Hey! Dad!

Hey! Dad!

Sadly I had no use for them whatsoever.

Sketched, forever hopeful?

It was long after 1993 when I came close to needing them.

In the 60′s I use to drive to Belfast and buy many many pks of 3, bring them back across the border and sell them to fellow students for a profit
my Mother could never understand why so many guys would phone me one after the other.

I know of a doctor who refused the Pill to a girl I know on ethical grounds- this was 5 years ago….

I forgot that condoms were illegal :) I went into a chemist in town one day to get my prescription of the pill, I was married ( I know it does not matter now but it did then) and when the pharmacist saw it was for the pill , she scrunched up the prescription and threw straight into my face saying that ”We do not have THAT here and GET OUT !!!
It may seem funny now but then it was so embarassing as if I had done some thing wrong.

Funny – no, depressing more like.

“It takes people like Branson to push people and change things”

You should check out his campaign to end the War on Drugs Barry.

http://www.youtube.com/user/breakingthetaboofilm?feature=results_main

@Ross – I wasn’t aware of this, thanks for the link. Looking forward to watching it

You’ll only need 5 mins. ;-)

Why? Are you going to do it twice?

My text disappeared……

Ah that brings me back…The 1980’s, No Divorce, No Condoms, being gay was a crime. These were shite times and all but do we have moving statues of our lady now? answer me that? We should have a few ‘Apparitions’ to raise some revenue now that Lourdes is shagged with flooding.

Why should we have to keep up with anyone? We are our own country. We’ll make our decisions based in what our own people want, not how the rest of the world live

Michelle, people wanted condoms for years but it didn’t stop them being illegal for years.

People want proper laws brought in about abortion and from what we’ve seen in this country in the last two weeks people want it in this country but yet its failed to happen for 20 years because the government is under the thumb of the church and church lobby groups.

ye but anyone in their right mind would pass the legislation which should have been passed decades ago…a pro lifer i take it?

Two referenda, Michelle.

We’ll have to wait and see what the next referendum brings. But Ireland voted abortion down twice already….

Michelle, what are you talking about? Ireland voted against abortion once, in a referendum in 1983. Since then we affirmed proposals to the right to travel and information about abortions. As well as voting down further restrictions twice.

Do they allow the Internet in the convent these days Michelle!

I’d hazard a guess, if it was held this week it’d pass.

Reg, I have no idea, but I’ll find out for you seeing as you are so interested. Are you thinking of joining?

People like you are dangerous and dangerously misinformed Michelle.

True Michelle, you are your own contry but that country is no longer isolated. It is now made of many nationalities and generations who have a much open mind towards day-to-day issues and have also the right to speak. Funny you mention we as a whole can make our own decisions; no, we cannot. This is what it is all about, giving women the choice to make their own decisions. Unfortunately this is currently unavailable in Ireland.

Bartial birth abortion is what you are talking about yes?

Why would you think she was talking about something she didn’t say she was talking about?

Yes.

Why people conflate the issue of choice and the issue of child support is beyond me…. the first concerns the bodily autonomy of the mother, and since it is her body only she can make the decision on whether or not to use it to support another life. Child support is for already born children, who are entitled to support from both parents.

No woman should feel under pressure to make a decision either way….. to abort or otherwise. That is the whole point of the pro-choice movement. No woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy inside them without their consent, and no woman should be forced to abort a child because the person half involved in creating that child isn’t interested.

Personally I don’t think he should be *made* to be responsible in that instance no, if it was made clear that he did not want the child by some form of document or something similar? I know many would disagree though. Should the woman be responsible for giving birth to the child if she decides she does not want the child? I don’t think so either. Speaking as the result of an unplanned pregnancy, by the way!

Saoirse, don’t you think that a situation such as that would compel many women to end pregnancies even though they don’t wish to?(Since a large percentage of women who have abortions report that they cannot afford to care for a child, and that is the reason for their termination)

@Sarah I definitely accept that this would happen, I have struggled with my opinion on this. My point was just that I don’t think responsibility should be *forced* upon either party if you understand my meaning? I know I’m being too idealistic to hope that a man would support the woman’s decision, (because although I think the father’s opinion should be considered I still think it’s the woman’s choice ultimately) but I don’t think either should be made to support the other’s decision. Probably not as clear as I’d like to be there, apologies.

Did he partake during the conception? Did he use a condom? If he did not want to father a child there are a couple of options that he could have taken.

To put the entirety of the pressure on one person is unfair and to vilify either of the parties in this way makes everybody look bad.

Why should a father not have to support his child in that situation? Mothers don’t get to choose not to support their children….. they just get to choose not to use their bodies to do so (just like fathers…no father would or should ever be compelled to, for example, donate an organ to save his childs life against his will, because its *his* body and only he gets to decide if he wants to use it to keep another alive)

“Mothers don’t get to choose not to support their children”
Is adoption no longer an option here?

Should have gloved up in first place

Jane I think it’s well to say there is a stigma about adoption in this country, and giving away ones baby

Adoption is an option here, but you can’t place your child for adoption and abdicate parental responsibility without the consent of both parents…. so it isn’t like the mother can ‘just walk away’ like the suggested ‘document’ that would allow a father to (not that we need any documents for men to walk away regardless, as evidenced by the huge amount of single mothers receiving no support in this country right now).

@Sarah The opinion I expressed was my ‘ideal hypothetical situation’, and ideally a woman would be able to ‘walk away’ also. I was just trying to express my opinion that nobody should be forced to do anything, including keeping or supporting a baby if they don’t want to/can’t afford to/are unable to for any reason.

not to be ‘Captain Obvious’ but you are trying to compare a human person (or soon to be…….possibly) with money, essentially paper (I know its not made from paper anymore but you get my point) on an internet discussion. pass the dutchy……….

@shane if he didn’t want the child he should have taken precautions. Or abstained. Or used a pro. Or done the job himself. Or…

The savage eye put it bluntly with the junkie being the one babysitting

He doesn’t want to change, Amy. I sent him a great article, including with info about how restricted abortion does not reduce abortion (just makes it more dangerous and difficult for the women who choose it)…. and after saying he read it attempted to throw up stats to show ‘amount of lives saved’ by Ireland’s ban on abortion, which shows that he either didn’t read it at all, or has 0 idea how statistics and sources for information work.

