Good point. All are medical or legal practitioners with experience in the field of children and a couple of senior civil servants. If this is what it takes to get the Oireachtas to legislate for the constitutional rights of Irish women to terminations in limited circumstances, then it’s a step in the right direction.

Could you define “limited circumstances”?

@Desmond O Toole: The Oireachtas can do no such thing. If legislation is introduced it must allow abortion up to the moment of birth in line with the X Case ruling. This is one of the reasons why no Government has been able to do this. A lot of people forget that Brendan Howlin, who was Minister for Health, said that it was impossible to legislate for abortion.

@Charles

Read the judgments of the “X” case, they set out the “limited circumstances” in this context. It’s not a nebulous term employed by bleeding heart, pro-choice liberals, it’s pretty rigid.

Muc Beag, Why don’t you spell it out for me? What are the limitations?

@Charles … Supreme Court has laid out the definition of these limited circumstances in detail. In summary, the SC has judged that abortion is constitutional iIreland where there is a threat to the life of the mother, including the threat of suicide, and in cases of severe foetal abnormality such as would render the foetus non-viable post birth.

@AlMar … I’m afraid that you’re not correct. The Oireachtas certainly has the capacity to legislate for the provision of abortion in Ireland as per the SC rulings. Indeed, the SC has twice admonished the Oireachtas for not so legislating. It is also the Oireachtas’ responsibility to determine the regulations for the provision of abortion in Ireland, including term limits. Both the SC and the ECHR have criticised the Irish State for relying on litigation as the primary route for women to vindicate their constitutional rights to abortion in Ireland.

Who determines that there is a threat of suicide? Let me guess:two doctors? How has that worked out elsewhere? And what is ” non-viable post-birth?” What is “non-viable”? Is “post-birth” a day, a week, ten years? Will there be a Special Olympics in 20 years time?50 years time? I know these are unpleasant questions, but if we are going to have an honest debate on this enormous issue we need to address them. Of course the pro-choice side can raise some hard questions too. So I say bring it on.Let’s have a truly honest debate with everything on the table.And if we vote let the result be respected by one and all,recognising the right of one and all to campaign for change in either direction all over again. It might be nasty but it’s better than a Roe v Wade-type situation where Judges hand down a decision that every honest person knows is political and that leaves a running sore for decades. The people are sovereign. (For the record, I am not a member of any group or party but I am opposed to abortion).

Cyril Butler, Do you think that there is no non-religious, moral or secular case against abortion?

This isn’t just about suicide. Token cases went to the ECHR including I think two women who required urgent cancer treatment which would have resulted in the death of the foetus. Carrying to term would have resulted in death for the women concerned. They had to go through the stress and danger of seeking abortions abroad as the rights of the mother over the ‘child’ granted by the people of Ireland through referenda were never ratified by a government in the pocket of the church.

@Desmond – The Oireachtas has the legal power to legislate for abortion. However, they must do so in line with X. That means no time limits! The health grounds for abortion are pretty open as well. Remember – 98% of abortions on Britain are supposedly carried out for “health reasons” – that’s something between one fifth and one quarter of all pregnancies aborted for supposed health reasons. Legislation in line with X would not be limited, despite propaganda to the contrary.

@charles … Thanks for your reply. You have put your finger on some of the key questions that need to be answered. The expert group will be expected to propose answers to these and other questions raised by the SC/ECHR decisions and it will then be for the Oireachtas to legislate based on that report. I don’t anticipate that this matter will return to the people by way of a referendum. The constitutional right to an abortion in limited circumstances has been established by the SC. The one attempt the State made to reverse a SC decision was lost. I can’t see that being repeated. On Roe v Wade, well, we don’t have the same degree of partisanship that exists on the US Supreme Court, so dismissing SC decisions based on the passing political affiliations of its members is not part of our political tradition. The SC decisions stand and it is now for the Oireacatas to give effect to those decisions.

@AlMar … I’m afraid your interpretation of the SC decision in X is wide of the mark. The SC decision does not mean that there are no time limits on constitutional abortion in Ireland. The decision of the SC on X did not deal with the issue of time limits other than with respect to the particular case before the court. The question of time limits or the definition of what constitutes non-viability and so forth are matters for the Oireachtas, as the SC has repeatedly stated. Please don’t tag my comments as propaganda, by the way. It’s important that we have a rational discussion on this issue and dismissing other opinions out of hand does not assist in that.

