Seriously, what a crock of crap.

Good argument. Well said indeed, some very thought out points and a well constructed argument. You’ve changed my mind anyway for sure.

this legislation isnt even a question of choice! its legislation were a womans life is under threat! mother dies, child dies, where is the logic in not saving the mother! i may be pro-choice but i can understand why people are not, but this isnt legislation for choice! its for medicaly necessary intervention!

Of course we’re in the vast minority on here Gareth, but not in general. You think that the majority of people who post comments on the Journal account for the majority of people in general? Most of the people who comment on here are spoiled rotten, middle-class, bourgeoisie, trendy, liberal feminists who think they know everything about everything, a little bit like you sir! Anyone who supports abortion are selfish race-traitors who don’t give a damn about the likes of that unfortunate Indian lady, they simple hijack these cases to their won advantage and only care about having abortion because it’s a convenient solution to their carelessness, immaturity and lack of responsibility. “ooh boo hoo, it’s my womb, my body, my choice” – bullsh!t !! If you are mature enough to have sex you are mature enough to face the consequences. Sick, these people are, advocating dismembering and mutilating then crushing the tiny skull of an unborn baby then using the unfortunate case of one woman to back up your feeble arguement, you should be disgusted with yourself! The majority on the journal? Ha! Don’t make me laugh!

Obvious troll is obvious.

George, if you expect to be taken in any way seriously, I wouldn’t take on the persona of a well-know Nazi. And since you’re such an absolute troll, I would normally not respond to you in any way, but there’s just one comment so devastatingly incorrect that I cannot let it go…

I have never been, nor will I ever be… trendy.

“Troll, troll, troll” So original aren’t you Gareth, just proving your trendiness. Especially with the likes of “If you are a supporter of YD or are ‘pro-life’, look at the difference between red and green thumbs on your posts. You are in the vast minority” – you are attempting to silence anyone on the anti-abortion side by making them feel like they are going against the grain which indicates to me that you are a trendy little wimp who wouldn’t dare speak out against a majority. An so what, i’m a Nazi, at least Nazis believed in Justice and Order, they believed in racial purity and pride, something you wouldn’t know if it jumped up and bit you in the @rse

I think that as a Nazi, you revoke your right of a voice in the discussion on a human rights issue.

Ah yes, I’m a “trendy little wimp”. Not at all like that brave and righteous person who posts under a fake identity with their sole aim being to piss people off! George, you cannot talk, because you’re the definition of a wimp. A keyboard warrior, hiding behind someone elses name so they don’t have to face the consequences of the hateful trash they post online.

Gareth, I’m using this alias because my previous profile was blocked because I didn’t toe the party line, not because I’m afraid (I’m sure you’ll never have that issue). I’m not here to discuss myself with you anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest.

So Abi, would you say you are “pro-choice” only in cases where the pregnancy could kill the mother? In situations where it’s a choice between ending the child’s life or both of their lives? Or do you believe abortion should be available to anyone who choses it?

Interesting that George says he is not here to discuss himself despite presuming to discuss the character (and not the arguments) of those who disagree with him.

George talks of abortion for the convenience of the pampered middle class, perhaps George would care to take a look at the demographics of the women who travel to the UK for abortions?

Also FYI George, many people are not mature enough to have responsible sex, but they have sex anyway. How do you think they become pregnant? What a silly little argument.

Stephanie, of course you’d say that, you’re pro-abortion. My comment was in response to the nonsense Gareth came out with, implying that because most people on the journal are red thumbing the anti-abortionists that it must be the general view of the whole people, so I highlighted what sort of people come to the journal and most of them are not serious people.

“George talks of abortion for the convenience of the pampered middle class, perhaps George would care to take a look at the demographics of the women who travel to the UK for abortions?” – What demographics are you talking about here? From what class spectrum people who have abortions come from? If you could enlighten me I’d be happy to read it (backed up with fact please) but my point was that the pro-abortion gang on here are mostly (not all) spoiled, trendy, mainstream and middle-class, with a “if it feels good, do it” mentality, owing no responsibility to anything except themselves and their own pleasure.

“Also FYI George, many people are not mature enough to have responsible sex, but they have sex anyway. How do you think they become pregnant? What a silly little argument” – There are bad family planning practices in Ireland I’ll give you that, but that’s more the solution, better family planning and more long-term thinking, not murdering a baby just to evade responsibility. Also I know many, many young silly women who allowed themselves to get pregnant and they didn’t go to England or anywhere to have an abortion, they went through it, acceped responsibility and faced the music. I am very proud of these women as the baby gave them the strength to make something of themselves. I also know of one woman who had 9, yes 9 abortions because she couldn’t keep her legs shut, she should be shot in my opinion!

George, I never said that the “general view” of the readers was that of pro-choice support, I simply said that from what I have seen, there would appear to be a vast majority that do feel that way. If you’re going to twist my words, please actually do it in a way that helps your own argument instead of just attacking what others say. And on that note, you know NOTHING about me, and I’d wager you know NOTHING about 99% of the people you spend your time trying to get a rise out of. You think you’re better than people because you think they think that they are better than you, and it’s that superiority complex you’ve developed that is leading you to think you know all about the kind of people that we are. You do not. If you wanna have a guess at the kind of person I am, have a go and we’ll see how well you do. Otherwise, mind your tongue and behave!

