Just typical of the pro-lifers tactics, I’m sick of living in a country thats in the dark ages when it comes to these issues

exactly. Is it normal?

Another form of child abuse

I’d rather live in the dark ages. I lost all my respect for liberals after listening to newstalk the other day. They where talking about pregnant women smoking, saying how bad it is when someone texted in “as a liberal and pro-choice, I have no problem with a pregnant women smoking”. Sickos!

That was probably a Guerilla pro lifer. Liberal doesn’t mean reckless.

@Sean If one fringe opinion is enough for you to lose all respect for the entire group, then it’s reasonable to assume you didn’t have a lot of respect to begin with.

I’d imagine they grasp the concept to the same degree as members of the hitler youth understood genocide…

I had. That was just the last bit of it though.

Sorry Andrew but if anything pro-choicers are more like the nazis than the pro-lifers.

Andrew Telford, Your comment is grotesque, ignorant and offensive. You let down your side of the debate.

Don’t forget they can self medicate ordering the drugs over the net, taking them unsupervised and risking complications…

We really are in the dark ages when it comes to women’s rights and equality

People can cook crack at home too, will we legalise it to stop them doing that?

We really aren’t in the dark ages, and with your comparisons to Nazis and medieval times you just sound overly dramatic. You’re reaching for the extreme to stifle debate

Crack… Is crack cocaine, which is the derivative of the coca plant which cannot be synthesized…. You’re thinking of meth sweetheart…

And the refrence, which obviously went far far over your tiny mind was to the indoctrination of children

The synthesisation process is caled cooking, is that ok sugarplum?

I know exactly what you were doing, you were following Godwin’s Law to the letter

Can you read?

We’ve already had more than one referendum. Funny how people who call themselves liberal are outraged at having two votes on Nice but demand votes on abortion until they get the answer they want.

Tell me, if abortion were approved in a referendum would we keep having them to see if the country had changed it’s mind again?

The last referendum allowed for abortion in certain circumstances, the Irish people voted FOR that, it just hasn’t been ratified. We (the pro-choicers) did get the answer we wanted. The next logical step once that is passed into law would be a referendum on abortion on demand. You seem to be a bit behind on what’s going on here, Chuck.

@Chuck Farrelly There is a big difference about being asked to vote again after a couple of weeks and 12 years. The electorate now is completely different to the electorate that was around for the last vote 12 years ago. I for one, as a nineteen year old student, would love to express my opinion on this issue on the ballot paper which I was unable to do so 12 years ago.

Sam Rhodes, At least you’re honest about what you want, unlike so many “exceptional circumstances” pro-choicers.

Actually it was the right to travel and information in the two referenda followed by certain circumstances in the X decision which has yet to be legislated on post ECHR ruling / pedantry

So one every 12 years then Gavin is it? Unto infinity?

Like I said before Chuck, the electorate changes and so does their views. It is important that the constitution reflects the views of the people and doesn’t become outdated. The current electorate, under the age of 38/39 have not expressed their opinions on this issue and I am sure you love to.

Hi all,

Just to add some information to the debate here. The two referendum that have been held on abortion issues in Ireland did not ask the electorate whether it should be introduced in Ireland.

The first in 1992 asked whether women should be legally allowed to travel for an abortion and whether information could be provided about abortion legally to women. Both were passed. A third question posed – if passed – would have excluded suicide as a legitimate risk to the woman’s life so in fact would have rolled back the Supreme Court ruling in the X Case. The electorate voted against such a move.

That third question was put to the electorate again in 2002. Less than 50 per cent of registered voters turned up at the polls and the motion failed again.

Hope that clears up some of the confusion. The Government is now under pressure from the European Court to bring legislation forward which will allow for the Supreme Court ruling – ie a woman has the right to an accessible abortion in Ireland when there is a risk to her life (including when that risk is suicide).

Thanks,
Sinead

Blah blah, no-one has a right to an opinion unless they are pro-abortion, not kids, not men, not anyone. I’ve been to lots of marches on issues like the Iraq war, austerity, Shell etc. Saw kids there too, no one was complaining.

@Ursula Most of those kids look young enough to think abortion involves going out with a shotgun and shooting down storks. They’re not there for their opinions, they are there for emotional blackmail.

“Using children to hold placards at protests reminds me of what those Westboro Baptist Church crazies get up to. Not a desirable comparison”

Also, not an accurate one. One group honestly believes that abortion is murder and protests in a public space in an effort to preserve life (regardless of whether you agree). The other intentionally seeks out funerals to make the bereaved feel worse than they already do by assuring the grieving parents that their gay/soldier son is currently being torn apart in a lake of sulphor

Extraordinarily well said. Excellent points.

Seconded!

Absolutely! Well said .

Bravo Brian,brilliant comment

Incidentally I was once hassled by this crowd leaving the IFPA. After an exchange of words I went to the Gardai who did move them on. At that time the IFPA had a barring order against Youth Defence. I don’t know if it’s still in place but it’s always worth notifying the authorities. They tended to target the IFPA weekend mornings to stop women getting access to the morning after. Charming bunch of people.

Very, very, very well said.

Dissenting comment above. “You must log in to comment” strikes again.

Did a single person on this board say anything against abortion on religious grounds?

No. That would be far too honest for them.

You can tell it’s 2012 as it’s only about 14 people and a handful of kids too young to know what’s going on

Hmmm, Youth Defence had 8000 people on a march last year.
The pro-aborts had about 50 screaming loons.
I think it’s easy to see who has public support. If it wasn’t for the ridiculous media support abortion campaigners get no-one would even be aware of them.