Yes, yes it is. Only a woman gets to decide if and when she’s willing to use her body to sustain the life of another. Nobody else should be able to control a woman’s body and compel her to carry a pregnancy against her will.

That there are people who don’t consider forced birth to be barbaric is honestly baffling to me. Goes to show how successful the pro-life movement have been with their ‘LOOK AT THE BABY’ crap, along with painting the women who need to access abortion as nothing more than careless harlots who need to be saved from their own bad decision as opposed to the fully autonomous women with wildly different circumstances that they are in reality.

Men can have an opinion, sure, and they are free to never ever have an abortion themselves!

You of course can have you opinion and make your input but you don’t get to make the final decision that’s the woman’s choice it’s her body and affects her the most. No one should be forced to stay pregnant against their will, that’s practically rape.

Probably the most ridiculous comment I have ever read on journal.ie …..

Mags, I hope you don’t think that going from men-only making all decisions to women-only making decisions would be an advance? Gender should not come into it – ultimately it is the women’s decision to make but it is everyones responsibility to make sure they have the right to make that choice. Don’t ostracise half of the support for legislation by telling every man to mind their own business. As a father of daughters, husband of a wife and a brother of sisters I have bloody well got an opinion on making sure that women like Mulherin, Creighton and all the other bible badgers don’t make decisions on behalf of them.

@Mags I understand that it’s controversial to say that and why people might be offended by your comment but it has struck me before as being strange! The question was recently put to Rónán Mullen’s assistant (Mulllen couldn’t attend a talk he was set to give) whether he thought legislation would have been introduced earlier if it were men that carried the unborn and it was his opinion that it would have been, which was interesting to hear from a self-confessed pro-unborner!

about half of the unborn children killed in the abortion clinics of England, India & elsewhere are male,
& half are female.
they can’t defend themselves
they need women & men of goodwil to try & defend their rights.

sweet Jesus when you thought people couldn’t get more worse, dumb and ill-informed

Misandry anyone? Rubbish comment along the lines that single men back in the day should not have been allowed to vote in the divorce referendum.

Would it not also be a mans child? Or should a man have no in whether to his child is aborted?

Jim, it is not ‘misandry’ to tell men that they don’t get a say about who gets to be inside my body or use it to keep themselves alive.

@Trevor I think if *I* was in such a position where I was faced with that decision I would of course listen to the father’s opinion, but I wouldn’t listen to the opinion of some random anti-choice activist act that was unknown to me. Also, not being sarcastic, it is unfortunate that men aren’t capable of carrying their own children in such circumstances where they don’t want an abortion but the woman does!

@ Trevor Rooney- What do you suggest as an alternative? If a man gets a woman pregnant and she doesn’t want to be pregnant should he be allowed to force her to stay pregnant against her will? That’s completely unacceptable, that would be giving the man governance over the woman’s body, life and decisions, that’s misogyny, the type of thing I would expect in Saudi or Afghanistan.
Yes he can have input, give his opinion and make suggestions but that’s it, it’s her body, her decision.

@Kelly so if the woman decides to keep his baby the man should legally be responsible for the upkeep and maintainace of the child but only if she decides but as you put it it is her body not his child that matters.

I can’t understand, Trevor, why you are making this all about the ‘mans choice’ to have a child…. why don’t you fight for all the men who decide with their partner that an abortion is the right decision for them and have no choice either since abortion is illegal here! Those men exist too you know.

Im simply responding to the “my body my choice” arguement or “NO UTERUS NO OPINION” shit as the excuse for getting rid of a life.

@ Trevor Rooney
“Excuse for getting rid of a life” what absolute tripe. A fantastic achievement on your behalf to swing my argument around to suit yourself.
No uterus no opinion is crystal clear…it’s a woman’s choice. Where did you pull from that statement that I’m all about killing life?? Yet another person to prove how out of touch men are with this argument when it comes to woman’s rights

Trevor, so are you saying that if a man and woman agree that they both want to terminate the pregnancy that they should be able to access abortion here in Ireland?

If the couple agree the thats there decision so why not

So it isn’t about the ‘life’ of the fetus for you then… It’s about men being able to tell women what to do with their bodies. Glad we cleared that up.

More rubbish. Part of the problem is that men have no say at all in what happens to their own child.

Jim, why should a man be able to compel his partner to use her body to keep their child alive?

I’m pro choice by the way but I just want to clarify you are against pro-life men but not pro-choice men?

Filthypete, there is a *huge* difference between men standing up and saying “I believe that women should be able to make their own decisions and I support them in fighting for the right to do so”, and men standing up and saying “I believe that I should be able to make decisions for women and I will fight for the right to do so”.

All the best men are pro-choice, and I couldn’t in good conscience be associated ever with any man who does not agree with my right to make decisions about my own body myself.

@ Paddy – a few things

> Thanks for acknowledging the personhood of the unborn.

For the record, I do not recognise the personhood of the unborn…. but since it is irrelevant to the reasons I am pro-choice I am happy to debate on that basis with somebody who does.

> The “use your body” comment is a bit extreme however

In what way is it ‘extreme’? My body parts don’t have a ‘purpose’, they simply are. We don’t compel people to donate organs or even blood without their consent, even though people die in wand of them all the time… because it is each person’s individual decision whether or not they wish to use their body to keep another alive. As for the ‘purpose’ of sex, well that is a very subjective thing. For me, personally, it strengthens the bond I have with my partner when we express intimacy physically. I cannot for the life of me see why I should be celibate if I don’t want children (and do you also suggest that women who have already had all the children they wish to have simply never sleep with their husbands again until they reach menopause?)

> Some now predict, and I don’t know how correct they may be, that in fifty years from now, abortion and contraceptives will again be outlawed by society, out of necessity.

