Listen Kathleen It will be the Irish People who decides on Abortion not the Government. I’m against Abortion. Down with this sort of thing.

After two referenda, the Irish people have decided, it just took this long because successive governments hadn’t the balls to enact the legislation with the result that they were told by Europe to get their house in order or have it done for them. Are you seriously proposing another referendum in order to try and get the result you want, and what if you didn’t, another and another?

Polls and referenda (which are kind of polls, I guess?) repeatedly show that Irish people favour abortion access for maternal health reasons.

@Nick Beard,

There is no link between between maternal health care and abortion access. No study whatsoever has indicated this. Ireland abortion free is actually top of the class in maternal health.

…because thousands of women go overseas to access abortion every year.

Robert Power, go away. If you can’t wrap your head around basic facts (like how abortion is sometimes needed in order to save a woman’s life, for example) then you have no place in this debate.

Actually, the WHO report (which is about 8 years old) ignores deaths from anything other than direct maternal deaths (you know, thing like suicide and cancer deaths which were complicated by pregnancy?) And if Ireland’s so great, why would you mind it being legislated? Surely you would think Ireland should be constantly improving…

A survey carried out in the year 2000 found that 1 in 8 pregnant Irish women had experienced domestic violence while pregnant.

“Ireland abortion free is actually top of the class in maternal health.”

Er, no it isn’t. More recent figures actually put us slightly behind a number of countries including Sweden, which has abortion on demand up to 18 weeks. And, as Nick has pointed out, those maternal mortality stats don’t include some indirect causes of death.

And as someone who works in sexual violence, I think Stephanie’s number is low. The problems with reporting of sexual violence are numerous.

Robert: The Republic of Ireland is not top of the class in maternal health. According to the 2011 UN document, World Abortion policies, Greece has a lower maternal death rate than we do and Greece has abortion on request.

Probably is, the survey was carried out by the Rotunda hospital 12 years ago! An international survey also found that 30% of women who experience domestic violence are pregnant when they first experience it.

@Waterford hell isn’t real. Scare tactics about the afterlife shouldn’t affect someone’s life on earth. Get a grip.

Waterford – if people like you are getting into heaven then I think I’ll take my chances with the lake of fire, thanks.

At least all the interesting and fun people will be there.

Agree Brian,
Cannot believe its been 20 years since this tragic case hit the headlines and still no law. Every political party has been in power since and none have passed a law. Abortion in a predominatly catholic country is obviously a PR nightmare for governments.

@Waterford: Eternal damnation should nevertheless be legally available.

You don’t know what the Expert Groups recommendations are, so we don’t actually know what “this is to do with”…
Incidentally, the Expert Group might well have recommendations that set the bar so high that abortion is neigh-on impossible to obtain. I wonder will the pro-choice people here be so gung-ho to implement the recommendations if that’s the case…

The absolutely needs to be legislated. If there are specific reasons why, I will write a letter explaining what I thin it misses and contribute to the debate. What I won’t be doing (YD style) is whining about how the debate is totally unnecessary.

Spot on Mark

A change to the law based solely on the X case ruling would do nothing to advance the concept of choice re. abortion. It would not give women choice. It would give power to doctors to decide that if, in their view, a woman was likely to commit suicide and that having an abortion would lessen that risk, then they could allow the woman to have an abortion in Ireland.
Why anyone thinks it’s a good idea to give this sort of power to psychiatrists is beyond me. The decision to “allow” abortion would be completely subjective as no medical test exists to determine the likelihood of suicide. What would it do to the mental health of women forced to plead suicidal intent? Does anyone believe that psychiatrists would not use this authority to recommend abortion to patients for whom they think pregnancy is not a good idea?
What would such legislation mean for a woman pregant through rape who did not want to continue with the pregnancy? Nothing. What would it do for a pregnant fourteen year old? Nothing. It would only grant access to abortion if the raped woman or the teenage girl (or the raped teenage girl) says that she is suicidal and is able to convince at least one, and maybe two depending on how the law would be drafted, that she is suicidal and that abortion will restore her to wanting to live again.

It will be for people like the X-case at first, give it 5-10 years it will be then the woman’s choice. And Rightly so.