Very good point, even though abortion is not for me I voted for a change in the constituton in last referendum as I believe it is an individual choice

@ Rob Power, I think you will find it is people under the age of 19…I think

I’m in my 30s and I’ve never got to vote on it..

The way things are at the present time in this country any girl or woman who can afford it can travel to obtain an abortion. This leaves the less well off with NO CHOICE. Once again a class division.

12 year olds can be tried as adults, 16 year olds can get married, 17 year olds can have sex…..and you’re worried about them expressing an opinion?

And anyone who drinks is endorsing reckless sex?

Wow, just wow.

@Chuck, I think your missing the point of what I’m saying. I don’t think everyone is a wreckless drinker, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but some people, young and old don’t seem to really know the issues they’re campaigning for/against. There’s no point in protesting for something like abortion though if you are not able to imagine yourself in the situation of others as well. Practice what you preach.

You preach education and PRESUME to know that they have none

@Chuck, I didn’t presume that those girls in particular haven’t been educated, which has nothing to do with it. But, there are people like that. I was just using that as an example. I think everyone is entitled to express their opinion, I just think it’s un-wise to do so if it conflicts with what you do or maybe don’t fully understand the various arguments and facts involved in the protest.
I did have a problem however with young children being brought there to protest when they aren’t able to form an opinion of their own seeing as they have only gotten out of nappies.

Exactly, you used them as an example! There’s nothing hypocritical about being against abortion and drinking. That’s extraordinarily narrow-minded.

Chuck, you’re making no sense, clearly just looking for an argument.

my thoughts exactly….

Michael: We could say the same thing about any human rights abuse that doesn’t affect us personally. With the greatest of respect, it’s a bit of a cop out.

What about post-birth termination, also known as infanticide. Should that be a personal choice? If the answer is yes, where then do we draw the line???

@AlMar, please read what I said. ABORTION, I never mentioned post-birth termination, and stop bringing in seperate issues, Human Rights is not mentioned and is a different topic.

But Michael, it is all of one piece.

Abortion is a human rights issue. If you believe that the human right to life is compromised by abortion, then you cannot believe that you have no right to express (or in your words, inflict) an opinion in this matter.

Similarly, if you believe infanticide is wrong, then it would be bizarre to say that the law should not “inflict” an opinion on this issue by banning it. And so too with every other issue under the sun.

The law always “inflicts an opinion” on every issue, either by banning it or allowing it. And let us remember, the toleration of abortion “inflicts” a rather fatal opinion on the unborn, eradicating all his/her human rights.

So…human rights only refer to the unborn…please get your arguemant in perspective, and I said “inflict” my opinions on others not, not inflict in the context you have assumed, please get it in your head we cannot impose our opinions on others,

@AlMar, Either you don’t understand or you don’t want to, abortion is technically legal in this country under certain limited circumstances, the law just hasn’t been ratified yet. Infanticide is the murder of an infant, this is obviously illegal. What we’re discussing here is a moot point as it’s already been decided to be made legal, its just the exact laws that have yet to be finalised. Judging by your avatar you’re male, as am I, so we’re never going to need an abortion but if our daughters, should they fall into the category of someone who MAY require an abortion, will have that option. If you’rs feels she can’t for religious reasons, thats her choice, but she has the choice.
It would be absurd for me to demand that your daughter MUST have an abortion if its revealed her foetus has a deformity, because of my religious views, its just as absurd for you to say my daughter can’t have an abortion because you disagree with it. That is where I draw the line.

But Michael the pro-choice alliance would argue that one does ‘inflict’ more than ones opinion on others when one chooses to have an abortion, that opinion, and subsequent consequence, being the termination of the life of a child.

The whole argument is that Human Rights SHOULD apply to the unborn, the most important of which is the right to life.

Michael – I never said that human rights only relate to the unborn. I cannot see how you came to that idea from my post.

Can you not also see that other people’s opinions are imposed on us all the time. Every single law is the imposition of someone’s opinion on someone else. Laws against theft impose respect for private property on would be thieves. Laws against sexual abuse impose respect for children on paedophiles. Laws requiring requiring car safety impose the NCT on drivers. And so on, in every aspect of life.

Michael – the imposition of someone’s opinion is inevitable on every issue, and saying that you don’t want to impose an opinion is a cop out.

Sam that is a good contribution unlike some of the dross that has gone above. You seem to “know something” about this issue so can you answer a question if you can for me. You mentioned in a previous post Life threatening conditions, what are they? This is a serious question do you mean cancer, pre eclampsia or something else?

I believe that is currently being defined by the expert group set up to agree the wording of the legislation in the wake of the ECHR ruling. One of the cases before the ECHR involved a woman with aggressive cancer who under Irish law couldn’t be treated while pregnant, without treatment she would die. She travelled to the UK for an abortion. The ECHR ruled the state acted in violation of her human rights by not providing her with an abortion which in her case she was entitled to in the wake of the (non-ratified) post X case referendum.

Thank you Sam for posting. Hopefully the expert group will bring some clarity to some of the complex issues that arise rather than an uninformed debate taking place in virtual vacumn which is where we are now. BTW I always thought that while the rights to info & travel amendments were passed that the substantive proposals were voted down effectively meaning that the 1983 amendment still stood but maybe in my old age I am wrong!

My friend had her womb cauterised for endometriosis, as she is very fertile she was fitted with a minerva because if she gets pregnant it will kill her.
Not all women are fitted with Minerva after cauterisation, as it usually renders the woman infertile, but if you manage to get pregnant after this procedure it will be a “life threatening situation”.