Those people are wrong. Outlawing abortion does not reduce abortion rates, and outlawing contraceptions *increases* unwanted pregnancies as opposed to decreasing them…. Ireland has a normal rate of abortion as compared to other countries…. our abortions usually just don’t happen here in Ireland.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt on the good faith nature of your argument for a moment here, and suggest that you read this article, written by a former pro-life activist about her realisations that if the movement were about ‘saving babies’ and reducing abortion as it purports to be (as opposed to controlling women) then they would not choose they methods they currently do (attempting to stigmatise and ban abortion, shaming women for consensual sex etc). I’d love to hear your thoughts: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

No I think it’s a woman’s choice. End of. Would men stand for women telling then what to do with their reproductive system or how it’s used? I think not.

If men could have abortions it wouldn’t be illegal.

@ Sarah Lounsey Malone Couldn’t care less what you do with your own body but a bit saddened to see that you only consider it an incubator of inconvenience. Nature is a bitch but only women will ever carry babies. Thats not my fault, blame nature or God or the storks not me as a man.

@ Mark Hickey Bullshit, pure and simple. Along the lines of ‘if women has balls there would be a life sentence for kicking anyone between the legs’.

I am quite happy that stories such as this will not happen in this country. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2065670/Woman-pregnant-twins-agrees-abort-sick-foetus-doctors-terminate-healthy-one.html

What happened to Savita is just as disgusting and needs to be condemned by every right thinking individual but is being used by vested interests to bring abortion on demand into Ireland. Legislation is vital to stop this from happening again but that is all. Ireland does not need abortion on demand. We do need to begin to educate our children which is sadly lacking and it is shocking to see the numbers of them that are almost totally unaware of what we used to call ‘the facts of life’. Parents have a lot to answer for.

Jim, it isn’t *me* that considers myself an incubator….. it’s people who would force me to act as one against my will. I’m a person, and if another person wants to grow *inside my body* or use it to keep themselves alive I have to give them permission.

It might not be your fault that only women can carry children, but it definitely *is* your fault if you try to restrict their right to bodily autonomy on that basis…. if that isn’t turning women into incubators then I don’t know what is!

Its not you Sarah??? Then what have you been saying ad nauseum for the last number of posts? Funnily enough I do agree that abortion services are required in this country but I have no problem in saying that we need absolute clarity on when, where and how those terminations will take place. I am happy to say I do not want abortion on demand up to birth which is what the likes of Ivana Bacik and Clare Daly campaign for although you don’t hear them say it too loudly.

I notice you avoided the second part of my post or would the healthy twin be considered something like collateral damage?

> Its not you Sarah??? Then what have you been saying ad nauseum for the last number of posts?

I’ve been saying that I am NOT an incubator for babies, but a fully autonomous person with a body that belongs to me and me alone.

> I am happy to say I do not want abortion on demand up to birth which is what the likes of Ivana Bacik and Clare Daly campaign for although you don’t hear them say it too loudly.

Firstly, both Ivana and Clare have LOUDLY WITH A MICROPHONE stated that they are in favour of abortion on demand. It isn’t an issue they are quiet about….. you can see them doing so in any of the pro-choice march videos which feature them…but I don’t think you understand what abortion on demand means, since you’ve randomly tagged ‘up to birth’ on there as if any country has elective abortion up until birth, when it simply isn’t so. Canada has 0 legal restrictions on abortion, but that doesn’t mean abortion is available ‘on demand up until birth’, simply that the law does not dictate the procedure and ethics of abortion, but rather the woman and her medical team.

> I notice you avoided the second part of my post or would the healthy twin be considered something like collateral damage?

I ignored it because it isn’t relevant to the abortion debate, but was a mistake made by doctors….. had they not made this mistake the ill twin would have been removed and the healthy twin would have survived. The fact that doctors are not infallible is not a reason to ban abortion. Unfortunately, people die at the hands of our medical system all the time… I wouldn’t call them ‘collateral damage’…. but our system isn’t perfect and we work with the best available technology and information. If we banned every procedure in which a life was lost no doctor would ever be able to practice medicine again!

We are clearly not going to agree on a whole lot of this, Sarah. Nature dictates that you are in fact an incubator for a certain period of time whether you like it or not.

I too have heard Bacik and Daly speak loudly but only to people at rallies. I have yet to hear either of them explain what they want on television where I expect their audience may be more critical.

I inserted the ‘up to birth’ bit because in my opinion there is never an excuse for late term abortion and I do not subscribe to the notion that it is better for the child that it be terminated because it will not have a decent life, will have health problems, will not have a ‘normal existence. I work with children and adults with varying levels of disability and their lives are by their own standards full and fruitful. By my standards that may not be the case but that is the way it is. I prefer to take my standards on abortion from this article by Prof John Crown who I think hits the nail on the head, in as much as you can. http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/doctors-need-to-join-in-the-embryo-debate-1318805.html

So the death of a baby was simply a mistake? Now this is somewhere we obviously completely disagree because in my view this was nothing short of infanticide and would be the same had it been the unlucky sick child that was injected.

> Nature dictates that you are in fact an incubator for a certain period of time whether you like it or not.

No, no it doesn’t. Nature dictates that I have the capability to carry another person inside mine, should I choose to.

> in my opinion there is never an excuse for late term abortion and I do not subscribe to the notion that it is better for the child that it be terminated because it will not have a decent life, will have health problems, will not have a ‘normal existence.

I don’t think you understand the reasons why abortions at such a late stage are performed: i.e. for *terminal* foetal abnormalities, or conditions that would make their lives literally torturous.

> I work with children and adults with varying levels of disability and their lives are by their own standards full and fruitful.

I’m not arguing that they aren’t. I’m a primary school teacher, and I’ve taught many children with varying levels of disability (including in special schools and special needs classes in mainstream schools).

> So the death of a baby was simply a mistake? Now this is somewhere we obviously completely disagree because in my view this was nothing short of infanticide and would be the same had it been the unlucky sick child that was injected.

‘Simply a mistake’ seems to me like an attempt to paint my position as one of carelessness. It was a mistake, and an *awful* one for doctors to make. You are entitled to your ‘view’…. you simply aren’t entitled to impose your view on another person in order to force them to support life with their body that they do not consent to support. You’re also free to take your opinions from the few anti-choice nutbag doctors that exist (according to his article, he would support taking women into custody in order to force them not to travel for the abortions they seek in the UK, and support the illegalisation of dissemination of abortion information full stop in Ireland)

Really Damien? Where is you’re evidence? Branson’s record is typically of buying an inefficient organization making it better for its consumers and profitable. The two scenarios can exist.