Saying that YOU know what kind of people come to the journal? Bit hypocritical…
As you asked Stephanie for some evidence, I’d like you to show us what data you have on the demographics of users of thejournal.ie.
I mean, if you’re going to use it in your argument, we’re not just going to take it on faith that it’s the truth!

There is no narrow scope for the dead baby. It’s life or death. There is no in-between. You might give a thought for the dead baby.

mother dies, so does child.

When the doctor is treating a pregnant woman, he is treating both mother and child.

I’m not religious but I think the Church and other “hocus pocus” groups are just as entitled to their opinion and entitled to fight their corner as anyone else, this is a republic after all not a socialist dictatorship

But Stephanie, as pointed out when people objected to the Obstetrician leading the investigation into Savita H’s death having pro choice views, no-one is properly neutral on this issue. Everyone has some view.

@ Stephanie, I was quite shocked when I read your post. I checked up on Buttimer and he is actually a strong pro-lifer. You are correct. Admittedly, he did reserve his position until after the Expert Report but it does seem to me that he is wholly unsuitable to chair this Committee. It smacks of a tactic to park one of the pro-life TDs and perhaps to humour some of the other pro-lifers.

It’s a strange move.

@sakipol, there is an inherent conflict between being pro-life, on the on hand, and chairing a process to enable consideration of evidence and proposals to permit terminations in very restricted circumstances, on the other hand. The only way for Mr. Butter to reconcile this conflict is if he intends to achieve the narrowest possible implementation of the X case.

Pro-choice represents a spectrum or continuum of views but pro-life regards the foetus as sacrosanct.

I must say it is disturbing and the reasoning for appointing Buttimer to this role is less than obvious.

Sorry, Mr. Butter should read Mr. Buttimer. My spell checker is a bit intrusive.

To be fair – Buttimer was already chief of this committee and the consultation process was always going to go to that committee. He told me as much when I met with him in the summer.

Re what sakipol said, I know exactly what you mean but I feel this is different because of the reasons outlined above. A pro-choice person is bound by limits, Buttimer however can be as restrictive as he likes.

To be fair – Buttimer was already chief of this committee and the consultation process was always going to go to that committee. He told me as much when I met with him in the summer.

Re what sakipol said, I know exactly what you mean but I feel this is different because of the reasons outlined above. A pro-choice person is bound by limits, Buttimer however can be as restrictive as he likes.

I should have used the word “task” instead of role” since he is an incumbent in the role.

I hope that he will understand the religion has no role to play in civil legislation. Civil legislation addresses the orderly and just governance of society and should not be a means of making moral positions into rules of law.

If Mr. Buttimer confines himself to a facilitative and procedural role, it may work out.

Did not Buttimer come out this summer? Can we not see what the committee does before starting to build a consperiency?

So you want a pro-abortion chairman?

So you’re saying that the pro-abortion person could push the legislation to the limits, but the pro-life person is not allowed to push the legislation to the opposite limits. Don’t you think that is a very prejudiced view?

If you care to re-read Therese you’ll see I’m saying exactly the opposite of that.

As the law stands abortion can only be allowed where the life of a woman is at risk including suicide. A pro-choice chair would have to operate within those conditions. They can only legalise it within those limitations. They are not empowered to legalise abortion “on demand” as you would no doubt say.

A pro-life person however, could limit it further if they wished. Buttimer could influence the panel to make the regulations as restrictive as possible so that almost no-one qualifies or so that the process is so difficult a woman ends up going to the UK anyway because the experience of gaining permission is so difficult. He could also filibuster and delay and consult and defer for as long as he likes in order to stop legislation passing just as other pro-life policiticans have been doing these past twenty years.

Basically we’ve reached a stage where the government knows and has decided they have to legislate for x. A pro-choice person, agreeing with and wanting that will do that. Will do what the government has decided. I do not trust a pro-life person to do that.

By the way, pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

Kind of intolerant don’t you think?

Yes, I’m afraid I tend to be intolerant of people letting personal opinion interfere with professional obligation.

Granted he hasn’t done it yet but having heard his views on abortion in a meeting earlier this year I don’t trust him to ignore his personal opinion when carrying out his duty to the electorate.

So because he is pro-life he shouldn’t be allowed chair this committee? This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. What next? Should anybody who is pro-life step down off the committee? As Chairman, Buttimer will be one voice on the committee. He will have no more influence than any other person on the committee. You have already set yourself up as judge and jury with regard to his impartiality with no basis in fact.

And just so you know I am in favour of legislation being brought forward along the interpretation of the X case by the Supreme Court but I find this intolerance for any other viewpoint really irritating.

Ah the auld slippery slope argument. Again, if you actually read what I’ve said above you will see my concerns highlighted. And I haven’t decided this purely on some kid of him based only on the fact that’s he’s pro-life. I’ve decided this based on an extensive conversation I had with him as a constituent of his this summer on the issue.

Buttimer is not simply a voice on the committee like any other. He is the chair. The chair decides when to meet, decides for how long, decides the agenda, may have a casting voice and has great deal more influence in the proceedings than any other member of the committee.

Stephanie, you say being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. That is a deception. You are deceiving yourself and trying to subtly deceive others. You are either pro-life and anti-abortion or pro-choice and pro-abortion or dare I say, anti-life. You are saying that a woman has the right to choose to abort her child, and so you are sanctioned and justifying abortion. It’s very simple really.