One chose to refuse chemotherapy so her child could live, she died just as the child reached the point at which it could survive, she died to safe her child. Look up jessica Council and learn!!!

K:Burns, Women are PEOPLE. Not incubators.

Ahh so the child is not a “person” and the father not a “father”. Out of interest where did I state women are not people and are incubators?

Cost of an abortion versus cost of condoms…. Abortion as contraception is such a myth.

“A 10-YEAR Adelaide study has busted the myth that women use abortion as birth control.

A Flinders University study of 965 women over 30 who used Adelaide’s largest abortion clinic found 62 per cent were using contraception when they became pregnant.

…

Ms Abigail said the finding, which was published in the Australian Journal of Primary Health, added to earlier research that showed 70 per cent of women under 30 were also on contraception when they became pregnant and then sought a termination.”

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/abortion-not-used-as-birth-control/story-e6frea83-1225874718678

An unborn fetus is not a person.

The father has rights insofar as they do not compromise the right of the mother not to carry around a baby for nine months.

You did not state literally that women are incubators, but the fact that you suggested that the rights of a fetus the mother may be carrying outweigh the rights of the woman carrying it suggested so.

@ K burns – no she didnt she went to England and got an abortion so she could live!!!!

@David

Your point is a bit redundant seeing as abortions are legal (or at least constitutional) where the woman’s life is in danger, including situations where the woman’s life is in danger from suicide. The problem is we just haven’t legislated for it yet, which is essentially what the ECHR and now the UN are giving out about. The current situation leaves such women in limbo.

I think you are right Rachel, but I am a man and I can’t even comprehend what a woman feels when confronted with this decision. I am pro choice because I firmly believe that it is her decision because it is her body.
Why should Irish women be forced to take the boat or plane to the UK to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? It is time that we solved our own problems here in this country and stop exporting them.

I have offered NO opinion on that matter.
Please don’t try give the impression I have espoused what you stated.

“Nobody is ‘pro-abortion’, but the fact is that whether you wish to accept it or not, abortion is a service that Irish women require.”

No – certain Irish women in certain circumstances require it, but it should not be available as a form of family planning to everyone. I believe that the rights of an unborn child is ultimately inferior tot he right of the mother, but there are degrees of inferiority. I think that the constitution words it in a perfectly reasonable fashion, but it has to be legislated for.

Exporting our problems – it is not our fault that other countries with different cultures than us apply different values to abortion. It is not an argument n favour of legalising abortion across the board here.

‘No – certain Irish women in certain circumstances require it, but it should not be available as a form of family planning to everyone.’

Why not?

‘I think that the constitution words it in a perfectly reasonable fashion, but it has to be legislated for.’

You are contradicting yourself and if it WAS properly (and explicitly) worded we wouldn’t be having this debate.

Ronan, contrary to what you suggest, we have tackled this problem head-on. We have had three constitutional referenda on the matter. We have rejected EU treaties on this matter. We are far from burying our heads in the sand. On the contrary, we have made decisive decisions on the matter and rejected abortion in our State. We would wish that everybody and every country would recognise the humanity of the unborn child but unfortunately that is not the case, many countries have allowed the unborn to be dehumanised, just as Hitler had dehumanised the Jews.
We cannot stop mothers from killing their children in other countries, but we can at least make it illegal to do so here, thus providing some degree of protection to these otherwise defenceless children.
We don’t allow or approve of drug-taking here but we will not prevent people who want to abuse their bodies with drugs from going to Holland. Similarly, while we are against abortion in Ireland we cannot prevent Irish mothers from killing their children in other jurisdictions, but we can protect that child here.

Restricting access to abortion to the degree we have is, I believe, appalling.

And yes ‘WE’ have rejected abortion in our state. It seems the only ones who haven’t rejected are is the 100,000+ women who have had a termination abroad since 1980.

(nice Nazi comparison by the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law)

“Why not?”

Do you have any qualms at all about killing an innocent foetus, because if given birth to will grow up with even the most minor of disabilities? Do you have any qualms about killing an innocent foetus because one or other of the parents believes that it will interfere with their future plans?