There is a docomentary on 4od for anyone who wants to see their take on branson & gp practices- dispaches – its called ‘getting rich on the nhs’

There are some upset patients whose services have been scaled back for the profit motive

Not sure what comment specifically of mine that you’re referring to, but thanks!

Read article. Quite clear.

Sorry my bad, agree, should headline read “remembers almost being arrested in 1990’s”?

Nothing about him nearly being arrested either. All it says is an organisation was convicted.

Yeah! Who the hell does Branson think he is with consumer space travel, superior transport services, and innovative media companies.

Leave it out Branson is wayyy cooler

Michael, if somebody wants to use my body to keep themselves alive, it doesn’t matter what their ‘opinion’ would hypothetically be (if they were sentient, which foetuses aren’t even remotely at the stage when over 90% of abortions take place), because only *I* get to choose whether or not I’ll allow somebody else to use my body to sustain their life.

What is difficult to understand about that?

not difficult to understand you at all, Sarah Lounsey Malone.
i understand you very well.
i’m very glad that my good mother was not like you.
in the event of some unlucky defenceless unborn baby “wanting to use your body to keep themselves alive”,
all i can say is –
may God help them.

Michael, you are free to believe what you would like, and to think I’d be a horrible person for denying use of my body to another being…. that’s fine. Judge away. It’s when you try to dictate what I do with my body that we have a problem. We don’t force people to donate organs or even blood without their consent even though people die in want of them all the time, and while I might resent those who can give blood and don’t, or those who choose not to donate organs, I would never be in favour of forcing those people to donate if they were unwilling to.

I’m sure you are very glad that your mother was not like me now… but if she had been you wouldn’t be here making this comment at all, as you would never have existed, so it’s kind of irrelevant.

@Michael O Toole
You seriously need to crawl back into whatever bible bashing time warped hole you emerged from, and maybe read up on the definition of bigotry while you’re in there. Cop on to reality, you’re comments are implying that myself and people who agree with my point of view are no better than murderers that babies “need to be protected” from. It’s people like you that make me form the opinion that men should not have a say over women’s choices on this matter. Your opinions are obviously religiously orientated and have no place in this discussion whatsoever. You completely disregard the woman in this argument, like the rest of the anti choice brigade.

Sarah Lounsey Malone:
you appear to be a very angry lady – sorry female
im certainly eternally grateful that my good mother was not like you.
if your good mother was like you, you mightn’t be so angry here, either,
it’s unfortunate for you that God or nature or whatever, arranged matters so that the “use of your body to another being” is fundamental to the survival of our species,
as is the case throughout the animal kingdom.
i don’t understand it
i’m not responsible for it
again – hopefully no unfortunate unborn baby will depend on “the use of your body”.
get over it.
have you ever tried anger management ?
you might find it helpful.

Mags Whelan:
wrong again
i not very religious at all – i haven’t read a bible since National School,
& i know what a bigot is.
& sorry – i will express my opinion,
& i will try to defend the unborn – be they male or female – it doesn’t matter to me,
against those who seek to kill them – be they male or female .

Why does his comments have to be religion related? You seriously think that there is not anti abortion people with that view for maybe the reason it’s inhumane to kill an unborn child? Not always about religion, pathetic the way people like u love to always push the issue that it is

@Michael O Toole
You’ve made it clear in previous posts that you views are religiously orientated, whether you realise that or not is another issue.
You have also made it clear that you don’t know what a bigot is as you called me one and never responded to my reply regarding it…slightly cowardly of such an opinionated person that you seem to think you are.
And finally, expressing your opinion does not give you the right to demean others who have different (and logical) opinion by associating them with murderers. Nobody is out to harm children or babies as you put it, mearly a cluster of cells. Your views are outdated in that they totally disregard the scientific side of the argument, the mother’s rights (as she is the fully formed, breathing human being) and the mental health of the mother, by harping on with oh the poor baby crap. Maybe you should have a quick look at a biology text book, and read up on the effects of ill mental health… maybe as the result of a pregnancy resulting from rape, or the loss of a partner due to her medical needs not being met thanks to anti choice people like you.

Michael, what about my points seems ‘angry’ to you? Or are you not used to women disagreeing with you and assume that any who do must be ‘angry females’?

The survival of ‘our species’ isn’t something that is my responsibility. I decide what purpose my life has, and I choose to use it to teach children and to fight for women’s rights to make the world a better place for the people who already live in it.

And sure, if my mother was like me I wouldn’t be here either…. but like I said already to you, thats not relevant. My mother chose to have me, and I’m grateful to her for carrying and raising me. I’m not sure how thats relevant to being pro-choice or not. Abortion is as old as time, and it being illegal does not reduce the amount of abortions that take place, it just makes it more difficult and dangerous for the women who *do* access it. What reduces abortion is education and access to contraception.

The human race is doing just fine in keeping itself going without me making any babies, and I’ll continue to try to make the world a better place for those future people.

@The kop

Yes, I did use my mothers body for 9 months, because she chose to let me. I’m very grateful for that. I’m not sure what your point is?

@ Mags Whelan
i told you earlier that i wasn’t very religious – but you tell me i’m “religiously orientated”, whatever that means.
what’s wrong about being … ahem …. “religiously orientated”, anyway ?

anyway Mags despite the fact that i have no … ahem … uterus, & that i’m …. ahem …. “religiously orientated”, i will continue to try & oppose those that seek to kill unborn babies, or “clusters of cells”, as you describe them.
BTW Mags – you & i can be described as “cluster of cells” too.

my sister has an uterus, & she’s more religious than me -
is it ok for her to be Pro Life & anti Abortion too ?

i watched the very moving interview with Parveen on RTE
BTW Mags, Parveen is a man of religious faigh, or “religiously orientated”,, as you might put it
hope you won’t hold that against him.

Guys should make every precaution, glove up every time then no need to maintenance

Those are 2 different things, Shane. Pregnancy happens inside a woman’s body, so it can only be her choice whether or not to use her body in this way to continue with the pregnancy. Maintenance and child support are for already born children, who deserve the support of both parents. I don’t know why people conflate these 2 issues or present them like they are analogous when they really aren’t at all.