@Charles Mark

You’re implying a threat of suicide is something we shouldn’t take seriously? Non-viable post-birth generally means the baby won’t be able to survive outside the womb.

There are 2 other matters that don’t get enough consideration in the abortion argument. The rights of the unborn child and the rights of the father. I am not sure how I would feel if my partner unilaterally decided to abort a pregnancy. Men are reduced to sperm donors who will pay for a child but have no rights to decide if it can live or not. By the way the vast majority of abortions are to women who are making a life style choice NOT poor women in trauma.

I agree about the rights of the father being an issue, but what if he has split? What if finding out he was going to be a father caused him to do a runner? It does happen.. And in that case he may not be too pushed on paying for the child and you would be left with another single mother applying for lone parents allowance for people to whine about.. Not all guys have your morals I’m afraid..

Why are people here obsessed with Catholicism? I can’t understand it.

Abortion is not a Catholic issue. It is a human rights issue informed by science.

Cyril, agree with you wholeheartedly.

AlMar it is the other way around. Catholicism is obsessed with abortion, gay bashing and anything of a sexual nature. The abscence of their snout at the table is very noteworthy and a positive thing.

Cyril: What % of documents during Pope John Paul’s very long pontificate dealt with sex, abortion, homosexuality etc??

Almar Mother Theresa cited abortion as the greatest evil facing mankind in her nobel prize speech. Humanae vitae has an obsessive view toward contraception that saw contraception banned in Ireland. Preaching against condoms in sub saharan AIDS ridden africa Have you heard of a secular country banning divorce it is a Catholic thing. Need I really bore you further with examples?

@ AlMar: Couldn’t agree more. The left are all for tolerance, just not for tolerance of Catholics. It is the hypocrisy that galls with me i.e. “We should have a multicultural society, yet should demonise the dominant culture.”

Incidentally I don’t think any of the other religions are strongly in favour of abortion are they? Funny how nobody has commented at their relief that the Church of Ireland or the Islamic Foundation of Ireland has no representation on this topic.

The church of Ireland and Islamic Foundation didn’t have a hand in drawing up our Constitution. The Catholic church did hence the archaic clauses which the UN has sought action on given they are a violation of human rights. Claps on the back to the current government for moving on this where their predecessors considered it a scary hot potato. Roll on the continued separation of church and state.

@Ryan I’m all for tolerance of people who wish to believe or act as they wish so long as it doesn’t affect the liberties and educational opportunities of others. You are free to believe a divine being tells specific members of one primate species how to live. But to ask me or any other critical thinker to grant these opinions intellectual respect is a bridge too far. The common denominator to all political tyranny is societies that abandon evidence based methods of understanding and manipulating our surroundings.

@ Cyril: I’d characterise myself as an agnostic actually. And like I said it is the hypocrisy that galls at me when I see Catholicism is such fair game to be attacked, yet the same people who attack it will often criticise those who attack Islam or Judaism.

And please don’t put words in my mouth as I never asked you to grant the opinions “intellectual respect”. I just wish those who do have faith were given more respect. I don’t think anyone who does believe should be dismissed as “stupid” or “simple” etc.

@Ryan I never said religious people are stupid. That is entirely different to believing religion stupefies the minds of otherwise people of normal intelligence. Conceding some people who hold religious belief can be highly capable and intelligent is entirely different to any notion of religion being intelligent. It is not. Intelligent people have fallen for religious leaders, kings and political despots since time began. Humans intelligent or otherwise can be made through mind control to believe or do almost anything. Quite often resulting in very unsavory consequences.

Cyril Butler, 41% of pregnancies in New York City end in abortion.Does that bother you at all?

@Charles It bothers me in relation to the fact that abortion is sometimes traumatic for the mother. The fact that certain parts of the world has higher abortion rates than others must be due to circumstantial conditions as its not a foregone conclusion of liberal.societies. In any case the vast majority are in the first trimester. In terms of the child what matters is not the percentages but rather the cut off times for abortions.