To be honest, Jone, that’s why I’m quite interested to see the report of the expert group and how they suggest this should be resolved. Until then, there are definitely a lot of interesting questions.

@Mark Larson,

We are not bound by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and therefore the only obligation is give a report back. Also nowhere did they suggest we should liberalise Irish ban law abortion. Legal clarity is what was requested. Please don’t bring in the smoke screen of religion. This debate is about a constitutional right to life and always has been.

They did state that Ireland needed to clarify when it was available. I don’t know if you actually read the case, but I think most Irish people would believe a cancer survivor at risk should be able to fully consult with her doctor and if necessary, obtain access to an abortion.

ECHR rulings are binding. We have to give clarity. Women have a constitutional right but there is no law allowing them to use their right so our own constitutional law is being broken by the state.

@ Joesixtwo.. Who said they’re virgins???

If a woman needs an operation that will result in a miscarriage then, now, today, the operation will be carried out (e.g. ectopic pregnancy / chemo etc), but that’s not an abortion, as the prime objective is to save the mother, not kill the child, the death is an (unfortunate) side-effect… as the constitution states: “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.”
But this is different, your “whatever the reason” isn’t a medical condition, or might not be, or might just be an “unwanted pregnancy”..

I think she’s discussing the fact that suicidal women are entitled to an abortion under the Bunreacht na hEireann. You may not like it, but it’s a constitutional right, Saint Ruth.

Like how we did in the 1992 and 2002 referenda? If your arguement is that the people haven’t weighed in on maternal health abortions, that is incredibly illi-informed.

While I’m on one end, it’s true that most Irish people are in the middle. You are actually the majority if you believe abortion should be legalised in certain circumstances.

It’s also incredibly irritating when someone calls you pro-abortion. I know plenty of people who think that abortion is fundamentally wrong but also think that each woman should be allowed to decide for herself. That’s why it’s called pro-choice.

Doe someone disagree with my definition of pro-choice? If so how about you argue with me instead of cowering behind the thumbs up/thumbs down system. If you’ve so little care about the issue then don’t force your opinion on the thousands of Irish women travelling each year.

Hi Stephanie,

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my comment. Perhaps the term pro-abortion is clumsily written and in a debate that has become as toxic as the abortion issue in Ireland, words and terms are important. I do however stand over my comment above,and just want to expand on what I’ve already said. I still find abortion to be morally repugnant but would be in favour of limited access for women to abortion services – in the case of rape, as there was force and lack of consent involved and in the event of a threat to the life of the mother as the death of the mother obviously means the death of the fetus. I am firmly of the opinion that there does need to be clarification on the X case once and for all, as we have seen time and time again courts are not places of reason, they are places of battle and we shouldn’t rely on them to resolve moral and social issues.

Thanks!

Fair enough James but if we’re talking about constitutional issues then we have to allow that the courts are a tool for interpreting the constitution. Ignoring a ruling from the ECHR could be a slippery slope.

But these laws would only allow for abortions on maternal health grounds, not on foetal disability grounds. Have you actually even bothered to read the X case?

Actually, not conception. Implantation. You do know that the Bunreacht na hEireann grants no rights until implantation, right?

And of course they can’t limit abortion to 24 weeks. There are many, many life threatening conditions which do not arise until later in the pregnancy.

And myself and my twin were born @ 25 weeks over 55 years ago I survived but unfortunately my twin sister did not extremely devastating for both my parents and l always knew there was 2 of me I always knew I had a twin sister
as I say. Abortion should be in my opinion be allowed well before the 18 week deadline but I am no medic and I am only saying that at 24 weeks a child can survive and be healthy But there should not be a blanket ban on abortion and I also feel it is not just a women’s choice either it take 2 to tango…. If you are not in a stable relationship and never to see each other again, then the woman has her choice.

Ignoring the irony of saying abortion won’t be passed in any form and then saying it should be allowed in certain circumstances, plenty of people have had unplanned pregnancies due to other reasons than not being careful with contraception.

I knew a woman who was told pregnancy is impossible while breast feeding (which is something doctors still sometimes tell you) who became pregnant six weeks after having her first child.