People have abortion for seemingly arbitrary reasons, and on the grounds of natural rights, I believe that it should be legalised but only in extreme life-threatening emergencies.

“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

Seems reasonable to me. The right to life of the unborn is inferior to the right to life of the mother, but the mother cannot choose to have an abortion at any time.

‘Do you have any qualms at all about killing an innocent foetus, because if given birth to will grow up with even the most minor of disabilities? Do you have any qualms about killing an innocent foetus because one or other of the parents believes that it will interfere with their future plans?’

Nope.

Any why should anyone have to justify what refer to as a ‘arbitrary reason’

Her body her choice.

“Her body her choice.”

That is one argument that frustrates me greatly. By that logic if a woman chooses to attempt suicide it’s her body so she should be allowed to slice her wrists open if she wants. I understand completely most of the other arguments in favour of abortion and agree with some of them, but I do find that one the weakest of the lot.

Yes Ryan. That is LITERALLY what I meant by her body her choice.

Because killing yourself and having an abortion is the same thing.

“Her body, her choice”

never applies when it comes to natural rights, because they are afforded to “human persons”. The correct iteration is: “her person, here choice.” The foetus does not exist within her person.

This is fantastic,I may have to steal it……

Absolutely right, Laura

If the majority of people in the pro-choice campaign don’t like the idea of abortion, and still campaign in favour of it being legalised across the board, then I have lost quite a substantial amount of respect for them. That level of apathy towards a what is a very serious question of rights is very worrying. Facilitating wrongdoing gives one a certain degree of moral responsibility for the wrongdoing that has being committed.

Improved sexual education needs to happen anyway. And fast.

I find it quite odd that the same liberals who seem to be very disturbed by child abuse (and rightly so), and by wars and other human rights abuses around the globe seem to have little or no regard for the rights of an unborn child?

Very good David!

If you don’t agree with murder then don’t murder someone. But if you do agree with murder, then what?

You’re missing the key point. Natural rights cannot be taken away, nor can they be given up. They can simply be ignored, and ignoring someone’s rights is extremely morally reprehensible.

This is not a matter of personal consideration, it’s a matter of right and wrong.

Fiachra, Please stop dressing up your points with unnecessary pol sci/philosophical jargon.

I like debating but making your arguments so labored and wordy renders them inaccessible.

So a woman who is denied life saving treatment because she is pregnant should die for the off chance her child can be brought to term and born. A woman whos child has been diagnosed with a defect and won’t survive a few hours past birth should be forced to carry this child for 9 months and then watch her child die. A woman who is attacked and raped should be forced to have a baby fathered by her rapist. Are you people serious!!! I would love to see if u were ever in that position. I have many issues with abortion but and the end of the day it’s a matter of choice. What right have you to tell a woman what she can do with her body.

Ronan, that isn’t jargon – that is using the correct terminology to express an opinion. It’s also the product of having done a little bit of research, having been genuinely interested in this for some time.

David, don’t pull a strawman on me please.

”So a woman who is denied life saving treatment because she is pregnant should die for the off chance her child can be brought to term and born.”

As I’ve mentioned several times before, if the mother’s life is compromised by a pregnancy, then her right to life is greater than that of an unborn child. Most rational people accept this. This is provided by Bunreacht na hÉireann, but due to political paralysis, has not been provided for in any meaningful legislation.

“A woman whos child has been diagnosed with a defect and won’t survive a few hours past birth should be forced to carry this child for 9 months and then watch her child die.”

That is a terrible situation, and I sympathise with the family and indeed the child to have to go through such an ordeal. However if the child is going to live if even for a few hours then it should be granted that few hours. It’s not our job to decide who is to be granted the gift life and who is not to be.

“A woman who is attacked and raped should be forced to have a baby fathered by her rapist. Are you people serious!!!”

Why not punish the rapist instead of punishing an innocent child? He’s the one who is responsible for putting the woman in such a terrible physically and emotionally painful and difficult situation? Shouldn’t he be brought to account for that crime, and not the child who is only guilty of having been conceived by a rapist?

Fiachra, nobody’s going to make you have an abortion, it’s okay.

