You can dispute it all you want bu the pro-life groups in Ireland are extremely well funded from groups in the USA…..far far better funded then any pro-choice group, if you think a large amount of money won’t affect at least some TD’s decision then you a very much a fool.

Nobody should for a second think that pro-life groups are some amateur hour operation, they are not, they are well funded, well organized and they will and have used underhanded and illegal actions to further their cause.

This is her covering her back.
When she votes for whatever legislation the government bring forward, she can tell her anti-abortion pals she was forced to do so.

A period of silence from Ms Cretin and her conscience wrestling would be very welcome.

suicide ideation is when someone would answer “Yes” to the question “Have you had thoughts of suicide?” asked by a doctor if you were there discussing the possibility of needing some kind of help for depression.

If answering Yes to the question – I would expect this would not be seen as an acceptable reason for abortion by itself considering this would usually be a GP. I would expect that you should be referred to someone who is suitably qualified in psychology/psychiatry.

Carefully considered as always Peter!
Your eloquence knows no bounds!

I agree. There’s no need for people to be sending nasty emails / letters to TDs. Or slinging personal attacks at each other online about the issue. It serves no constructive or positive purpose.

While I’m not exactly surprised by the pro life side doing this (as they have done so before), I must admit I would be very disappointed in any pro choice advocates who may have stooped to this level. This subject is far too important to be resorting to such school yard tactics.

I have no great fondness for Ms Creighton, but I will agree with her sentiment – and hope that everyone will heed them – regardless of how they feel about her.

It’s time for a proper, honest debate about this. It’s time this country grew up.

No the Catholic Church believes abortion is wrong because it involves killing a developing human being. Try learning more about Catholicism you bigot !

Bigot? What phrase or sentence in my post makes me a bigot? In fact one definition of a bigot is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance”

Now who does that describe, a Humanist like myself or a member of SPUC?

Like most of its “teachings” the Catholic Church has changed its opinion of abortion, the punishments for it, ensoulment, and the reasons it opposes abortion over the centuries.

No Cian…not ‘..to just kill the child..’. To slowly torture and abuse it and hold it in captivity…oh wait..hang on…that was Letterfrack and Artane and Clonmel..

How many children have you, Cian?
I’ve two. They were not children to me until they had passed the baby stage and started toddling around driving me mad. Had their mother’s health been threatened by their foetal potentiality her life would have taken precedence over, NOT equality with, their potentiality.

Its how big people behave. we develop rational priorities, not bigoted preCONCEPTIONS.

If you seriously think pro-choice people are “blood thirsty nutjobs” you’d want to re-examine who you are friends with. A growing number of people in Ireland are pro-choice and its odds on you’re either friends with a few or work with a few. Not to mention the fact that if you know more than 10 women, statistically speaking one of them has had an abortion. Tell me, which of your female friends would you label a “blood thirsty nutjob”?

Hi Cian, since you are such a keen opponent of abortion, tell us, how many unwanted children have you volunteered to adopt? How many kids in care have you volunteered to foster or offered a home to? Which children’s charities do you volunteer with or financially support? Unwanted pregnancies result in unwanted children, but I’m sure as an abortion opponent, you would be happy to take responsibility for them right?

We’re you chatting to god ;-)

Were

I did not say it was wrong.
One of those cults of patriarchal dictators twisted something some demented desert-dweller said in a trance and attributed it to me.
I never said much on the topic at all, considering it a matter for women to work out between them. Ye men can have an input, but stop phukking dictating or I’ll make ye all pregnant by immaculate insemination.

A little scientific accuracy, if you don’t mind, or I’m going to have come down out of my nebulous heavens and sort ye out.

*your god

hahaha, funny guy Gus,

God never said its wrong, people depend on the bible and the bible was written by men, so men said it was wrong.

Now if you want to late the bible literally then by all means lets do that, but don’t be selective.

I suggest you take the west wing bible lesson, all 100% factual but yet I notice people are rather selective regarding what they choose to follow in the bible these days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc

Now go out and and put some people to death for working on Sundays, after all the bible says you can

God also says being gay is “wrong”, women should “obey” their husbands, divorce is “wrong” in every circumstance, stoning people is acceptable and has kiddy fiddlers and their enablers running “his” church so he is totally someone whose opinion I’m gonna value!

@ Gus, You must have missed the point where it said ” Creighton calls for ‘rational debate’ over abortion issue”.

God also slaughtered the first born in Egypt to make a point and asked Abraham to sacrifice his own child (among other child deaths in the Bible)

He’s no friend of babies.

Niall: Right. And, there’s no parable in the New Testament where Jesus condemns abortion. In fact, one can find no condemnation of abortion anywhere in the bible. This is a bit strange, I reckon, considering that these so-called “pro-lifers”, and erstwhile bible-thumpers, consider the abortion issue to be the defining human rights issue of our time.

Wonder if he would have said if clerical abuse is wrong?

Well said graham

Which God ? Zeus, Thor, Apollo ?

Young JC?

He said ‘suffer the little children’, meaning give them space, let them through…those bastards twisted it into ‘suffer ye little children’.

The science does not lie with the twisted atheistic position either . Science says life , your life, began at conception. If we abandon that starting point then which other point do we uphold ? 12 weeks ,20, 24, 30 ? All other points are purely subjective as nothing significant happens at a particular point . So Mr Know It All atheist, the theist position is at least rational and based in science not only faith !

Actually, Anthony, science seems to say life began in the oceans before it ever crawled out on the shores and climbed a tree to fall on its head and go wandering around frightened of its own shadow and imaging a god slinging bolts from the blue at all and sundry.

So. Do we cherish every precious smear of biological slime on the seabed?

I do wonder sometimes how and why so many people believe in something so unbelievable!

God also gave us free will, how do you square the right to life vs free will? Both are ordained by God are they not? So are you saying one should be put down by the other? Do you claim to be speaking for God and are you saying free will (which includes a right to choose) is less important than the right to life?

If god is so anti abortion why does it exist? And before you say because of evil – why does that exist with an all powerful, omnipotent god?
Why is there such a thing as unwanted pregnancy or infertility? Why does god abort so many pregnancies himself?

Ter, is your opinion based on religious belief? Or just lack of information on the issue? Ie: Ignorance?

Ter, I’m assuming that if you’d had a loaded gun and the opportunity to fire it at the assailant you would have stood by and let those children be killed in that school? Even if one of them was yours?

Abortion is not murder. You can’t be murdered until you are born. End of…

What is your belief based on ?