The durty article! Name and shame!maybe she was having sex during the christian calendar and got confused

You’re aware that no contraceptive has a 100% success rate, right? And that the backup of the morning after pill is also condemned by many anti-abortion campaigners? Not to mention that one only works if you *know* your contraception has failed (eg burst condom), which doesn’t happen if, say, your pill didn’t work to suppress ovulation that month – then you just get a surprise when your period is due…

There’s also the fact that many women aren’t correctly informed about the way in which bowel problems, antibiotics or vomiting can interfere with the effectiveness of the pill.

I became pregnant while on antibiotics, despite being specifically told by my doctor that it would not interfere.

A good medical system and a good obstetric system views mother and child as patients, both to be treated with the utmost respect and deserving of the most professional care. When I had my children, I wouldn’t have wanted to attend an obstetrician who could see aborting my child as ever being an option. Medical students in the UK are avoiding this area of “work”, not surprisingly, given the increasing knowledge of the humanity of the baby in utero. What medical doctor who trains to save life wants to target such vulnerable, helpless creatures? A good doctor won’t target the baby, but will do his level best to bring the baby to a safe delivery while utilising all their expertise to maintain the good health of the mother. It’s a spurious argument to suggest that this isn’t happening in our maternity hospitals and it’s totally out of order to undermine women’s confidence in the high level of care here in Ireland.

Sorry, Maria, can you point us to your sources to say there is a shortage of doctors performing abortions in the UK?

And I’d want a doctor who considers my life a priority. I’m sure there are plenty of women who agree with me.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reported on the anniversary of The Abortion Act that “increasing numbers of trainees want nothing to do with the service.” They also spoke of abortion as a “distressing experience” and that the doctors who perform abortions are the ones who most wanted a reduction in the number of abortions being carried out. Another comment was that ” No one enjoys performing abortions” and that conscientious objection is the right of every doctor. As doctors rarely object to performing other surgeries, could it be that they are jaded with the senseless lost of life on such a large scale? We have the comfort of sitting at our computers debating the issue, but it’s the doctors and medical staff who have to perform the unpleasant task of ending the life of the human foetuses or babies, as most pregnant women refer to the life in their uterus. In all the times I’ve been pregnant, not once did a doctor or midwife ask how the foetus was?

“In all the times I’ve been pregnant, not once did a doctor or midwife ask how the foetus was?”

Well yes, I presume those were pregnancies you wanted to continue and the doctors (rightly?) presumed that you were already thinking of the potential life inside you as a future baby.

Actually when I had an incomplete miscarriage there were no references whatsoever to “the baby”, which I was very happy about.

A potential life. Lisa? Don’t you believe that the foetus is alive? When a pregnant woman goes to the antenatal clinic, as the pregnancy progresses, the midwife or obstetrician will listen for a heartbeat, ask about movements and how the baby is kicking. Ultrasound shows movement and parents can find out the sex of the child. Rather than being a potential life, the foetus is a life with potential. Whether a baby is unplanned or not doesn’t change the reality of whether it’s alive.

So you have no citation then?

Er, yes, Maria, I’m on my third pregnancy, I’ve had numerous ultrasounds, I know how it works.

The foetus is certainly alive, but in terms of it being a fully fledged human being, I think it’s a potential life, getting closer and closer to that potential as the pregnancy develops from fertilized egg to term. It’s why, for instance, I was upset by a 12-week miscarriage but nothing near how I’d feel if, heaven forbid, something happened to my actually born child or another family member.

So when does a foetus become a “fully fledged” human beings? Just wondering when you believe a developing person becomes human?

When they’re capable of independent life outside the womb.

How about we put it to a vote and let the people decide, if what you say is true then you have nothing to fear.

You’re quite right, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. However since Europe told our politicians to sort this mess out or they would the billboards and street protests began again and the vast majority of people who have an opinion on this subject tend to fall into one of two camps. The religious “I don’t agree with abortion because the men in Rome say so, therefore nobody can have one” and the non religious “aw for Christ’s sake, if you don’t want one then don’t have one”.
We can’t know everyone’s religious beliefs, of lack of, and I wouldn’t dream of asking, so when people have a strong opinion on a subject like this they tend to be “pigeon holed”. However judging by your Twitter comments, you say you’ve being going to Victory Outreach since September 2008 and make comments like “God always honors the obiedient”, and “God’s way is not the easy way”. With this in mind I believe I was correct in your case, you are religious. God doesn’t like deceit.

BURRRRRNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

John you speak the truth but expect loads of thumbs down….the truth can be uncomfortable for some !!

@John you can look at hundreds of surgical procedures that will make you puke or disturb you. To compare them to the Nazi extermination of the Jews in WWII is disgusting, don’t attempt to justify it.
Clusters of cells move and resemble a human on an ultrasound, they are not alive, they do not have souls. When they are born and take a breath they become living, breathing human beings. This can be measured.

You know what I also consider deliberate killing? Allowing a woman to die for maternal reasons. But then…the truth can be uncomfortable for some.

Godwin’s Law eh? I’m gonna convert to Judaism and then I can murder 52 million Jews every night :)

Actually, ironically, Judaism allows for first term abortions. But what would they know about dehumanisation and genocide, right?

@Brian

Man, you really are misinformed!

John writing something in CAP LOCKS doesn’t make your opinion fact, it just makes you like your SHOUTING!!!!!.
Lynch won’t get her way in the dáil, she’ll get the way the expert group reports, the government have already agreed this.
Also most abortions happen when the foetus is 1cm.

Yes. Because if your parents are pro choice, the odds are much higher that you’re actually a wanted child. I feel very sorry for pro life people, actually. How would you ever know that your parents wanted you as opposed to just making the best of things because they thought they had to?

Pro choice people have children. Most women having abortions already have children.

Well, given that 25 years ago I was 15….

No, no, he makes a good point. Because neither myself nor any of my sisters are planning on having kids and we’re all pro-choice….except that I already have two nieces and I want about five kids myself…hmmmm…

But, on the other hand, Nick, if a sibling was aborted, wouldn’t you have questions to ask about your plight if you were conceived at a time when your parents didn’t want a baby for whatever reason? I think this might be even more marked if you were the surviving twin or triplet of a pregnancy where there was selective reduction of the foetuses. The only reason you’d be alive is because you were in the least accessible position in utero.

It’s a bit too black and white to presume that the children of pro-choice parents are more wanted. Pro-life parents plan their families too and even if a pregnancy is unplanned, it doesn’t mean that the resulting child will be any less loved. I have planned and unplanned children and I don’t believe the planned ones are more cherished or wanted.

You’re right that there’s a difference between unplanned and unwanted. Unplanned children can be wanted. But I have been told by pro life people that they would keep an UNWANTED child because “you take the bad with the good”. Being raised with that attitude would be something I would find very depressing, personally.

And actually, I have several friends whose mothers ended unwanted pregnancies. They’re amongst the most pro choice people I know, simply because they appreciate the randomness of life. If their mothers had gone through with a pregnancy, they might not have been born. You can spend your life thinking of the “what ifs” but there’s a lot of them. It’s just not worth it.

Isn’t that terrible, that any child would be labelled unwanted, like some bag of old clothes or junk that is being thrown out? I’ve been posting on parenting boards for years and have interacted with many women who gave birth in difficult circumstances, who were struggling to make ends meet or who had children with disabilities. Many bemoaned the hardships of life, but not one said that they didn’t want their child or that they would turn back the clock. Even if a child is unwanted, and I don’t doubt that there are children that are unwanted, shouldn’t society look into the reasons why a woman would feel overwhelmed, possible mental health issues and what structures could be put in place to support struggling families. And if a child really is unwanted by one set of parents, there are many couples or single people who are dying to be parents and would shower love and care on a child. What about the child- have they no hope of finding love in the future and being appreciated as the unique human being that they are? What a depressing vista if we have no hope and end a life that has so much potential.

Oh, so it’s the label “unwanted” that’s the problem, not the fact that they are?

You actually seem to be arguing that all women who are forced to give birth will want their children. While societal support would help, some women genuinely do not want to continue a pregnancy. But if you’re saying everyone eventually wants their child…which is why there’s no child abuse…. Have you ever supported a childhood sexual abuse survivor? Because I have clients who would have preferred to not be born than be abused. There’s potential for pain and suffering too, and that’s magnified if you’re unwanted.