So for you as a secularist the cut-off time is important! Which to my mind suggests that you acknowledge that there is a moral issue around abortion which is independent of any religious doctrine or teaching.I can understand how a secularist ( and some who follow some religion or another) might argue for free choice in the first trimester,which in practical terms is much less than the X Case would permit because making a threat of suicide a ground to permit abortion at any time in the pregnancy would inevitably,in my view, lead to unlimited freedom of choice,which I would be wholeheartedly against.I am opposed to first trimester abortion but I acknowledge that that is a harder case to make than is the case against later-term abortions,particularly after viability.Anyway you seem to have acknowledged that there is a non-religious argument against some abortions and that is helpful in defining the parameters of the debate.

@Cyril – the answer is 3%.

Pope John Paul wrote about sex, abortion, the family etc more than most popes. Yet only 3% of Church documents, speeches etc in his time dealt with this issue. I imagine that most of us spend more than 3% of our time thinking about, speaking about or having sex.

It only seems so much more because our cultural obsession with these things mean that issues related to sex get reported more frequently in the media.

Abortion is not a Catholic issue. There are very sound scientific and humanitarian grounds for opposing abortion.

Further to my last comment above, I feel I should have said that I do think that where a mother’s life is at real risk then it should be protected by whatever means necessary, up to and including abortion if that is the only option. I personally would vote to exclude the threat of suicide as a ground because I believe that would send us right over the edge of the slippery slope as has happened elsewhere. I recognise that there is a greyish area surrounding the health of the mother but i understand that “health” is very widely defined in other comparable jurisdictions and is the most obvious Trojan Horse for unlimited choice. If the people were asked to vote on unlimited choice in the first trimester I think a majority could well be persuaded to vote yes.I would be opposed because I think it would be the thin end of the wedge and would also in some circumstances lead to abortion being used as the last line of birth control.Anyway I think my true position is less rigid than it might have appeared above and that that narrows the parameters of the debate further still.

The irony of your stance Ryan is that you are calling Cyral a hypocrite for his relief that a church representative is not on the board set up to investigate legislation regarding women’s health.

Oh, gosh Cyril. Your such a bad person for giving your opinion. Why don’t you shut up for possibly hurting the churches feelings, abide by their rules or face the consequence of being called a hypocritical lefty.

I don’t think there is a chance of an honest debate here on the specifics of the case. Nobody is for drive through abortions and attempting to initiate a debate based on the assertion that women enjoy them is just plain pathetic.

This is a medical issue, I’m not a doctor. I’m guessing most of the people here are not doctors. Its more complicated than most of you are insinuating and there are lots of variables to take into account.

I’m going to leave it to the people who are qualified to work out the specifics rather than pretending like I know more than the multiple doctors and specialists on the committee or have access to more information and statistics on complications than they do.

Unfortunately that data is not as transparent as it should be and thus nobody here can really give an intellectual response as to the conditions required.

Anybody pretending to want an intellectual and scientific discussion here about this topic is being intellectually dishonest because the lack of data ensures the debate will transform into discussion of morality rather quickly. Not very scientific.

Makes me kind of sick knowing a women with cancer could have unnecessarily died and women and children both die due to idiots playing doctor in order to boost their ego and sense of moral superiority . But hey, I must be a hypocritical lefty too.

@John: Pregnant women in Ireland are currently entitled to all medical treatment needed to save their lives even when that treatment results in the death of the unborn. This is current medical practice, it is perfectly legal and no legislation is necessary on that point. Ireland is also consistently the safest place in the world to have a baby according to UN statistics.

It’s interesting this little debate is between people who are not in possession of a uterus and therefore will never be in a position of being forced by law to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term or having to go abroad in secret and at great expense to save their health and/or sanity.

They’re also the people that wouldn’t get a say in the matter if they wanted to keep the kid.

Religion has nothing to do with this issue one way or another. It is a purely scientific and human rights issue.

You’re having me on? Some of the most right wing anti women’s rights individuals in the state are doctors. The Science Correspondent to the Irish Times writes regular articles about how religion and Science don’t clash. This is Ireland. The chances of the group drawing its conclusions without the bias of the teaching of Rome are close to zero.

If we have complete freedom of choice in all circumstances in 10 years will that be enough “progress” for you? Or do you want it right now?