Or if you don’t want to glove up, have a vasectomy.

I can only assume that the opposite to ‘gloving up’ is to keep your legs together or some such humorous quip?

I agree. Condoms ruin the feeling anyway.

Brace yourself Paddy the Red Thumbs are comin……

A mark of honour!

What are you on about? Is there anything in the article in particular that you disagree with, or are you happy enough just to chime in with tripe like the above every time this subject comes up?

paddy if you don’t want abortion then don’t have one. historically, the anti choice brigade have been on a downward spiral and when it hits the bottom then we can consider our society as a better place to live

The ‘pro-life’ lobby should be more accurately described as ‘pro-unborn’ as they don’t give two hoots for the living. Not surprising either that this ‘pro-unborn’ cult take their cue from the organisation that physically & sexually tortured thousands of Irish children in hell-holes. No surprise either that this organisation trafficked in Irish babies – born to women interned-for-life in other vile institutions.

What a nice-little-earner that was for that organisation: Their wealth and prestige build on the slave labour of children and the sale of babies.

Nuns Stores: The Difference Is We’re Hypocrites.

Actually Paddy, I’m in favour of legislation which would have guided medics and allowed them to be legally safe in saving Savita or prosecute them for inaction. If you’re not in favour of such legislation you’r less pro-life than me!

So many pro-life people coming out to defend a lack of legislation. Amazing – and disgusting.

@ SkepticallySpeaking
Love the name, could have used it myself. Lets just put your silly argument to bed; if I consider it ok to walk up to someone on the park bench and shoot them, why should you complain, if you disagree with me then don’t shoot anyone. My decisions are only my business!

@Paddy, that’s a bs argument and you know it. Shooting a randomer who has nothing to do with you and no bearing on your health or future life is not the same.

If this is as strong as your argument gets then you should ask your parents before posting!

In Savita’s case it appears that medics stood by as she writhed in agony. If that is the case then these medics should have their foreheads tattooed with the warning: Will Let Pregnant Women Die in Order To Uphold Medieval Catholic Ethos.

Paddy — The key difference, I think, between and anti-choice person like yourself, and those of us who are pro-choice, is that we think women should have bodily autonomy and you don’t. Your example about shooting someone makes no sense.

What’s your opinion on Euthanasia, God? Sorry, I mean Paddy?

I’m late to this party……. What’s Paddy on about? Or is he just a troll?

Kind-of ironic that you call yourself “pro-life”, isn’t it?

“I’m late to this party……. What’s Paddy on about? Or is he just a troll?”

Worse. He’s one of the God squad, and a professional one at that:

http://www.catholiccomment.ie/speakers/

@Paddy:

Paddy, the only ‘drip drip drip’ round here is from the blood people like you have on your hands this week.

@Simon, it wasn’t easy for the medics involved, I can assure you. I have worked in many countries and the same thing rings out: no medic will put their job on the line because of limiting laws, I have to say, given how hard I have worked for my career I’d be inclined to agree with them.

Branson is a cockknocker

Paddy, why exactly are your decisions your own concern, but you want to make a decision on behalf of the women of this country? We are not idiots that need god squad to make our decisions for us.

@ Tomy Iona
Hi, I am also in favour of legislation, as are most pro-life advocates. But of course that should not include, nor does it necessitate, legislating for abortion. The medical councils guidelines as currently in operation are excellent, and supported by over 90% of the relevant medical professionals. When the mothers life is in danger (not perceived danger, or a perceived threat of suicide), the child should should be removed, even though this will lead to the death of the child if before 20 weeks. The doctors agree with this, and so does the church. It is not considered an abortion, as the motivation for the procedure was necessary for the mother, and not just to destroy the child. I believe there were 18 such cases in the last year. The system can work.
But as you know today, people mix up the X case directive, with a demand by the courts for abortion. This is a convenient/mischievous misreading, but we are required to codify the guidelines here into legislation, if possible.
Savita story, is a desperate double tragedy. But I’d prefer to await a proper investigation into the facts. If the Irish times report was true, then someone should retire in shame, but I’m afraid the times is not likely to miss an opportunity to make the pro-life position look bad, and if in six months time, when we know the facts, their account of the incident is disproved, then the desired damage will have been inflicted, and the populous moved on to other issues.

Supported by 90% means nothing versus being the one who has to make a decision.

The constitution was amended 20 years ago and is subjective. In truth we do actually need a re-write of that amendment as it is not clear and not decisive.

Until then we need legislation to allow medical professionals to do their jobs without fear of repercussions.

See what happens when you don’t have condoms……U2…

@ Petr Tarasov
Sorry I’ve being out for awhile. Well of course bodily autonomy is very important, and if you wish to take out your appendix, please go ahead, it is after all your body. As for a baby, it has its own bodily autonomy, that is not yours!
It’s always amusing how we cringe if we see an expectant mum, smoking or downing the shots, but we justify abortion! We are so expert at deceiving ourselves, can’t see our own double standards

@ Emer Branigan
Hi Emer, I hope to stick to this mortal cloak for another while D.V.
If you are really pro women, it it worth considering why abortion is now the main tool used in gender selection, and that is heavily weighed anti woman and pro man. Perhaps I love your gender more than you?

Paddy, nobody is allowed to live or be inside my body without my express ongoing consent, or to use my body to keep themselves alive. No born person has this right, so why would an unborn person have it?

@ Sarah Lounsey Malone
You are very clear in your position Sarah. Thanks for acknowledging the personhood of the unborn. I’d recommend celibacy, even though its not my choice. The “use your body” comment is a bit extreme however, what is the purpose of the womb, sex, love, etc. Are we so bloated by the power we claim over life and death, that we view ourselves as gods? Woe to us indeed.
Paul VI prophetic utterances on contraception have surely come home to roost. Some now predict, and I don’t know how correct they may be, that in fifty years from now, abortion and contraceptives will again be outlawed by society, out of necessity

[Posted this comment in the wrong place originally, maybe a mod could remove the first one? Apologies!]

@ Paddy – a few things
> Thanks for acknowledging the personhood of the unborn.