And once we don’t have 5,000 adoptable children stuck in care without someone to live them? Then your arguement about “other families” will be even remotely realistic.

And when you were supporting the victims of sexual abuse, did you agree that it would be better if they hadn’t been born? I believe a lot of victims of abuse can go on to lead happy, fulfilling lives.although scarred by their horrific experiences, they rise above it. Thank goodness, there are people who offer support to victims and assist them in healing. I think it’s terrible that there are so many children in care waiting for homes. A poor reflection on the system, but abortion is surely not the answer. I hope abortion wouldn’t be seen as a tool to reduce the number of poor or underprivileged people because that would be horrific. Surely more families could be encouraged to make a place in their hearts and homes for children who can’t live with their on parents, It’s certainly something that I’d like to do.

Maria, so why haven’t you?

@dublinlad72 While I can see you’ve put some thought into this and I can see you points, I’m not sure it would be necessary for every person to submit a request to the Dept of Health, bearing in mind all this has to be carried out within 3 months and allowing time for a woman to discover she is pregnant.
In this country for all these things to happen, meetings and discussions etc, the child would be walking by the time they decided.

You know that’s exactly what I used to think as well. Then I got some experience of bureaucracy in Ireland. I’m betting the betting that within six weeks of such a system being implemented that the waiting period to be processed would be at 10 months.

What about if there is a case like the x case and she can’t afford to go abroad??? So abortion is ok as long as its done in a foreign country?? How ridiculous. It’s a woman’s choice to do what she wants with her body. And all support should be given especially to the women involved in the x case and the ABC case.

A cluster of cells isn’t a child. This is basic science.

Well, that’s your opinion. Granted, it totally conflicts with the Bunreacht na hEireann, but hey, I’m sure you’re this dismissive of all constitutional rights? Wouldn’t be upset at all if your right to vote, freedom of speech and freedom of association were violated?

Nick, when Bunreacht na hEireann was written, we were still under the cosh of the catholic church, which viewed women as second class ciizens. And when the catholic churches rulebook was written people still thought the world was flat and the sun did a pirouette around it.So, think about what you’re advocating…

I’m pro choice myself, Tootrueleft. But I do think that legislators should be bound by it (yep, massive constitutional nerd) even if there are certain provisions I’d like to change.

Lynda, they might not be a problem for you but dont feel you speak for every woman.

@too trueleft,

eh actually you are completely incorrect. The current CC teaching against abortion originates from leaps in our knowledge about human development in 20th cen.

Well, then, you’ll be able to point me to articles saying the Catholic Church has changed its mind on the issue? Since it happened within the last century? No problem, right?

If you’re against abortion, don’t have one.

@Lynda “I am a non religious person” Really?

http://twitter.com/Bindy24

LOL, caught with the proverbial pants down :D Who the hell pretends to be non religious when they really are to try to add credence to their point?

I follow a religion and adhere to its tenets. But I have never once felt the need in debates over abortion to affirm my religious beliefs. If you have to constantly say “and non religious people agree with me!” rather than just…having non religious people agree with you? You’re in trouble.

Lol Taxi for Lynda!

Sorry, are you actually deluded or something? “I am a non-religious person” … your tweets are filled with Godisms… get over yourself!

Well, it’s not dead. But the debate is whether it’s a person and given rights. As the ECHR has noted, there’s no scientific evidence either way and this is a philosophical debate. Your opinion is no more valid or provable than anyone else’s.

Do a little research on early child development and you can learn a thing or two about a social smile.

The cells aren’t the beginning of life. Sperm and ova cells are alive, so to say it’s the “beginning of life is erroneous.” Now, if you’re claiming it’s when personhood begins, you’re right that (as the ECHR noted) there’s no scientific or philosophical consensus on this. So your opinion is as good as other on this one, but the Bunreacht na hEireann gives women the right to an abortion for maternal health reasons.

And I really hate people who make everything about class, but saying “it’s easy to travel!” is kind of totally ignorant of monetary reality for many women.

Basic science is correct. Calling those ever dividing cells the beginning of life is nothing more than religious opinion. Can you show where this can be measured?