Good point but one step at a time. Least it’s getting a debate going about this issue. I would hope that this expert group would lead to a referendum on this.

Good points, Marlon. There is one major difference this time, however, and that is the obligation on the State to legislate in accordance with the decision of the ECHR (which reinforces the previous demands of the SC for the Oireachtas to act). The government could still seek to side step this issue and refuse to act, but it would then place itself in further breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and would open itself to further legal action in Irish and European courts.

There doesn’t need to be a referendum. We had the referendums years ago where the people voted that abortion should be allowed in this country if the pregnancy endangered the life of the woman. No government has ratified those referenda and last year the ECHR ruled that that lack of legislation was a constitutional breach of human rights. The expert group is to decide on the wording of the legislation which we already decided to pass into law. This is not an abortion issue, a moral issue, a religious issue, it’s a human rights issue.

Should members of the Labour Party be barred from the expert group because they might be biased?
Should women who have had abortions be barred?
Should people who have votes in past abortion referenda be barred because they already have an opinion?
Where does one draw the line?

The examples you gave are not examples of people who were brainwashed. The “expert” group are supposed to be a free thinking unbiased scientifically logical group. You can be that and be a member of the labour party, a woman who’s had an abortion and the other examples you gave. Your point is invalid. Do you seriously suggest that an individual on that group who has pushed a Catholic agenda in his/her hospital is now going to change their mind (what’s left of it)? My point is simple, religious people who have been brainwashed are not likely to be ABLE to come up with the truth.

No William, your point about anyone with religious belief being brainwashed is the illogical one. There are plenty of people who have reasoned their way towards faith.
In any event that is a sideshow. The issue is that opposition to abortion can be based on science and a concern for human rights. I know plenty of people in the gay community who oppose abortion but have no religious beliefs at all.
The attempt to equate opposition to abortion with Catholicism is rather silly. It is the same as equating concern for the environment with Catholicism – the Church has strong opinions on both abortion and environmental protection.
This is not a religious issue.

AlMar, “there are plenty of people who have reasoned their way towards faith”. What a laugh! Isn’t it amazing that these people seem to “reason their way to faith” and by coincidence it’s the faith they were brought up in? There are not too many Catholics who have “reasoned their way to Hinduism, or Shinto”. As I say below there is a direct correlation between religious belief and being anti-abortion.

William – there are also plenty of people who were atheists and brought up with no faith who have reasoned their way towards it.
Yes, of course there is a direct correlation between religious faith and being anti-abortion. Just as there is a direct correlation between religious faith and opposition to war and slavery and violence and care for the environment and care for the poor etc.

AlMar, there aren’t “plenty of people brought up as Atheists who have reasoned their way to religion”. There are about 5.5 million people on our island. What % of them were brought up as Atheists and are now religious? A handful? What % of Irish people who are still religious are the religion of their parents? 99%? Not alone is there not a correlation between religious faith and opposition to war, there is a correlation between religious faith and support for war, particularly unjust wars. Religious people start war on religious grounds, Atheists do not.

William: There are more than 5.5 million people in the world!!!
Please, stop trying to hijack this debate by bringing religion into it. It has nothing to do with religion.
There are many non-religious people who are against abortion. There are many atheists who are against abortion. There are also some religious people who are in favour of it. Religion is a red herring here.
Oh, and by the way, correlation does not equal causation…

True, but if this is what it takes to get constitutional abortion past the die-hards in Fine Gael then it will have been worth it.

“Constitutional abortion”? What a simple phrase. But what does it really mean? Are there limitations? Does it make a difference to the foetus/baby whether the abortion is constitutional or unconstitutional? It ends up the same either way and as I understand it the X Case does not limit abortion to any term, certainly not to the point of viability, for instance (personally I would not be happy with a viability test). I’ve seen enough foetal scans of my own children to know that at 8 weeks there Is a recognisable human being with a beating heart. I have seen foetal scans of foetuses that miscarried and I have cried with my wife for our loss.. I have had the tremendous privilege of seeing other children reach term and grow to the stage where they area thriving at school, excelling at sports, bringing joy to my every day. Of course I know that there are “crisis pregnancies” where the baby presents enormous challenges to the mother.But abortion can’t in my opinion be tied solely to the choice of the mother.The pro-choice side won’t get far saying if you’re opposed to abortion you’re in thrall to Catholic dogma as preached by the Pope of the day.