FIachra are you actually taking the piss. You think its right for a person who is raped to be forced to give birth to a child as a result of the rape. That just proves how wrong you are.

The constitution does say that the life of the mother is more important than the child but thats what the whole debate is over. the ruling by the european court wants this legislated for. In Ireland no doctor would abort a child to save the womans life for fear of being prosecuted. The woman are told to hop on a plane over to the UK.

And also you say you would rather put a baby through torture by letting it live for a few hours and then die. Do you have any compassion for people. I am not a fan of abortion i think that aborting babies up to 24 weeks is totally wrong but i do agree that there are certain circumstances where it is necessary as the points i just mentioned. your suggestions would either be inhumane for the child or the mother

David, I obviously would rather that such a hypothetical situation (although sadly I must admit that it does sometimes transpire) never happen, but you simply cannot correct one wrong with another. In such a situation, I think that a much higher punishment for the rapist (who placed the woman in such a situation) is in fact the only just action. The unborn child’s only crime is existing, and that is never a valid reason to terminate the life of anything.

I agree with you re: the lack of legislation. The problem is that the UN is asking us to provide for much more than what the ECHR is telling us to do.

“And also you say you would rather put a baby through torture by letting it live for a few hours and then die. Do you have any compassion for people. I am not a fan of abortion i think that aborting babies up to 24 weeks is totally wrong but i do agree that there are certain circumstances where it is necessary as the points i just mentioned. your suggestions would either be inhumane for the child or the mother”

To be perfectly honest, I’m none to comfortable with this myself. However I don’t think that it is right for anyone to decide for someone else when their life is simply not worth it. We can’t accurately measure the value of anything from the perspective of someone else, and operate merely on assumptions that if all human beings operate rationally they will reach the same conclusions on everything. This is of course not accurate, and because of that I would rather err on the side of caution. I cannot fathom the mind of a child who will die within 24 hours of its birth, so I will be content to let him fathom it for himself.

while the prison sentences rapists get are disgracefully short i dont think that an extended sentence would ever come near to the life torture you would be putting the rape victim through the horrendous experience of having to carry the child for 9 months and give birth to it and i suppose she would also have to raise the child herself!!! come on how can you honestly say that this is a better option !!!

She shouldn’t necessarily have to raise the child herself. Actually, regardless of the recession, we really need to look at this state’s hopelessly inadequate childcare system.

Yes, I agree that the prison sentences given to rapists are far too short, and that trial process nearly always far too confrontational for the victim. I really that victims deserve compensation outside of seeing their rapist behind bars too.

As for how this is better? Well at least one child will be able to live. Realistically, there is no good outcome possible – only one slightly less terrible than the other. The best thing that any moral human being can do is stick to his or her morals and try to do the best thing, no matter what horrors life puts before him or her. We’re living in a very unfair world, and can only try our best.

Feeling genuinely uncomfortable about the idea of killing unborn babies makes me a misogynist? Well thanks. I’m glad to know that I’m the only one freaked out about it.

When did I ever say that I wanted women to dress modestly? Or that raping them for wearing a miniskirt was in fact right? All of my arguments on that debate were more to do with a brutal acceptance that rape happens, and that the legal system does not provide any proper defence against it, or even a true sense of closure. I’m as appalled by rape as the next person, but how does a grim understanding that it some people do it make me somehow think it is right?

Last question: when did it become an accepted practice to bring up stuff I said on other articles here? Or indeed insult me for it?

Dude, shut your trap. I’m saying this for your own good. I don’t know what sort of universe your living in, with Nietzche and Sophocles as your best friends… I don’t care what kind of Christian family you grew up in, and what outlook on life that gave you:

1) Telling a woman that she has to prevent herself from being raped by men is sexist and disgusting.
2) Telling said woman, after being raped, that she has to carry that asshole’s baby for the next nine months, and decide on its future thereafter is sexist and disgusting.
3) All of your comments on this blog post express your clear deep-seated belief that women are baby making machines.

Women get pregnant, men don’t. Why the hell should men like you and I get to decide what they should and shouldn’t do? IT DOESN’T AFFECT US.