Sorry, yes, you’re right, that should have read post X case ruling, not referendum. The expert group is to agree the wording of the legislation resulting from the Supreme Court decision:
the proper test to be applied is that if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40, s.3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution (Finlay CJ, [37])
Now 20 years old but still not legislated for.

thanks for the posts Sam & Shanti, I am wiser this morning about that particular line of arguement in the debate than I was yesterday.

The fact that people do it anyway isn’t a good reason to legalise it.

Murder, theft, rape – all prohibited and all still happening. Should we legalise those? There’s obviously a demand!

Sam most comments on this site are from men full stop. Not just against abortion. Here’s some women who don’t like it if that makes you feel better http://www.feministsforlife.org/

Never mind the human body’s natural form of abortion. Why has no one mentioned that nature will give us an abortion if our body feels we aren’t up to the task of having a child. Nature doesn’t give a flying fuck about our idealistic, romantic view of the human “soul”. If nature feels we aren’t capable of pregnancy, it takes care of it.

Some people (not me) don’t believe that there’s ever a medical threat to the mother’s life. I’ve never heard a doctor say that though. There’s one poster here called Hanly Sheelagh who feels that way and is the only one who isn’t an idealogue, so if you want to understand I’d recommend his/her(?) posts

Abi the X case pertained to the threat of suicide which is exactly how abortion on demand was introduced to Britain. I am not saying that I am pro choice or life just that legislating on the X case alone will lead to liberalised abortion.

UK abortion legislation doesn’t mention suicide. Legislation was introduced in 1967 largely to prevent backstreet abortion. The 1967 Act states Two doctors must certify that to continue with the pregnancy would be detrimental to the woman’s physical or mental health. The Post X case referendum referred to threat to life of the woman including suicide, not only suicide. The notion that threat of suicide is subjective and therefore stealth legalisation is a favourite scare tactic of the anti-choice movement.

41% of pregnancies in New York City end in abortion. Gender-selection is rampant in China and India and reportedly available to some in Britain. Viewed in global terms abortion is one of the great threats to women.

If you have had to have your womb cauterised for endometriosis and you get pregnant it can kill you. There are cases where pregnancy can be a threat to the mother..

What, the pro-lifers suddenly started caring about women? That is a turn up for the books.

Sam Rhodes, I believe that a review of the comments on this thread would show that most of the nastiness comes from your side. People called “products”, abortion compared to fly-swatting, pro-lifers compared to the Hitler Youth , deeply and sincerely-held views dismissed as superstition.Reasoned arguments dodged. The exceptional presented as the norm. So why don’t you keep a lid on the insults and address the points. Since you’re so superior it should be easy for you.

I haven’t insulted anyone today. I haven’t made any of the comments you refer to. I have a sincere and deeply held belief that the anti-choice movement cares little for women given their continuing efforts to criminalise, shame and harass them and I am absolutely entitled to express that belief.

Being for abortion is not the same as caring about women. I raised two factual issues, the rate of abortion in New York and gendercide. Why don’t you try addressing them? That would be proper debate.

I am not ‘for abortion’. I am pro choice. I believe every woman everywhere should have the right to choose if and when to carry a child to term based on her circumstances, wishes, situation and that ultimately it is entirely up to her and not my business, yours or anyone else’s.

Issues of sex selective abortion and female infanticide have nothing to do with debate around abortion in this country and to introduce them as such is disingenuous. I believe every woman should have the right to abortion. I equally believe no woman should be coerced into abortion against her will.

The NY figures are interesting. I would be equally interested to see the Liverpool figures for the UK given it’s the first port of call for women travelling from Ireland. NY is a major population centre. Abortion in America is under attack from the right. Women are having to travel to access services in the US too, not least to dodge protestors and those who think that blowing up clinics and assassinating doctors is god’s will. That’s a fairly damning indictment of the anti-choice brigade’s attitude to women I’d wager.

@Charles There is also the issue of poverty in New York. Some of the worst slums in the US are contained within the state border there. It has been proven time and again that better education about contraception decreases the number of abortions. But with education on contraception under attack by the same people criticizing abortion, consequently young, impoverished women there are left with very little available to them to stop getting pregnant in the first place.

Its very poor form for the Journal to produce articles loaded headline (pro-abortion). Likewise the Journal hypocritically uses the term pro-choice while doesn’t use the more accurate term pro-abortion for the other end of the spectrum. If the Journal was indeed balanced it would use the wording pro-life and pro-choice equally but obviously it isn’t.

Its very poor form for the Journal to produce articles loaded headline (pro-abortion). Likewise the Journal hypocritically uses the term pro-choice while doesn’t use the more accurate term pro-abortion for the other end of the spectrum. If the Journal was indeed balanced it would use the wording pro-life and prochoice equally.

Fergal and Robert.. Are you the same person?
And pro abortion would be incorrect, as the pro choice camp would not force abortion upon anyone, simply wish that the choice would be there. If anything the pro life camp should be called anti choice, as they seek to deny that choice.

Cant play the rape/abuse card all the time.

It’s not a game Paul.

You heartless beast. How dare you dismiss such a terrible terrible experience as a ‘card’. Say that to the face of such a woman I dare you. But don’t do it in front of me because the eardrums of every person around us will be burst by the sound of me yelling at you.

Ah, the auld rape/abuse card! Do you keep that behind or in front of your ATM card in your wallet….? Clear you don’t know anyone who’s ever been raped or abused, you’d never make such an off the cuff comment if you did.