For the record, I do not recognise the personhood of the unborn…. but since it is irrelevant to the reasons I am pro-choice I am happy to debate on that basis with somebody who does.

> The “use your body” comment is a bit extreme however

In what way is it ‘extreme’? My body parts don’t have a ‘purpose’, they simply are… and they are mine. We don’t compel people to donate organs or even blood without their consent, even though people die in want of them all the time… because it is each person’s individual decision whether or not they wish to use their body to keep another alive. As for the ‘purpose’ of sex, well that is a very subjective thing. For me, personally, it strengthens the bond I have with my partner when we express intimacy physically. I cannot for the life of me see why I should be celibate for life if I don’t want children (and do you also suggest that women who have already had all the children they wish to have simply never sleep with their husbands again until they reach menopause?)

> Some now predict, and I don’t know how correct they may be, that in fifty years from now, abortion and contraceptives will again be outlawed by society, out of necessity.

Those people are wrong. Outlawing abortion does not reduce abortion rates, and outlawing contraceptions *increases* unwanted pregnancies as opposed to decreasing them…. Ireland has a normal rate of abortion as compared to other countries…. our abortions usually just don’t happen here in Ireland.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt on the good faith nature of your argument for a moment here, and suggest that you read this article, written by a former pro-life activist about her realisations that if the movement were about ‘saving babies’ and reducing abortion as it purports to be (as opposed to controlling women) then they would not choose they methods they currently do (attempting to stigmatise and ban abortion, shaming women for consensual sex etc). I’d love to hear your thoughts: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

Paddy it is as hard for me to respect your opinion when you bring religion into the picture as it is for you to respect the pro-choice argument. Probably doesn’t bother you in the slightest, but just a heads up as I am sure many others feel the same.

@ Saoirse Smith
Hi Saoirse, I hope I haven’t disrespected your opinion anywhere. I value all those who comment, red or green thumbed, for the same reason as I’m pro-life, you are unique and important. Disregarding a comment because it has a religious content, is I suppose narrowing ones sphere of questions to be considered. Many do believe in purging society of moral arguments, unless of course those morals can be shown to be secular. I wonder how pleasant it would be to live with an uninformed conscience?

Paddy seriously like my near 7 yr old talks more sense

> Many do believe in purging society of moral arguments, unless of course those morals can be shown to be secular.

That is the only proper way to conduct a society with differing religious views. How a God that I don’t believe exists feels about issues is never something that will be relevant to me. If it is relevant to your personal position, that is your right…. but we don’t live in a theocracy. If the only argument against something is ‘God says so’, then you need a better argument… and if there are other arguments besides ‘God said so’ then you should be using those instead rather than appealing to the authority of a deity that not everybody believes in.

Any thoughts on that article? or on any of my points?

Indeed you are right Paddy, it is narrowing one’s sphere of questions to be considered – I at first considered the religious argument, and then ruled it out as I see it as being of no direct importance in this issue. Morals are formed by family and society and personal experience, not by religion, so while I agree that there are moral issues to be considered, religion is irrelevant in this case. I respect your right to have religious beliefs, even if I don’t respect your religion itself, I just don’t see how it has any weight here, when the morals you think you developed from it were in fact developed elsewhere, when you think about it?

@ Sarah Lounsey Malone
Sarah, you seem to be, from my perspective, a fallacy magnet.
At least not accepting the personhood, is consistent with the rest of your points. It is of course the pivoting point of the whole debate. I accept fertilisation as the new life, you and many others believe in moving goalposts, many post birth, and also perhaps an upper limit. I was accused of being god earlier, but my view is far to simple and fixed in relation to personhood, fertilisation to natural death. And then it’s only really starting!
As i said above, your appendix, and indeed any other organ are yours, but a baby is literally in a whole new category.
Your casual separation of sex from procreation is of course the quagmire society jumped into bed with when it accepted the contraceptive nirvana. The bonding without the fruit, sex without responsibility. The key phrase really is an openness to new life. Blocking this possibility of life, artificially, is where the problem lies. So the elder couple are not deliberately preventing conception or implantation.
I don’t agree with your take on statistics. There are now more killed by abortion than when abortion was illegal worldwide. Contraceptives are widely used, and there are more unwanted pregnancies than ever. The same is true of STDs.
In my view, not only is abortion not good for the cause of women, but it is anti-womanhood. It takes a great gift unique to women, the ability to carry and nurture a child, and says, am I bothered!

I think if I may say that having read the majority of your comments that you are very lucky that your mother didn’t feel the same about you…. You did after all use her body to stay alive for 9 months… But that thought I guess never entered your mind…

In reply to Sarah … Not you saoirse

Paddy, you would have been one of the guys my gran warned me about, in 1975 my mum got pregnant with me, my biological father was married, while my mum was a very nieve 21yr old, she was nearly sent to somewhere where I would have been adopted but my grand dad stopped it, and basically told tell where to go, which I am pretty great full for because my family to a certain point are pretty liberal, I could have been adopted in to some bloody staunch catholic family which I don’t think I would of survived, even back in the 80′s they backed Divorce, were pro choice and pretty much in touch with reality, sadly there are people who are so twisted in there outlook, my gran had a hard life as a woman, she was treated as a carrier of baby’s, churched after them, and completely unequal to her husband,and why Because that’s what the church wanted.

@ âš¡Wynnnerâš¡
I wonder does it run in your family. I’m sure I could learn much from him, from the mouths of babes… Etc. it’s us adults have s problem recognising common (not) sense.
@ Sarah Lounsey Malone
I’m also glad I don’t live in a theocracy. I never used the “god said so argument”.
@ Saoirse Smith
It is true that many of the morals societies practice have natural origins. Which is why non Christian societies may deduce them. As a Christian we say there are two great witnesses to god, scripture and nature. What makes us unique as a species (gods image and likeness) is our ability to reason and arrive at such morals, even if we don’t know, or deny, God. So the atheist is well capable of being pro-life by reason

@ âš¡Wynnnerâš¡
An interesting story. I hope neither my bark, nor my byte, would warrant your gran warning you about me. I expect your family was great however not because of their liberal views, but because they wanted you and loved you. If they were truly liberal back then, just as today, I’m afraid you would not be alive.
In relation to your grans experience of churching etc. we must be careful when seeing yesterday through today’s glasses.