So, Nick, what you’re claiming is, every time you’ve had a wet dream you’ve committed mass murder on a scale comparable with the Nazis during WWII??

I’m a woman, so no. (sorry, cheap shot.) Now, note this is all my personal opinion rather than the constitutional law of Ireland, BUT while sperm and ova are both alive, I do believe that fertlisation and implantation both do represent a significant development change. I personally think it becomes a person then, but I stress both views are absolutely and totally valid. Science doesn’t really address “what is a person?”

Annie, scared of giving people control over their own body’s when their lives are at risk or if they’ve been raped?

Shame on you!

It is more significant. But why is it just girls you’re talking about? Are girls the only ones who get pregnant by accident? What about women who have children already and cannot afford to have another? For example. And when you say inconvenience – explain what you mean by that? How do you define “inconvenience”? There are a lot of inconvenient factors that if you think about might widen your stance on restrictions.

Have you actually read the ABC case? Just out of curiousity. And yes, call me crazy, but I don’t expect an “expert group” to recommend ignoring the Bunreacht na hEireann. The politics and legality of this have been decided. The extremists lost. Sorry about that, but you don’t get to ignore constitutional provisions you don’t like.

Who is foisting abortion on you? Are we talking about forced abortion? No. We’re talking about providing abortion to women whose LIVES ARE IN DANGER. Women with cancer, women with chronic disease, epileptic women, older women, much younger women, sucidal women!

You may not want abortion ‘foisted on you’ in the sense that it will simply be available in a country you happen to live in but these women don’t want an actual pregnancy forced on them, on their actual bodies that they use to leave, breath and work with all day, everyday! What gives you the right to force them into that?!

The grounds seem to be getting broader by the minute.

Really? Because the above list contains categories at women whose lives are at risk if they become pregnant. If you’d like to dispute that or reply to the rest of the comment that would be fine.

@ Stephanie,

Could you name concrete medical conditiions whereby an abortion is necessary to save the woman’s life, apart from the issue of suicidality? I’m sincerely curious as to how many there are, as I’ve read in a book I considered authoritative that there aren’t any whatsoever.

Just off the top of my head, any form of cancer that requires chemotherapy (incompatible with pregnancy) or affects the uterus.

From this article I found on ovarian cancer in pregnancy (http://ovariancancer.about.com/od/ovariancancerbasics/a/OvCa_Pregnancy.htm):
” If the cancer has spread beyond the ovary, it may be best to remove the uterus to get rid of as much cancer as possible. If the pregnancy is less than 24 weeks, removing the uterus would obviously terminate the pregnancy and the fetus would not survive.”

“If chemotherapy is required during the first trimester, it is possible that a choice will be required about terminating the pregnancy. Waiting for months can endanger the mother’s life and limit the chances of cure.”

Obviously in the latter case there’s no *guarantee* that the patient would *definitely* die if they postponed their treatment for eight months, but I know what I’d be doing under the circumstances.

@Maurice read up on the cases of A, B & C. C had previously had cancer which can come back during pregnancy and chemo etc often doesn’t work the second time. The ECHR ruled (based on the Irish Supreme Court’s ruling in the X case) that she had a right under Bunreacht na hÉireann to have a termination of her pregnancy but was denied this right by the absence of a clear law explaining her constitutional right to life.

Thanks Lisa.

To my mind however, those removals of the uterus and chemotherapy at an early stage aren’t abortions. The surgeon’s intent is not to abort the foetus, but to carry out a procedure to save the woman’s life and the termination of the foetus’ viability is a casualty of that.

Wish I was a doctor and a lawyer on this thread.

What about a woman who suffers from brittle bone disease? I know some women who suffer from it can go on to have perfectly healthy babies, same with women who suffer from epilepsy. But these pregnancies can carry serious risks, which can be fatal at times (and in the case of BBD can cause serious pain), to both mother and baby. Surely you wouldn’t force these women against their will to carry a baby and to go through all the pain and suffering?
Just because you don’t like abortions?

Actually in the chemo case they would perform a termination before administering the chemo, as the effect of chemo on the foetus is not predictable and might result in a much later miscarriage rather than an immediate one. So in that case it’s not that “the treatment has the indirect effect of terminating the pregnancy”, it’s more “it is more humane to terminate the pregnancy directly first so that we can perform the life-saving treatment”.