@Paul So let me get this straight you’re quite happy to have a blanket ban on abortion, despite the fact that for 20 years or so we decided in 2 referenda to legislate for it and European law has said we’re violating European human rights on this issue. But when it comes to the specific issues of abortion as a result of rape and sexual abuse, you say women can’t play that card, and you were concerned about human rights?
Paul, these ARE some of the specific circumstances that the various court cases were taken to seek abortions in Ireland many years ago, it was these sets of circumstances that left the various women with no other choice but to seek an abortion, our Supreme Court agreed, but we have since dragged our heels on the issue leaving the European Court of Human Rights to say we have violated the European Convention on Human Rights by not providing abortion procedures in line with our constitution.
Just who’s human rights were you concerned about as you’ve shown a breathtaking disregard for the rights of women, especially those who may be raped or who may have suffered sexual abuse, abortion was never legislated for haphazard use here but many of those who would avail of it would have been raped or suffered sexual abuse.

I think the use of “product” to describe any person who had no control over his or her origin is appalling, dehumanising and utterly revealing.Shame on you.

Just as appalling as telling a citizen that she cannot have an abortion here in Ireland and force her to leave these shores? huh Charles?

Do you or do you not regard people born of rape or sexual abuse as “products” that might have been gotten rid of?

I’m not going to answer your question because you have specifically phrased it for your benefit.
My views are that the woman’s life is far superior to that of the foetus that she carries. Her health and well-being should be the states main concern and if her life is at risk then she should be able to receive the treatment she needs here, in her own country.

So rephrase it your way and explain it. Or is it possible that you were careless in your choice of words and wish you had made your point differently? That can happen to any of us. And is it your position, as your last comment might suggest, that abortion should be limited to life-threatening situations?

@Charles Mark Perhaps “product” was the wrong choice of word. However from all of my comments on this piece you can clearly see my position on this matter. That view is that the woman’s life outweighs the unborn and should be protected if in danger. That includes the threat of self harm.

Well spotted, pure propaganda

People go to england to go ikea for the day,cant force irish doctors to perform abortions or the irish tax payer to pay for it.got it

No-one on here is suggesting that. Until now. Where the life of the mother is in danger and abortion saves the life of the mother it should absolutely be paid for by the Irish tax payer, along with every other emergency procedure. And of course you can’t force Irish doctors to perform an abortion, stop using such ridiculous hyperbole. What we also shouldn’t do is force those who are willing to perform one, not to. Which is what we continue to do by not legislating for the x case. No doctor, no how medically or ethically sound and ratified by referenda their reason is, can legally perform an abortion in Ireland. That is wrong.

If the incident with the little girl happened that’s a disgrace. The rest is typical hyperbole, emotive language and spurious argument, complete with the usual linking of opposition to abortion with religion, designed to marginalise the rational secular case against.

What has god got to with it ? They might not be religious people so maybe they don’t need your blessing !

I am not religious and nobody needs my permission to do anything. I am not and will never be pregnant. I certainly will never tell somebody who is what to do either as that is up to the individual themselves, not me. I, unlike a lot a lot of people apparently, do not feel I know what is best for others.

Why is it an incredibly difficult decision? If it’s ending the life of another then surely it shold only be allowed to preserve your own life. If it’s NOT ending a human life, then what’s the big deal?

@Chuck That’s an extraordinarily vacuous argument. It’s a decision which, either way, will set the course of the rest of your life. Why wouldn’t it be difficult.

It’s incredibly difficult because of all the implications of the decision. You have to leave the country, when do you go? Do you tell your friends, your family? If not, where do you tell them you’re going? What if people find out and groups like Youth Defence publicly condemn you? What if that recently prosecuted hacker reveals your decision on the internet? What if the pro-life zealots who attack and harass medical professionals come after you? What if, like with the X case, the AG finds out that you’re planning to travel and stops you at the airport?

It is not a black and white situation, however unwilling you are to look at the nuances.

Chuck,if you don’t understand how it could be so difficult,then you don’t really understand what your protesting against. The way you talk about abortion,it seems that you think these women go out and disregard any protection,get pregnant and have a laugh over a pint and a fag about how their going to go for a holiday to england and kill a baby while they’re at it…..

Next time you have a wank,just think about all those babies your killing…..

John the same is true of contraception and people don’t exactly fret over that.

Stephanie, the AG is not going to stop you. That’s been established quite clearly. And who’s house did youth defence picket?

Emsy, that’s just being childish and besides there’s a world of difference between sperm and a foetus. Look beyond Bill Hicks for your arguments

What utter deliberate nonsense, did I say anything about YD picketing a hosue? No. What does happen is anti-choice movements regularly picket clinics in the UK and pregnancy counseling services in Ireland. Approaching women going in and coming out, handing them leaflets, publicly shouting at them. And, in cases in the US, attacking and murdering the staff that work there. This kind of fear mongering is grossly undemocratic.

“What if the pro-life zealots who attack and harass medical professionals come after you? ”

Where are the going to come if not your house?

Don’t talk to me about deliberate nonsense when you pretend the AG is stopping anyone from travelling

Oh you’re right, I forgot that women are only ever in their houses. Not their workplace, the clinic they were at, the street, shops, their friend’s house, public places, restaurants, political events etc. Can you imagine what would happen to a female politician in Ireland if she publicly sad she had an abortion? Can you name any of the women involved in any of these cases by any other title than “Miss Letter”? The reason is because of the abuse she would be subjected to your fellow anti-choice supporters.

And my point about the AG was in relation to the X case, that she only had to make her intent known to a few people before she was dragged into a court case. It’s about the attitude surrounding a woman’s choice, not current legislation. And the right to travel was not “clearly established” with that referendum, otherwise the Miss D case would never have happened.