But misogynistic asswipes like you keep dragging us back to the 1950s, when Archbishop McQuaid and de Valera were the joint rulers of our fine backward nation.

But of course, you’re a Fianna FAILER, so I’m sure you’d be quite at home there.

The fact that they can choose to live their own lives gives them the right to avail of proper contraceptions. The fact that we all have the freedom to make our own choices gives us the responsibility to make good choices. Any pot holes that we create for ourselves are entirely of our making, and we must take responsibility for them.

Women indeed are not “baby making machines”. That is why contraception exists and that is why everyone is encouraged to use it. However when a child is conceived, it is selfish and wrong to deny it it’s rights based on pure inconvenience.

Adoption agencies exist for a reason, and of course there is the glaringly obvious fact that women do not get pregnant by themselves. I’m totally in favour of a law requiring that men play an active role (whether financial or otherwise) in the upbringing of children that they play an equal responsibility for creating. However that is for another debate.

‘However when a child is conceived, it is selfish and wrong to deny it it’s rights based on pure inconvenience.’

Maybe you should stick a baby up you and carry it around for nine months. And then also, look after it for 18 years. Then tell us it’s ‘selfish’

Stick a baby up me? If that’s not child abuse, then I don’t know what is. If I somehow managed to create a human person within my body (by some biological anomaly), then yes, I do believe I would have the responsibility to at the very least take care of it, being as it is that I would have the reasonable expectation to eject it from my body (living and breathing) within a period of nine months.

After that, I would expect that I would have to make arrangements for its future, whether by looking after it myself or by giving it up for adoption.

That’s taking responsibility for your own actions.

Fiachra, could you tell me of a contraception (bar abstinence) that gives 100% protection?

‘Stick a baby up me? If that’s not child abuse, then I don’t know what is. If I somehow managed to create a human person within my body (by some biological anomaly)’……………..Right. May need to have your sarcasm detectors adjusted.

‘I do believe I would have the responsibility to at the very least take care of it, being as it is that I would have the reasonable expectation to eject it from my body (living and breathing) within a period of nine months.’

Well that’s where we differ then.

There is none, but if you aren’t willing to run that risk then don’t have sex… This applies to men and women.

I did notice that we do differ tremendously on this, indeed.

Well said

Well said. I’m very disappointed at how the religious right have been at the forefront of the abortion debate, and while I believe many if not all of them are highly intelligent and committed individuals, there is far more to the abortion debate than what any religious text says. It’s a philosophical debate about what constitutes a human person, and what natural rights human persons have. Theology has had a substantial impact on our understanding of natural rights, but it is no longer (for good or ill, depending upon your own perspective) society’s only source of moral guidance.

It’s great to see a voice of reason entering the debate. I fully applaud you on it.

I love how so many men are anti-choice…..

Also it is laughable to suggest that our low infant mortality rate is because of our sectarian restrictive abortion laws.

Ronan – whilst I understand that pregnancy has a much greater physical impact on the health and well being of the mother, it does not preclude men in general from giving a considered opinion. Note how westerners love passing judgement on the affairs of middle-eastern countries, even though whatever happens in the middle has little or no impact on them.

You have negated your (misguided) argument by invoking Godwin’s law.

@Fiachra……………………..?

I’m afraid Brian you seem to be (as they say) full of it.

Low infant mortality directly linked to restrictive abortion laws???? How?

‘in the UK children have been aborted because of cleft-lips’ – absolute nonsense. That is totally illegal: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2367917.stm “Abortion is only legal up to six months except in cases of “serious handicap”.”

You are very keen on mothers being helped to raise their children but no mention of fathers. Fathers rights are a joke in this country and these kind of attitudes are helping to keep it like that.

Strange to see, Brian, that as a man you are strongly anti-abortion but no mention of fathers responsibilities.

Ronan, you made a remark to the effect that it is ironic how so many men are anti-choice, thus implying that there is something hypocritical about commenting on issues that don’t directly affect oneself. That a complete non-sequitor.

@Fiachra this is getting convoluted but the point I was making wasn’t that ‘men shouldn’t be discussing abortion’ but rather that I find it telling that the very people who will never have to deal directly with a pregnancy (I.e. actually carrying it) are those who seem to oppose abortion most strongly.