@ Sarah Lounsey Malone
Hi Sarah, I eventually got to look at the blog you posted, just before ZZZzzzz….
Very little new in it, but just one or two points to consider. It has been estimated that, allowing for Irish abortions in England, and based on the take up in abortions where allowed abroad, it has been estimated that the 1983 amendment has already saved 50,000 lives in Ireland.
The writer tells her “conversion” story, but I feel we are not getting the full picture.
She mentions Roe V Wade, it’s worth noting that Roe who wanted the abortion is no converted to Catholicism and a big pro-lifer.
I would also like to remind people, especially men who encourage their partners to take the pill, that the WHO classified it as a class 1 carcinogen in 2005, up there with asbestos and smoking.

Paddy get a life would you. Thankfully fossils like you are a dwindling minority in Irish society.

@ Niall
The old hit and run comment. When I saw it you had one thumb up, I wonder where that came from. I’ve earned the 940 thumbs down I had for the opening comment. That’s a genuine reflection of the partisan views expressed here. It matches the view promoted by the articles presented. If you note the article above was presented and supported by the journalist. However in the later article where the bishops view is presented, a counter view is also presented in the item. Fair and balanced, just like us the consumers!

What necessity?

I gave you a red thumb for the craic paddy. #yolo

@ Francie mc nally
Much appreciated Francie, my ego knows no bounds according to many. Hope you enjoyed the banter, we all learn from such exchanges. Let the few not be silent, or like the much maligned sheep, the red thumbed may just follow each other off of a cliff. Respect for life is the cliff in this instance, and if we follow our neighbours to the east and west, we can see its very hard to reverse the damage.

> It has been estimated that, allowing for Irish abortions in England, and based on the take up in abortions where allowed abroad, it has been estimated that the 1983 amendment has already saved 50,000 lives in Ireland.

Source?

> it’s worth noting that Roe who wanted the abortion is no converted to Catholicism and a big pro-lifer.

Why is that worth noting?

> the WHO classified it as a class 1 carcinogen in 2005, up there with asbestos and smoking.

Source?

> There are now more killed by abortion than when abortion was illegal worldwide.

Source?

And I don’t think you understood my organs comment. I’m not comparing a baby to organs, I’m talking about my womb as a body part like an organ. Nobody would be forced to give an organ to another person against their will to keep that person alive, so (assuming foetus is a person) why would an unborn person have a right to use my womb or be inside my body without my consent, when no born person has that right?

Also, you mentioned ‘fallacies’. If I’ve made any logical fallacies in my comments please feel free to point them out… there’s no point in saying ‘fallacies!’ without any back up or pointing to any of the relevant parts of the *very* long post I took time and effort typing to which you still haven’t mustered a substantial response of any kind.

@ Sarah Lounsey Malone
Lets try some math, just approximates.
Uk abortions 192K annually in a population of 62.5M. Therefore 192000*100/62500000 =
0.304% of the UK population killed annually.
Ireland abortions 5K population 4M.
5000*100/4000000=
0.125% of the Irish population.
Saved annually by 1983 amendement = 0.304-0.125=
0.179% of population=7160 persons saved annually in Ireland.
= 207640 since 1983.
Makes the published estimate of 50000 look conservative doesn’t it?

WHO are the world health organisation. Google for more info.

Paddy, it seems from the ‘stats’ you’ve posted that you assume that because abortion is illegal it doesn’t happen here. If you’d even remotely read the article I posted (which I’m beginning to suspect you haven’t) you’d know that legal restrictions on abortion do not reduce abortion. 150,000 women have travelled to the UK for abortion since 1980 (12 still travel every day) and others abort at home with pills from Women on Web. Irish abortion exists, its just that most of our abortions are not performed here, and those that are happen at home where they cannot be recorded. We actually have a completely normal rate of abortion as compared to other countries.

For somebody giving it loads about statistics in earlier comments you certainly don’t seem to have a notion how they work! =P

@ Sarah Lounsey Malone
Well Sarah I did read the article, but you need to understand I don’t accept everything I read as fact. The “facts” as laid out in the article amount to the biggest load of rubbish I have read for awhile, it was only bested by “The god delusion”. To the best of my knowledge there are very few back street abortions in Ireland, there would be some self induced, but few as the risks are very high. So apart from the 4700 who went abroad, there are not so many others. I am not admittedly counting the multitude following the morning after pill, but these are not counted in the UK either. So in conclusion the lack of ability to get abortions, has curbed our appetite for abortion and the sexual risks we take. Yes there are no doubt more than the 5000 I allowed, but lets stick with published figures and avoid the speculation. The figure I used in my calculations of accumulated abortions was 145000. I don’t accept the concept of a “natural” level of abortion, just like I don’t accept we do nothing about road accident deaths, or that it is for a moment acceptable to support genocide against any others on the basis of colour, creed, age of dependency. As for my ability or otherwise with stats, I think my professor passing my exams was sufficient for me to get by.
This discussion is well dissected, and we are left discussing our views together, so with your permission ill now finish.
I hope life works out well for you Sarah.

> there would be some self induced, but few as the risks are very high.

This is a lie. Abortion drugs are very safe to use before 10 weeks gestation.

> I am not admittedly counting the multitude following the morning after pill,

Why would you count that considering that the morning after pill is not an abortifacient?

> So in conclusion the lack of ability to get abortions, has curbed our appetite for abortion and the sexual risks we take.

This is also untrue. In Africa, where abortion is completely illegal, they have one of the highest rates of abortion in the world. Canada, which has no legal restrictions on abortion (but comprehensive access to sex education and birth control) has one of the lowest.

> I don’t accept the concept of a “natural” level of abortion, just like I don’t accept we do nothing about road accident deaths

That isn’t why I brought up our totally average amount of abortions…. but rather to illustrate the (well sourced fact, go have a look at that article again, lots of links to sources there) fact that restrictive abortion laws do not reduce the demand for abortion.

You don’t need my permission to stop responding to me. Go right ahead.