I agree. I’m a man so will never need one but I’d like to think if my daughter ever found herself in the position where an abortion was a serious option she could have one in an open society free of guilt.

This ^

I am happy to leave the decision as to where life begins to the scientific experts in this field. Anytime before that is perfectly fine to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason.

Any time before what? Before birth?

Deciding when life begins starts with defining “life” itself. It’s not actually so easy. I say the stage of life where empathy should begin on our part is when the being becomes aware, as in, begins to experience the world, form memories etc. But others may disagree with that. One may argue (as many have here) that life begins when the very genetic code in the embryo has been established. I feel that having such strong emotions (strong enough to shove placards in the hands of children) is wasted on it. Sounds cold, but nature is cold.

Yes, so stay quiet

There you go again with religion. Who on this site is opposing abortion on non-secular grounds? If anyone is scare mongering it’s you by raising the spectre of religious rule

And your posts are the least concise of anyone’s! Your message and your actions are conflicting

Chuck we heard anti abortion arguements made suggesting everything from abortion is allowed in some countries up to term (is isn’t quite that simple), others suggesting that it will lead to infanticide, cries of its murder, and when does conception and life begin.
The church and its supporters in Ireland have always been the biggest objectors to abortion, gay marraige will be next, at one stage in 1992 at an open air mass in Knock they brought out their big gun when Mother Teresa spoke out against it saying, ‘Let us promise Our Lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives.’ If you examine the Youth Defence website its clear from both the words, phrases and images used that this is a group supported by, if not funded by the church, “It is God’s will to give effective daily help to Youth Defence”, and images of the late pope John Paul II.
I’m simply saying IF there is to be another referendum on abortion that the church keep out of it and we have a calm, clear, concise debate on the subject without interference from anyone. If we saw a similar referendum in a muslim country concerning genital mutilation but the imams and spiritual leaders but pressure on the people to vote for it we’d be outraged but when its us and our spiritual leaders get involved in politics here why do we accept it? The church in Ireland has no business getting involved in politics, for too long they dictated how our country was run and whispered in ears or from the pulpit but that day is over. We decide our own fate.

Chuck, the ONLY way to form an empathetic opinon on a foetus is on religious grounds. If you believe a spirit or soul or whatever lives inside the flesh of a foetus, that is religious.

Implantation? That’s really when the process of inexorable growth and change begins, and cannot be suspended, and will, one day, be ended by death.

POTENTIAL life begins at fertilisatation.. And the body does everything in its power to eject this potential, for the first few weeks the body doesn’t even recognise the baby as life, it perceives a parasitic threat, launching an autoimmune response to this potential life that’s essentially robbing nutrients from the mother. After about 12 weeks the potential life – if it has survived this far, is well established, lungs are formed and the pregnancy is far more likely to carry to term..
This is why many women do not announce their pregnancy until after the first trimester. Whether you realise it or not, miscarriage – or “spontaneous abortion” as it is technically called, is more common than pregnancy.. This is why if you are actively trying to conceive there is a long list of things for you to avoid in the first trimester in case you lose the baby, such as air travel, certain chemicals, strenuous exercise etc..

Then there’s the question, if at 20 weeks your scan shows that your child has a condition that will not allow for life outside the womb, should the mother be forced to carry to term? Its difficult enough to cope with the idea your baby’s brain didn’t develop, or their heart is missing a chamber etc, but to be forced to carry a baby that WILL die before or soon after birth – that’s cruelty.

And to the ethics article in the BMJ, if none of the scans revealed this fatal flaw in a new life, is it more humane to let them live out their short life – possibly in pain, or euthanise them? After all, we euthanise animals as a matter of course, because it’s “humane”. So if you oppose this – do you also oppose putting animals to sleep? You can argue about them not being sentient like us, but at the point of pregnancy or birth – a baby is less sentient than an animal, it has potential – but so do animals, we discover more about animals daily – their potential is only limited to what we have observed, it may be, and likely is, much more.

If you are pro life, then you should also be against killing ANYTHING. So euthanising animals, the meat industry, fur industry, pest control, war, death penalties and certain pharmaceutical companies (eg, the ones making the abortion / lethal injection drugs, and those who cover up fatal side effects of their drugs like vioxx, bextra and Avandia)..

Because ALL of these industries deal in the same level of death that you oppose and many more..

Thats a post from the heart Shanti. Many years a good friend of mine went through the heartbreak of having a baby with a genetic defect, it took him days to die and it was something that she never got over. A couple of years later when she became pregnant again she was delighted but understandably nervous, she was told it was a million to one chance and unlikely to happen again but to appease her nervousness the doctors gave her every high tech test. It did. The tests revealed at an early stage her baby had a similar defect and could not survive, I watched her go through the trauma of abortion, having to go to a foreign country for what should have been available here, with compassion. It was heartbreaking.
Prior to that my views would have been somewhat pro life but when you see the “limited circumstances”, the real people and how it affects their lives in front of you its hard not to be moved and to see that there is another side to this. There will always be exceptions but by and large I don’t think any woman will have an abortion as a trivial act, for most it will be an extraordinary act and should be respected.

Brian my heart goes out to your friend, this was one of the elements I had never even considered up until recently – and I’m pro choice, so I can imagine its something that may well have been missed by the “pro life” crowd.

I have always found it strange that we hear so much about the right to life of the unborn, yet there’s so many already born children in orphanages the world over – these aren’t just potential lives – they are lives, and they need people to care for them too.. What are the pro life camp doing about that? Are they stamping out abuse and needless suffering too? Because surely these are all encompassed with the right to life?
Or is it just – we defend your right to life, but after birth you’re on your own?