Really now Ryan? Are you saying that you’ve never seen a woman who is against abortion in your entire life? It must have been a pretty sheltered one.

If that was for me then thats clearly not what I was saying. Read my statement again.

And also suggesting that I have led a ‘sheltered life’……You seem to be running out of ammo. Take a moment to reload and then come at me again.

You asserted that men are somehow the most against abortion. I am telling you that in my experience that is not the case, and that I have found quite a few men (including you) to be on the whole apathetic to the situation.This debate is not polarised according to gender. I debated against a strong minded feminist once who believed that a baby can be killed up until the point that the umbilical cord is cut. On the other hand, I debated against one who would rather that in a case where a mother’s life is grievously compromised by a pregnancy, she should be allowed die instead of making the choice to kill the unborn child.

I am in fact a strong believer in choice, as a general concept relating to individual natural rights and freedoms, but does anyone think of the choice of the unborn child? As moral human beings, we have to make sure that our choices don’t infringe upon the rights of others.

Brian, where have you seen the that “As a direct result of our “restrictive abortion laws” Ireland has among the lowest infant mortality or pregnancy-related mortality rates in the world”?
Fiachra, your “experience” is irrelevant when we’re talking about the country, no one care how many women you’ve spoken to about abortion and it’s not helpful. Representative stats for the entire population would be useful. if you’re all about choice then give women the choice because a knot of cells is a uterus is not the same as a walking talking human, morally speaking. You’ve been very hypocritical in these comments.

I am so bored of this abortion as contraception myth:

“A 10-YEAR Adelaide study has busted the myth that women use abortion as birth control.

A Flinders University study of 965 women over 30 who used Adelaide’s largest abortion clinic found 62 per cent were using contraception when they became pregnant.

…

Ms Abigail said the finding, which was published in the Australian Journal of Primary Health, added to earlier research that showed 70 per cent of women under 30 were also on contraception when they became pregnant and then sought a termination.”

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/abortion-not-used-as-birth-control/story-e6frea83-1225874718678

On any given year; almost 50% of women who have an abortion, have had at least one previously. I’m not suggesting that those people are purposely using abortions as a form of birth control, but the availability of abortion as an option for all means that they are not taking the utmost care in ensuring that they use conventional forms of contraception correctly & effectively. As I said, it erodes a great degree of personal responsibility.

Well said.

We still have a long way to go in the separation of church and state in this country.

“People who are against abortion for whatever reason have no right to enforce their beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs, there should be a choice and it should be up to the individual concerned to make that choice.”

Abortion affects two people: the unborn child, and the mother. In all cases, the first person is not consulted in any way on a decision which will primarily affect him or her.

Now let’s not get bogged down on cases where the mother’s life is at risk, or where the child is doomed to suffer for the rest of his short life due to a serious genetic disease, or indeed where the mother has been raped. These cases are in fact by far the minority. Most cases of abortion happen because the mother reaches the decision (either by herself, or because someone else forces her into it) that the pregnancy is inconvenient and that an abortion is desirable.

It’s time that this country took a proper look at crisis pregnancy, and what supports we give to women going through a truly difficult time in their lives. To be honest, Ed, I agree that we’re exporting our problems abroad – but the real problem isn’t that we don’t provide an abortion as a form of family planning. The problem is that our state childcare system is in a shambles, that there are not enough social workers out there to council women undergoing an unplanned pregnancy, and that there is no legislation which both facilitates and compels the father to provide equal assistance in the upbringing of the child.

Women should never feel the need to have an abortion due to a simple unplanned pregnancy. That’s what we need to tackle

what about the childs choice and the fathers choice? One would think that protecting a child should be the priority

Why would one think that k burns? The child’s life is at the very least contingent on the mother’s life. If the mother dies, the child dies. If the child dies, the mother can still live. Therefore the mothers life takes precedence. Hence why, where the mothers life is in danger, it is legal for the pregnancy to be terminated.

Good call Richard – yet more hearsay thrown out as fact.

Missing the point slightly….