@Charles … The term “constitutional abortion” is my own shorthand for an abortion carried out in conformance with the various decisions of the SC. As to whether a foetus is aware of the constitutional position of an abortion it might be subject to, well I rather doubt that! The woman carrying such a foetus and to whom the decision falls as to whether to continue with a pregnancy or not certainly is aware of it. And that’s really the point in our system of Law. It is her health, welfare and autonomy that has precedence. How these are vindicated is the issue before us. As to term limits, the SC made no ruling on term limits generally in the X case. It is wrong, therefore, to impute a statement as to the Law on the basis of what the SC did not say. I do agree with your comment, however, about the attempt by some people to categorise pro-lifers generally as being in thrall to the RCC. While many are, it is clear that this issue touches many, many people who have come to their various positions on the basis of a broad range of ethical values. The same applies in reverse, of course, and the attempt by the more aggressive pro-life organisations to paint pro-choice people as “baby-killers” is also to be condemned.

Desmond, I agree with you entirely about the need for a civil debate on both sides. I feel that commentators often refer to the extremists on both sides but all the focus is on the Pro-Life extremists.We don’t see too much footage of the extremists on the other side. As to the substantive issue, if the “welfare and autonomy” of the woman take precedence in all circumstances then it’s abortion on demand. If the X Case judgment is implemented through legislation then since the case did not set down time limits, that means there are no limits. If there are to be time limits I believe they must be put to the people in a Constitonal Referendum.

Other members of the committee have well known positions on this issue including advocacy for legalised abortion. The only issue is whether there is balance overall.

Again you are illogical. Of course people on the expert group will already have an opinion on abortion BUT that opinion is OK if it is not based on the nonsensical ranting of a scientifically literate, anti-evolution, misogynist, homophobic celibate pope, who helped cover up world-wide child abuse and who believes in hob goblins.

Can you provide links please, AlMar.

What is intresting is the limit we do have in policy in this country.
Before 24 weeks (23w +6 days) it is just a miscarriage and the woman is only entitled to sick leave and there is no documentation what so ever.

After 24 weeks it is considered to be a stillbirth and the woman goes on maternity leave and there are still born certs issued with are a combined birth and death cert and the baby will even be given a pps no.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/miscarriage_and_stillbirth/registering_stillbirth.html

So legally and procedural wise we already have that limit in place.

My opinion on this has absolutely nothing to do with religious believes, it’s just my opinion on the matter. I have no problem with abortion on medical grounds or where a child would have a serious negative impact on people lives but to do it (as I’ve stated previously) just be cause of convenience in my opinion is not right.

Diego I respect your opinion and your entitlement to share it. But I believe that is for the mother to ultimately decide. But whether or not you believe your religion is influencing your judgement it is nonetheless true that almost all outspoken anti abortion people are religious to some degree. Most secularists will not grant rights to prehuman life to the detriment of fully developed sentient humans.

That’s true but I’m sure there would have to sects of religion out there that dont condem it as well.

Actualy Cyril, if the issue were only related to ensoulment, then it should be the other way around – those of religious belief should be more ambivalent about abortion while those who are secular should be more opposed to it. That’s because the religious believe in an afterlife whereas atheists do not.
But I’m afraid it’s not that simple. This is a human rights issue where a delicate balance must be found. Throwing in red herrings about souls etc don’t help.

AlMar, that has to be one of the silliest arguments I have ever heard. So Athiests (i.e. those that do not believe in magic, gods, devils, souls, afterlives, gods, etc) should jail women and force them to have babies they don’t want because they don’t have souls and haven’t the “at least they’ll go to heaven” option? Theists on the other hand should be pro-abortion, kill babies, old people, disabled people etc because at least they will go to heaven. Weird mind you have.

No William, I am not making that argument. I was using that as an example to show that issues relating to ensoulment are irrelevant.
Ensoulment is a red herring in this debate.

Diego, do you know what having an abortion involves? It’s horrible, it involves being very sick for a few days as well as a fair bit of pain as the foetus is “aborted”.