The animal thing was a very astute point made by that ethics paper.. When your pet is in pain and has no chance of survival, you get it put to sleep.. We neuter animals as a matter of course without consulting them – because how could we? You can argue that an animal is worth less than a human but is that actually true? We have chimps who can outdo humans in brain training exercises, rats showing empathy and rescuing each other, dolphins being artistically creative, crows using tools… Animals are far more sentient than we would like to believe if we are to kill them for food, clothing, chemicals and animal testing.. So why do we draw a distinction?

If someone is pro life fair enough, but unless they are a vegan, pacifist, animal rights activist, campaigning for overseas adoption and don’t use any pharmaceutical / chemical products – then I’m afraid I can’t take them seriously.. Life is not exclusive to humans or the unborn.

Says who? you? Can you define “Life”?

Believe you? No. This is your opinion and you’re entitled to it but its based on superstition and religious beliefs, our nations law and European law says that, under certain circumstances, women should be entitled to the choice of an abortion in Ireland, I don’t believe any country in which abortion is legal allows them anywhere near the late stages of pregnancy you’re suggesting and I’d leave that up to the experts in the field.
How can we be headed somewhere if we refuse to allow something that we decided should be legalised in limited circumcanstances 20 years ago but still hasn’t bee legislated for because of narrow mined religious views. As I said if you feel its not for you, don’t have one, but for those who don’t feel the same way they are legally entitled to the choice, under certain circumstances.

Really? Because in countries where abortion has been legal for decades no such thing has occurred. Using phrases like ‘birth defect’ when you have absolutely no notion of the vast range of circumstances that encompasses is lazy and inconsiderate. In the same phrase you presume to lump children with Down’s Syndrome in with children with anencephaly, as in the Miss D case. Forcing a woman to carry a child with absolutely no hope of life for nine months is simply cruel.

I refer you to my comment above about the 41% abortion rate in NYC and about gendercide. Being appalled by both of these is not superstitious.

@ Brian Walsh
In my state, Victoria (Australia), abortion was made legal not so long ago. Guess what? A woman can have an abortion up until term.
The discussion leading up to the introduction of the bill was full of people saying that ‘yes, abortion should be legal but limited – special circumstances, and not past x number of weeks’.
We didn’t get that, we got abortion on demand for any reason – present and future, up until birth.
As a final year law student I was also appalled that as part of the legislation (all of 2 pages), no-one involved in the abortion had the right to conscientiously object. There was also no mention of whether a parent/guardian had to be informed if the woman was below the age of 18.
Once you allow abortion at any number of weeks, you shouldn’t rationally have a problem with abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
I wouldn’t want to see Ireland become so heartless as to allow women experiencing an unexpected pregnancy to be allowed to take the life of their unborn child. Abortion doesn’t solve anything, and it’s never right to take the life of another.

alice, legal until 24 weeks, after that the approval of two doctors are required to proceed. you paint it like heavily pregnant women can abort as they choose which is very much not the case

@Almar, I do remember readin the article “post-birth terminations” and am almost certain I read it on the Journal, I stand to be corrected

It was reported by the Irish Times and Breda O’Brien did an analysis last Saturday.

“The latest developments in biology confirm the unique humanity of the unborn.
The latest developments in ultrasound imaging technology give us a window to the womb which allow us to see that humanity in all its splendour.”

Both of these statements are ambiguous to the point of being meaningless, how exactly is ‘humanity’ defined?

“The latest developments in medicine confirm that abortion (the direct, deliberate destruction of the unborn) is never necessary to save a woman’s life (this is different to current medical practice in Ireland where woman receive all treatment necessary in pregnancy, even if it results in the indirect but predictable death of the unborn).”

This is flatly untrue.

“By the way, an article appeared in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics last month which advocated post-birth terminations.”

Had a look for that article, was unable to find it on the JoME website. But that’s beside that point: comparing abortion to infanticide is a pretty cheap way of trying associate abortion with something universally reviled. If the article exists it is the opinion of the authors, not of all pro-choice advocates.

Thomas –

In relation to medical practice in Ireland and the safety of women, what I have stated is entirely correct.

I did not introduce the article about infanticide to suggest that pro-choice advocates support infanticide. But I do think that the authors are very consistent with their logic – if we allow abortion for certain reasons, then why not infanticide for those same reasons? It’s the same child, except it’s just a little bit older. It’s still incapable of self-consciousness, independent life etc etc.

By the way – a ban on fur farming (your avatar), but support for abortion? Oh, the irony….

You use some very “flowery” language to say something simple, I wonder why? Yes biology can determine a foetus as unique, its DNA. Yes ultrasound can allow us to see the foetus, while exiciting for prospective parents is usually not splendid. It is simply a lie to say that abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life, even the practice where the mother’s life may be saved at the expense of the foetus is, by definition, an abortion. Psychiatry is a medical specialty, not a science, and those that are raped or sexually abused will suffer that trauma not the abortion.
The journal.ie did report the article you mention, I can’t imagine why you’d think they wouldn’t see fit to report it, the authors said the paper was was an entirely theoretical and academic article not meant to change laws, the author said “I’m not in favour of infanticide”. The paper asks if ”after-birth abortion” should be permitted when disabilities, such as Down syndrome, are not detected during pregnancy, or if economic or psychological circumstances change and ”taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone”. Its authors have since recieved death threats and are under police guard.
Seems to me some academics wrote an article saying if you do A why not B, but the subject matter was controversial so the religious police who decide what’s good for the rest of us got on board. I don’t know if they’re medieval or not but they certainly misunderstood the whole thing when they decided that particular article wasn’t good for us. What makes these folks any different from, say the Taliban, who also decided what’s good for their brethren?