@ Ronan: Care to elaborate how it is missing the point?

You seem to be suggesting that fact that we are not debating the ‘grey’ areas renders this discussion invalid.

The fact remain however that we are not yet in a position where we can begin to discuss these matters because of how restrictive the current law is and how vehemently some oppose any chance.

Although it is possible I am missing the point of your argument?

Another man highlighting things that are already covered under abortion laws in other countries. To highlight just one: “In the uk, religious groups can’t, but abortion clinics can [provide counselling]…= greater profits”

From a recent Guardian article:
“BPAS and Marie Stopes provide around half of the abortions carried out every year and are paid by the NHS for the services they provide. They are registered as charities and reinvest any profit they make into the service. They dispute the idea that their motivation is for profit.

…The private abortion services are charities that reinvest their profits into their services. There is no evidence that they are motivated to encourage women to have abortions because they will financially benefit.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/06/abortion-health-and-wellbeing

So, yet more myths (like abortion is used as contraception) thrown around as facts by men on an issue they can and will never have direct experience of.

@ Paul: “BPAS and Marie Stopes provide around half of the abortions carried out every year and are paid by the NHS for the services they provide. They are registered as charities and reinvest any profit they make into the service. They dispute the idea that their motivation is for profit.”

Fair enough re those two charities, but what about the other half of abortions carried out? There are private clinics in operation are there not? And these are run for profit are they not?

And another question raised by your post is whether the NHS (using taxpayers money) should fund abortions? If abortion was legalised in Ireland, would a majority of people support the HSE paying for abortions?

@ Ronan: For abortion to become legal, all of these questions would need to be resolved. I am making the point that it is partly the difficulty in answering these questions that means that Irish politicians and indeed the Irish people have not voted in favour of abortion. I’m playing Devil’s advocate by demonstrating that there is far more than just one question to the abortion debate.

I can clear up those ‘difficult questions fairly quickly for you there Ryan.

1: 24 weeks. Yes, babies born at <24 weeks very occasionally survive if connected up to enough machinery. Just as a person who is mecially dead can be kept 'alive' with the help of similar machines. That doesnt make them a viable human being, capable of survival execpt, in the most unusual circumstances.

2: No, they shouldn't. At most, a consultation with their GP, or a doctor at the clinic, would be more than enough. Yes it is certainly fair that experts on abortion should be able to give conselling, whereas religious nutjobs who haven't got a clue about it should not. (Religion is like a penis, it's ok to have one, it's ok to share it with your friends, or even compare it to other people's. But please dont wave it around in my face, or try to shove it down my childrens throats) Religion should not, and CANNOT be a part of this debate, due to the sepreation of church and state.

3/4/5: A woman should have choice. This choice does not have stipulations. If she wants to abort a perfectly healthy foetus, she has the right to do so. So yes, she could abort for any of those reasons.

Also, no-one is 'in favour' of abortion, or 'pro-abortion': some of us just realise that it can sometimes be an unfortunate necessity.

Wasn't that 'complex' really was it?

So abortion can be legal now, yeah?

Rubbish Charles. The arguments against abortion or stem cell research are 100% religious. A womans reproductive organs belong 100% to that woman and no Pope,Pastor,Rabbi or Mullah should dictate what she does with it.

So basically abortion on demand in all circumstances is a human right and anyone who says otherwise is motivated by religion? With respect, you are the zealot around here. BTW, no-one I know of, religious or otherwise, argues against stem cell research. It’s embryonic stem cell research that raises moral issues.

Joe, as an atheist, I have to say you are wrong on abortion. I view it solely as a question of natural rights, and I’m quite frustrated at how the likes of Cóir have a complete monopoly over the pro-life debate.

The “moral issues” are based upon religious and superstitious beliefs nothing else. Give me one good reason why a woman should not be allowed to terminate a pregnancy?

Fiachra there is really only one side and that is the womans side and it should be her choice.

The "termination of a pregnancy" is the taking of a life. That is a moral and ethical issue independent of any religious belief.

The bible says “thou shalt not kill”, yet Christians aren’t the only one that think that murder is wrong. Just because Christians think that killing an unborn child is morally wrong, it doesn’t mean that anyone else must view it otherwise.