You still haven’t answered my question as to why an unborn person should have the right to be inside another person or make use of their internal organs without the other persons consent, considering the fact that no born person has that right…. but that’s ok, thats just one of the many points I raised that you haven’t addressed at all.

@The kop

Yes, I did use my mothers body for 9 months, because she chose to let me. I’m very grateful to her for that. I’m not sure what your point is?

Paddy, I fail to see how you love my gender more than I do.

You are aware I’m sure that gender selection has been going on for thousands of years. In ancient Rome it was common practice to dump baby girls in the nearest dump from where a lot of these babies were then taken by men to brothels to be brought up as prostitutes?

The fact that I am pro choice means the exact opposite, I love my gender and that is why I agree that there should be choice for us.

In places like China where they use abortions if the child is not the right sex, it is a cultural issue because a son lives with his parents and looks after them in old age, the daughter marries a man and does the same but with her husbands parents.

Now if I lived in China and was being faced with this issue I may have a different opinion.

But the fact of the matter is I don’t live in China, we don’t have the same issue culturally that places like China and India do and women have the right to choose what happens with their own bodies. I am not a religious person and would much rather that religion had no place in this argument, but it does, personally I would much rather that all the men of the catholic church kept their minds out of my uterus and were more concerned with the state of their church and the thousands of people they abused physically and mentally.

@ Sarah Lounsey Malone
Hi again Sarah, now that we are left on our own, I would make one or two additional points.
Our basic philosophies are poles apart. I have a Christian view of myself and you. I value you because god made you, and your future is forever. Your view of yourself is more utilitarian, and to me very narcissistic. You detach from your sexual activity all the parts I value, its fruitfulness, unconditional giving, its social contribution as the next generation, its cooperation with god etc. And it is reduced to the pleasure it gives ME, MY body, MY choice and what is at my convenience.
The article you had I read, which nicely aligned with your views, and which you expect to convince me of my errors, is rubbish, because the bedrock on which it lies does not value the life of the baby in the womb. This was the fundamental shift by the author in going pro-abortion, if the article was genuine. I quoted the Jane Roe ( Norma McCorvey) story to point out that there are thousands of examples of persons going in the opposite direction to the author of your article. If you want to see more then look up an organisation called Rachel’s vineyard.
But our two philosophies lead to many clashes in view. I believe in life from conception, so when the morning after pill prevents implantation that is an abortion, and I do know it sometimes acts as a traditional contraceptive, it is designed to both stop ovulation and to make the uterus unsuitable for implantation.

You ask why the unborn person has a right to live inside of you? Well you gave it that right when you had sex.
I’m sure you know your mother better than I do, but, may I suggest you are putting your words into your mothers mouth. Most of her generation respected life once conceived, so you still live irregardless of any inconvenience to her.
Another tactic you seem to have learned from the atheist who use it often, is the belief that in asking the question, where is that quote from, or prove that to my satisfaction, that you are somehow disproving the point of view offered. Unfortunately for people who turn their backs on god and nature, no proof will suffice, no amount of persuasion will convince. Your point of view is utilitarianism because its moral worth is determined only by the resulting outcome, the child gone from the womb. The unwelcome/rejected fruit of ones own actions.
The availability of contraceptives leads to more casual sex. The availability of abortion leads to more sexual activity, and more abortion than would otherwise occur. This is so basic in human nature, its hard to understand how you don’t see it. Like many other things I presume you don’t accept it because its an inconvenient truth.

@ Emer Branigan
Well Emer, my view is that abortion is a disaster for society, but for women in particular. I do know that gender selection always happened, that does not make it right, but it is now much more widespread, and facilitated by abortion.
Abortion is the dream solution for the eugenicist, the racialist, the upwardly mobile, and men who see women objectively. Many women of course also see it as a form of “freedom”. I see this as licence not freedom. Women,and men, take licence when they choose to take another life, for convenience.
You say we don’t have the same issues as china and that is correct. We do share the problem however that we are culturally breeding ourselves out of existence. With reproductive rates well below the 2.1 we are destroying our societies. You might like to look up “The Demographic Winter”, a chilling documentary.
I give no apology for being catholic, old, or a man. You are well able to discuss issues, so try to keep an open mind. No uterus no view, is a view that again cheapens the beauty and uniqueness of womanhood. Throwing in the abuses that occurred in the church, is irrelevant, and says “shut uppa your face”. So I will.

I didn’t have any right to live from my mothers internal organs….she gave me permission to, which I’m grateful for. And I can be sure because my Mother and I have had many conversations on the subject in which she shared that myself and my siblings were all planned pregnancies…. and, of course, because she didn’t seek abortion when she found out she was pregnant with me.

i with that… i guess your one of the lucky ones… to have a great mother/woman who cared about humanity and the life of at that time her unborn child….. a child that had to depend on her mother to protect her and care for her while in her womb….
feeling that i don’t think managed to get passed on to your good self…… you give a baby permission to use your body to grow and be loved when you have sex and get pregnant…… if you don’t want a baby then there is a thing called contraception…and maybe you should think about sterilization…..

My mother is pro-choice, The kop, can you even read? She CHOSE to carry me inside her, and I am grateful for that. It was nothing to do with ‘the humanity of the unborn’, but her personal decision to create and bear a child… and I certainly prefer that than I would the thought that my mother carried me out of a sense of obligation instead. And she has raised me the exact same way: to believe that I am an autonomous individual capable of making my own decisions about my body, life and fertility. I am grateful to her for that too.

> you give a baby permission to use your body to grow and be loved when you have sex and get pregnant

How? Saying that giving consent for one person to be inside you is the same as implied consent for a person to live in you for 9 months is both ridiculous *and* really really rapey. If somebody wants to be in me I have to give them my express ongoing consent. Again, why would an unborn person have the right to be inside me even though I’m saying ‘I do not want this person inside of my body’, when no born person has that right (and would in fact be called a rapist if they attempted to be inside me without my OK)

> if you don’t want a baby then there is a thing called contraception

Contraception is not 100% effective. Some women are raped, some women get cancer, some women have fetuses incompatible with life, some women develop health problems that would make carrying to term dangerous for their life.

> and maybe you should think about sterilization

Nope. I might want to have children some day…. but not today, or any time soon…. not that my reproductive organs are *any* of your business.