Oh what a surprise,a bloke opposed to abortion.

How do you feel about animal euthanasia? As the article on ethics also pointed out that animals could be considered sentient the more we learn about them and that we euthanise them as a matter of course when they are suffering as its “humane”.. As it was an ethics article it was presenting both sides of the debate in order to get people talking – to me it didn’t read like it was advocating either side of the debate.

@Shanti I couldn’t agree more. Wow we agree on something. :)

Chelseajoe, what difference does it make if a ‘bloke’ opposes abortion or not? Can a man not have a right to air his opinion, in either way, on the issue? If there is a referendum on the issue should half the population be excluded from that process? Are we going to qualify all individuals in society as to which of their opinions who choose to accept in influencing the direction of that society?

I know I am being suckered in here, but I have to take you up on your neat list of points.

**The latest developments in biology confirm the unique humanity of the unborn**

Sounds pretty but means nothing. There is nothing ‘latest’ about it, it’s basic and long established biology that an embryo contains unique genetic material. Being ‘unique’ doesn’t mean the cells will go on to be a foetus, or that the pregnancy will establish or anything much really.

**The latest developments in ultrasound imaging technology…..**

Ahh, we are into metaphysics now. Can something exist without being perceived? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Before the ultrasound, was it all different cos we had no ‘window’? Another pretty sounding but meaningless argument.

***The latest developments in medicine confirm that abortion… is never necessary to save a woman’s life***

Leaving aside that these would be findings rather than developments, ‘never’ is a very absolute word. I think you’d struggle to find a medical person willing to be that absolute about anything. They are more inclined to deal with probabilities, so while they might say that medical advances have made such situations rare, saying that is cannot happen is a step beyond that.

**The latest developments in psychiatric science….**

Sigh. More of this ‘latest developments’ stuff. I don’t doubt that many women feel distress post-abortion to varying degrees. I similarly don’t doubt that some women who, for whatever reason, are unable to access abortion when they don’t want to continue with a pregnancy suffer mental stress. Post-natal depression is common, pre-natal depression may be more common than we realise. People who have mental health issues for whatever reason need to be helped. The secretive nature of most Irish women’s experience of abortion is less than conducive to providing them with the care they need, for both mind and body.

**an article appeared in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) last month which advocated post-birth terminations**

This was an academic article intended to provoke thought. Peer review is about the quality of the argument and has foes not in any sense indicate agreement with the conclusions or the content. The basic premise on which the article is built is that there is no difference in status between the foetus and the new born – ironically a central tenet of the anti-choice movement and one they use frequently in their literature.

I’d imagine it would be very hard to find anyone who thought killing new born babies was a good idea, so no matter what your opinion of abortion, an appropriate response would be to mount a cogent argument, taking the premise on board but coming to a different conclusion to that of the original article. That is the essence of ethical debate – no proposition is impervious to counter argument, and arguments are often deliberately extreme because that leads to more strenuous debate. I’ve little doubt that such an article will not be long coming to the JME.

Instead it led to a series of headlines such as ‘JME proposes after-birth termination’ and ‘Medical ethicists approve after birth termination’, none of which were true, which unleashed a flood of abusive emails, letters and calls, many containing (somewhat ironically) death threats.

It’s a great comfort to be able to see things in black and white, but it’s also an illusion – every aspect of life is filled with shades of grey.

Brilliant post ketherine, extremely well said.

Opps I meant Katherine, oh my keyboard for an edit feature.

Here’s the article, for anyone who wants to know what’s being quoted here http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full

So the UK has abortion therefore the UK is living in the Dark Ages. Right.

Yup, exporting sick, distressed vulnerable women to another state for an urgent medical procedure conducted in secret isn’t medieval at all

Sick? So pregnancy is an illness? Distressed? Why are they distressed if an abortion isn’t ending a life? Vulnerable? I can think of at least one person more vulnerable involved in the transaction…..

And exporting? No, we aren’t sending them – they are choosing to go.

In much the same way, we aren’t exporting people to Amsterdam to fuck prostitutes while stoned.

Currently women suffering life threatening conditions cannot have an abortion in this country so yes, we export sick women. Travelling in secret, often alone, to another country at great expense for a surgical procedure causes distress and yes, these women are vulnerable. Empathy is a good thing, you should try it sometime. Comparing abortion to getting wasted and paying for sex doesn’t deserve comment.

Oh so you’re using the exception to justify all of them? That’s not obvious at all! The supreme court has alrady ruled that women who’s lives are threatened should be allowed abortions here, your post was clearly intended to be pro-abortion in general

I don’t care if it’s expensive or they are going alone – it’s their choice! Lots of people have elective procedures abroad. There’s a reason for the stigma, it’s because people have empathy for the unborn. Maybe you should try that?

I say again, we aren’t sending them – so it’s not export. Why do you always use that word? For a bunch of people who calls themselves ‘pro choice’ you’d think you’d notice when choice was being exercised.

You may think that sex-n-drugs aren’t comparable to abortion but there’s a big difference; In the case of the former, everyone lives. To my mind, that’s a lot less morally repugnant than abortion on a whim (if you can use exceptions, so can I)

The Supreme Court ruled nothing of the sort. In the X case the woman was granted the right to travel. The last referendum allowed for abortion here in certain circumstances but has never been ratified. No woman can have a legal abortion in Ireland currently therefore they must travel whether sick, depressed, mentally ill, or just plain desperate. To compare women being forced to travel in this way to flying to Prague to get your teeth done is disingenuous in the extreme.