Also yes, as Paul pointed out, a better example is cases where women have a massive chance of recurrence (possibly untreatable) of a serious or fatal illness if they get pregnant in the first place. I can’t remember the exact type(s) of cancer involved but I’ve definitely read them somewhere and I’m sure I can get them with a bit of searching. There are also certain very dangerous psychiatric conditions that can relapse in pregnancy, though that’s suicide again.

@Beezleboss

That’s a very difficult question. Fortunately for most people I’m not in any position of authority to force a woman to carry a baby full term or otherwise. I have no pat answer to the case of BBD and (even as a pro-lifer) would feel great pity for the woman who has to suffer like that when pregnant.

But do we start killing the unborn to avoid the suffering of the mother?
Aren’t there potent enough analgesics available nowadays to counter extreme pain?
Are there other options in the case of pregnancy with BBD?

Maybe you can point out the correct approach here, as for all I know you may be a doctor confronted with this type of suffering and feel powerless to help.

@ Lisa

It still appears to me that these cases aren’t abortions per se.
If a doctor has to terminate a pregnancy to allow a life saving procedure take place, as in the case you pointed out, then the termination is part of an overall medical intervention which has as its object saving the womans’ life.
To me that seems reasonable and doesn’t apall in the way that many argue for a woman’s choice to abort for no other reason than for some inconvenience.

Maurice, Women who suffer from these diseases and then become pregnant not only run the risk of pain and suffering. They also run the risk of passing their disabilities onto their child. They also have increased chances of death or causing permanent injury to themselves. The stress of being pregnant can increase the frequency and intensity of epileptic fits.
In my opinion any woman who becomes pregnant and runs the risk of permanent damage to their health or death (no matter how slim the chances are) Is well within their rights to choose if they should carry a child to full term or not.
I don’t think it’s up to me, you, or anyone else for that matter to decide whether or not a woman is capable mentally or physically to carry a child to full term.

Maurice to answer your questions

1. Yes. Why force a woman to suffer through nine months of what could be painful, dangerous and traumatising pregnancy to prioritise the rights of an unconscious semi-formed foetus? It’s physical and psychological torture, it’s unfortunate that the foetus has no intent but that’s not reason enough to force it on a woman. Develop some kind of a foetus transplant and then we’ll talk.

2. No, there aren’t potent enough analgesics. Ask anyone suffering from back pain, migraines, bone cancer, fibromyalgia. Pain management is far from an exact science and many of the “potent analgesics” of which you speak would seriously harm a foetus or indeed cause miscarriage.

3. There are very few options for women who have BBD who aren’t pregnant as it is. Simply the physical weight of pregnancy and the effects of it on the joints and posture would be enough to cause serious problems.

Finally, lets not dispute the definition of abortion, it’s spurious nit picking of definition initiated by pro-life groups when they finally cottoned on that women really were dying without abortion and they realised they agreed under certain circumstances but refused to back down.

It seems, Maurice, that you are saying you would support abortion on maternal health grounds (except for mental health grounds.) Which we’ve already been through how you disagree but accept the authority of the Bunreacht na hEireann.

I personally don’t see it as a distinction between abortion and “not abortion” (as I think the act itself defines it, but you seem to believe the motives do?) but as medically necessary abortions and non medically necessary abortions.

Quote where he said it and who allegedly heard this alleged specific reference to this medical procedure, I’ll be looking for credible witnesses for a bold claim like that before I believe it

Quote where he said it and who allegedly heard this specific reference to this medical procedure, I’ll be looking for credible witnesses for a bold claim like that before I believe it

The ‘men’ in Rome or ‘man’ on the throne will NEVER be pregnant. What a luxury for them to be able to pontificate to those who could be!

Really? Because the God in several other religions says it’s ok. Why is your religion more worthy of legislating than mine or those without religion?

Right so,now go and read the rest of the comment.
Slightly egotistical of you to assume I was having a go at you personally,when you have pointed out more than once now that you are not religious.Probably should actually read what is being said before you climb up on your high horse there.