Robbing a child of any chance to see the world outside its mother’s womb is a rather disturbing concept, regardless of what your spiritual beliefs are.

Can’t be bothered to answer this in full Colm, so all I can say is poppycock.

Majority of abortions throughout the world are done well into the pregnancy and one should call a spade a spade – this is killing the defenceless and the worst form of child abuse – that of denying them the right to live. Abortion is generally called for in today’s world to accommodate those who get pregnant and don’t want to have to take responsibility for their actions. There are of course rapes and hard cases but stop trying to justify abortion for these rare situations which are provided for by other means. Anyone who supports abortion should check out what aborted foetuses are used for, especially in the USA.

Just wanna clear a couple of things up for you there sheelagh:

It’s not killing, because you can’t kill something that isnt alive

It’s not child abuse, because it isn’t a child

As for ‘what aborted foetuses are used for’, you’re either talking about stem cell research, which is a fantastic scientific progression that has the potential to save millions of lives. Or, you’re talking about these bullshit propaganda images put about by the religious fundamentalists in the US, every single one of which that i’ve ever seen has been proven to be either faked, or a picture of something else, and not an aborted foetus.

almost forgot one – can you tell me which ‘other means’ provide for abortion in cases of rape? didn’t think so.

linda the majority of rape victims do not come forward never mind be given the m a pill unwanted pregnancy means Unwanted

Compassionate to who? You can actually be compassionate without supporting abortion!

Sheelagh I just saw your comment above that most abortions are carried out well into the pregnancy. You might want to check your facts again. 87% of abortions in the UK are performed before the end of the first trimester. At this stage the foetus is not a sentient conscious being. The foetus is not viable outside the womb until around week 24 at the earliest. It has extremely limited sensory capacity let alone capacity for consciousness, thought and self awareness. You have been watching too many youth defence videos. Just because it looks like a human to some degree does not make it human. At similar end of life care when the patient has effectively no capacity for consciousness it is quite acceptable to flip the switch and harvest their organs. Abortion is extremely difficult for a mother to go through. You are equating this with the worst form of child abuse. The worst form of child abuse I can think of was when Joseph Fritzel locked his daughters up and raped them for decades and fathered children with them. Are you seriously trying to equate the two? Your a good person Sheelagh but I hope you can see my point of view that the organisation you are trying to promote has not developed your sense of moral capacity. There is so much evidence that religion does not enhance humanity this may be another example. But I still respect your right to make your point heard. Sheelagh I just saw your comment above that most abortions are carried out well into the pregnancy. You might want to check your facts again. 87% of abortions in the UK are performed before the end of the first trimester. At this stage the foetus is not a sentient conscious being. The foetus is not viable outside the womb until around week 24 at the earliest. It has extremely limited sensory capacity let alone capacity for consciousness, thought and self awareness. You have been watching too many youth defence videos. Just because it looks like a human to some degree does not make it human. At similar end of life care when the patient has effectively no capacity for consciousness it is quite acceptable to flip the switch and harvest their organs. Abortion is extremely difficult for a mother to go through. You are equating this with the worst form of child abuse. The worst form of child abuse I can think of was when Joseph Fritzel locked his daughters up and raped them for decades and having children with them. Are you seriously trying to equate the two? Your a good person Sheelagh but I hope you can see my point of view that the organisation you are trying to promote has not developed your sense of moral capacity. There is so much evidence that religion does not enhance humanity this may be another example. There is legitimate argument that abortion is stressful and also earlier limits maybe argued for. But if we want to reduce unplanned pregnancies and subsequent abortions sex education is essential. The countries where this is absent has much higher levels of unplanned pregnancies except when it was 1980s Irish style where we locked up single mums in institutions. More food for thought Sheelagh.

Yea – its sad that they are giving us a nudge that our laws are far out of date and our legislation needs more of a revamp than our Irish embassies that need €7000 rugs!

Do you think I’ll chance my opinion based upon the flaming of another Journal.ie user?

*change

Indeed Damien it is a crime, but if we change the law it will no longer be a crime.

Bullcrap