It’s also a difficult choice to make, everyone realises that this is a life that is being ended, and if they don’t suffer trauma about making that decision then they are possibly psychopaths. It is a heart breaking situation to find yourself in, and not one that I would envy.

I can’t see it catching on somehow, the morning after pill is not quite so hard on the body, and using precautions is even less. For it to become wholesale is ludicrous, no woman would choose to experience it twice.

I do actually a couple that had to go over England. My friend told me about it and how he was practically in tears for two weeks over it. These are sensible people that always used contraception (their word on that one) and it was a total accident. He told me that they done it because they couldn’t afford to have a kid as they were both not working and if they had kids would want to give it a good standard of life. If you read the post I put up above you would see that 34% have had two or more procedures and in the link it states that most of these are about twenty/late teens. So I would say that it being ludicrous isn’t quite the case when young girls are having a number of these done before they’re even 25.

When you toss out a figure like 34% it can seem like that’s a huge number, but looking at the info, it’s 34% of a little under 200,000 women. How many pregnancies went to term for the same time frame?
How many adoptions were carried out?
And how many of those pregnancies went on to become single mothers?

It’s not great, but had all those children been born (81% of abortions were carried out on single women), would that not have created a lot of single mothers and a so called “drain on the system”?

I for one could not understand why anyone would choose to put themselves through that experience repeatedly rather than take precautions, but it would cause me to question why they do. Is it truly that black and white? What if it’s a girl who is being sexually abused by a family member, being forced to abort to keep the secret? We do not know..

We should have the choice. If you are morally or any otherwise opposed to abortion, don’t have one. But you have your choice, the girl who finds herself pregnant and with little options does not.

I’m pro choice, have I insulted anyone?
Have I accused all pro life people of being religious? All I have said is that if you are pro life you have the choice not to use the service. But we do not have the right to judge others, or tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

To argue that wholesale abortion would take off is the false dilemma, or even the slippery slope, it’s an illogical argument. It conveniently ignores several factors. First of all, abortion as a method of contraception is expensive and impractical given the methods of contraception already freely available. It’s also a horrible experience physically, and the woman will have to live with that on her conscience the rest of her life. To lump judgment on top of that is not helping anyone.

Yes the numbers in some places are high – but numbers and statistics ignore the human elements. We do not know the reasons behind each of those abortions. Perhaps we should be looking at those reasons, and working on that. But to deny someone the chance to avoid becoming another state dependent single mother, or mothering the product of a rape, that’s not our call. For that reason I am pro choice, not because I would ever want to have to use it, but because it’s not my right to tell someone else that they have to go through with childbirth because it might offend my morals..

Is abortion not banned in NI?

There are no legal abortion services in the North of Ireland, it is the only part of the United Kingdom were this is the case. So Irish women can not hop on a train to Belfast and UK women who live there must also travel to ‘mainland’ UK. There is no legal abortion on the Island of Ireland.

http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/119/92/

“Why?
In 1967, following a huge pro-choice campaign, the British parliament decided that it was no longer tolerable to allow women to be killed and injured through back-street abortion. The 1967 Abortion Act, legalised abortion in Britain in restricted circumstances.
At the time Northern Ireland had its own parliament and the issue of abortion was left for it to decide. It never took up the issue. When Direct Rule returned Westminster, abortion rights were never extended to the women of Northern Ireland.

What is Northern Irish Law on Abortion?
The law in Northern Ireland now is as it was in Britain before 1967. The 1861 Offences Against the Person Act makes all abortions illegal. The 1929 Infant Life (Preservation) Act was extended to Northern Ireland in 1945 and allows abortion to preserve a mother’s life. Also influential is the Bourne judgement of 1938: this is case law allowing abortion in circumstances of risk to mental or physical health.
Very few abortions are allowed legally in Northern Ireland today: around about 70 per year. These are mostly in fairly extreme cases, where the mother’s physical or mental health is severely and permanently endangered. “

Abortion is illegal in NI for the same reason it is in the so called Republic, the majority of the population are brainwashed religious automatons. The Unionists are just as barmy.

If your on a mobile device when there’s lots of comments the list is shortened.

It is legal but the legislation was never drawn up to cover it so it’s a gaping loop hole and with out that legislation there are no polices and procedure and women are left until the pregnancy ends and only then medical intervention happens. This expert group will write the reports which will become a government paper which will become the legislation needed on this issue.