Aren’t you in FG David? What’s your opinion on gay marriage btw?

@ Sam Life threatening conditions? what are they? This is a serious question, do you mean cancer, pre eclampsia or something else?

Stick to playing the piano at mass, leave serious debate to adults

That should have read the Supreme Court ruled on abortion in certain circumstances but it hasn’t been legislated for. My point stands, no woman can have a legal abortion in this country 20 years post X.

No Sam, that’s exactly what the Supreme Court ruled. The right to travel meant that it didn’t matter anyway as pointed out in the Ms D case.

Once again, you’re reaching for the exception when you talk about people who are ‘just pain desperate’ (for no stated reason) so i will too. If a woman wants to have an abortion because she’s just completely heartless does it make a difference? If so, I don’t see why.

Needing an abortion for medical reasons is completely different to just wanting one

You left out one crucial thing – that poll was conducted by Millward Browne “on behalf of the Pro Life Campaign”.

In other news, research funded by tobacco companies suggests that there’s no risk from second hand smoke.

Thanks for that Ursula.

That’s one poll, one question, commissioned by an anti-choice group. The rather more comprehensive pro-choice funded poll shows a wildly different result, oddly enough:
http://www.ifpa.ie/eng/Media-Info/News-Events/News-Events/Three-quarters-of-population-favour-liberalisation-of-abortion-laws-in-Ireland

Millward brown opinion polls… Let’s just say there’s a generational difference between people who will suffer through 20mins of phone harassment to have their opinion heard and those who won’t

I don’t think there is anybody who would disagree that if a life or severe psychological health were at risk then abortion should be considered as a last resort. But abortion-on-demand as a lifestyle choice, as it appears to be in many countries, is sickening evidence of a societies irreverence for basic moral values.

Where are abortions being carried out up to 28 weeks? The limit is 24 weeks in the UK and less elsewhere in Europe. If you know of a doctor performing terminations at 28 weeks you should alert the police force in whatever jurisdiction you’re talking about! Otherwise get your information correct before spouting gibberish.

And the 24 week limit is really for medical difficulties. I thought the limit for abortion was 16 weeks? But you can’t have abortion before 8 weeks,before the 8 week mark you are given a pill to bring on miscarriage.
I don’t agree with people having an abortion after 12 weeks though. If you choose to have one you should do
It as early as possible. On saying that though,my friend was nearly 17 weeks when she found out her babies skull wasn’t developing and she would either give birth to a still born or the baby would die within hours of the birth. She chose to abort immediately. She was so distraught it was horrible to see but she got pregnant soon after and was lucky to have a healthy pregnancy and baby. I think if she had not aborted the first time she would not have recovered mentally as she was so desperate for a baby.

So is fly swatting.

And a gathering of crows. You left off the old “in my opinion” at the start of your post there John, just an FYI.

So we should govern our country according to linguistic quirks? Wow, the Oxford English Dictionary would be our new constitution

The OED does play a pivotal role in our constitution though, the definition of the word marriage for instance.

Apart from your previous comment then……make your mind up

Stephanie, does that mean if we want to change the law to allow gay marriage that we have to wait for them to change the dictionary? No, of course not. That’s a silly argument.

Of course it’s a silly argument. That’s my point. The definition of the word is how every high court case for same sex marriage has ended up in this country. The definition of the word has to be changed in the constitution which is why any number of high court rulings no matter how much the judge agrees with the validity of the couple’s claim will end up the same way. Justice Elizabeth Dunne, in her ruling on the KAL case, said “I do not see how marriage can be redefined by the Court to encompass same sex marriage”.

Well then shouldn’t your argument be directed at Sam Rhodes? I’m not the one playing games with language. I’m saying that’s frivolous and irrelevant

Wow, I’m so surprised. An anti-choice campaigner arguing about the way in which the argument is conducted in order to distract from what is clearly overwhelming pro-choice support.

The same type of rhetoric that has given us several referendums in which we were given the option to ban abortion, and none in which we were given the option to legalise it.

Any chance you have a link to those “lots of opinion polls”?

Particularly as the recent Journal poll showed 81% in favour of abortion on demand….

That’s a journal as say. Made up mostly by liberals

The informal opinion poll next to your name has more than 80% in disagreement with you…

Again mostly libs as I said

Darren I don’t understand this logic – surely in those cases it’s still “murder” you can’t have it both ways
I’d have better respect if you got off the fence…..

I see where you’re coming from on the rape thing, but if a woman’s life is in danger then it certainly isn’t murder. It’s not pleasant, but sometimes you have to take one person’s life to preserve another’s. Like (sometimes) when you seperate conjoined twins, or in self-defence, defence of another, war…..

Murder has a specific definition

Clicked send too soon!

It’s a lot less ideologically inconsistent than when pro-abortion people say “It should be legal up to X number of weeks.” And not afterwards? After a certain length of time you’re ok with forcing a woman to carry a baby but prior to that it’s ‘medieval’ and ‘backwards’?

Right.. So you are anti contraception then yes?

Wow! you remember your trip through the fallopian tube!? That’s amazing, it must have been awesome!

Life is not fragile. Life is eternal. Bodies are fragile.

What on earth is that supposed to prove?
Do these people actually believe that this is a blog post from the Virgo constellation (which is what Mary represents)?
Anyone deluded enough to base ANYTHING on that little sham probably shouldn’t have a vote..