I ended up posting that by accident and not getting a chance to rewrite it!

I was going to say, I don’t think I would ever want to have an abortion, I’d prefer not to get pregnant.. I can take precautions, but none are 100% effective. Accidents can and do happen.

I cannot provide for the life for a child, and I would not like to be forced into a situation where I would need to be reliant on the state to do it for me. But if the contraception failed, I could find myself stuck there..
Just as any woman (or girl) could.

The reasons women choose to have abortions are almost as numerous as the women having them, and without knowing the scenario for each one – who am I to judge? Who am I to say, “No, you must carry to term, and either put the child up for adoption (not as easy as it sounds) or provide for it the rest of your life”..

It should be up to the woman herself, none of us has a right to point fingers, until you find yourself there you will never really know. There are laws determining when the foetus becomes a life, let that be the cut off point.

Not sure where you’re going there. There are 13 people on the committee. 9 of them are women.

And three of the four men are doctors. But sure maybe four feminazi’s should be appointed instead, to ensure the “correct” outcome is found!

Total red herring there Diego Attley, the expert group are working on when the mother to be’s life is endangered and she needs medical treatment which may end the pregnancy or when the fetus developed abnormally and the pregnancy will end in a miscarriage. Abortion on demand is not it’s remit.

Diego, it’s not a “child”, it’s a foetus. The problem with the anti -abortion position is it jails women who do not agree with it. What right have you Diego to jail women because they don’t want to proceed with a pregnancy? It’s none of your business. It’s fascism.

@Sharrow: I’m completely fine with that but I don’t think its right to have an abortion just because it would be an inconvenience with the persons weekly drinking binges but if it where a case where two people that had lost their jobs and had a huge mortgage, that’s understandable.

@Willam: I don’t think anyone should be jailed over it. I just don’t like the idea of it being done out nothing but convenience.

Diego, the discussion isn’t about what you like. I don’t “like” abortion either. I would hate to be in the position where I needed one and I have the greatest sympathy for any woman who gets pregnant when she doesn’t want to for whatever reason. A man can have a one night stand and does not have the dilemma to terminate a pregnancy or spend 20 years bringing up an unplanned child with all that entails. The discussion is what laws we enact. Do we jail women in Ireland or with nauseating hypocrisy continue to force them to travel to the UK to have their abortions so we can wipe our clean Catholic hands of the “sin”.

Sharrow: All medical treatments necessary for a woman are already available in this country even if they indirectly result in the death of the unborn.They are both legally and ethically sound from a human rights perspective.
Abortion is something different – the direct and intentional ending of the life of the unborn.

Well if it were to be legalized I would like to see a law put inplace to (attempt to anyway) prevent it becoming just an everyday option such as it being heavily taxed for second and subsequent procedures to put more emphasis on prevention rather than a cure. In England and Wales 34% of women having abortions in 2010 had one or more previously, so I think it shows that a lot of these are done because of not taking precautions in the first place and seeing it as a convenient way out.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_127202.pdf

Diego, what will we do with the tax raised from pregnant women in distress? Give it to your football club?

Maybe put into education of the topic so they wont end up distressed in the first place. Would you not agree that preventative measures are better than a cure?

Diego, what about if you took precautions and got pregnant anyway? I’ve had a condom split, and holes do not need to be very big..
Oral contraceptives are not 100% effective. Neither is any contraceptive for that matter (even vasectomies are not 100%)

What about if finding out he was about to be a daddy caused the father to leg it? This creates another lone parent, whether they recieve support from the father is not a guarantee.. Childcare costs are prohibitive for lone parents returning to work, it creates a problem plenty are happy to complain about..

If you do not want to have children, the only real way to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex.. And if you are married, or in a relationship, or you want to – and you are using contraceptives, why shouldn’t you?

Accidents can happen, they happen quite frequently. Failing to take precautions shows that perhaps the parents are not ready or capable of being responsible parents, and in that case – think of the child. Is it fair for a child to be raised by someone who may well mess them up psychologically? (not all unprepared parents do this, but plenty of people do mess their children up for many reasons)

We all talk about the rights of the unborn child to life, but we dont put a huge amount of emphasis on the quality of that life do we?