The three monkeys spring to mind …

“Speak no evil, See no evil, hear no evil” ….
Ostrich antics being mimicked by the government as well, and not just on this issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well said Niamh, despicable behaviour!

He’s far from unsympathetic and has fought long and hard on human rights issues. Whatever the difficult circumstances of the unfortunate couple, whether someone is smirking may just be a matter of opinion. it seemed a little out of order to say such a thing. I heard Ronan Mullen on Newstalk and it didn’t sound to me like he intended to sue anyone. I think the wording in this article isn’t quite right. Mullen wanted to hear more from parents of children with severe conditions, not from the children themselves.

Just out of interest, Maria, what human rights issues has he fought long and hard on?

@ Niamh. He had a good teacher in cardinal Desmond Connel – Ronan was the Dublin archdiocese’s press agent:

Marie Collins had told the commission of her anger about the concept (of mental reservation) which, according to the Murphy Commission report, “permits a churchman to knowingly convey a misleading impression to another person without being guilty of lying”. Andrew Madden told the commission how during an informal meeting in 2003, Cardinal Desmond Connell had apologised for the handling of the Fr Ivan Payne case, but had been at pains to point out to him that he did not lie about the use of diocesan funds in meeting the settlement paid by Fr Payne in respect of his abuse of Mr Madden as a child. It had emerged in 1995 that the £27,500 settlement was made on the basis of a loan from Cardinal Connell from diocesan funds.

The Murphy report states, in relation to the 2003 meeting: “He [Cardinal Connell] explained that when he was asked by journalists about the use of diocesan funds for the compensation of child sexual abuse, he had responded that diocesan funds are not used for such a purpose; that he had not said that diocesan funds were not used for such a purpose. By using the present tense, he had not excluded the possibility that diocesan funds had been used for such purpose in the past.”

Mr Madden told the commission the cardinal felt there was an enormous difference between the two.

In another instance, Marie Collins had been upset about a press statement issued by the Archdiocese of Dublin following the conviction of her abuser in 1997, which claimed that it had co-operated with Gardaí in relation to her complaint, “as she had good reason to believe the Archdiocese’s level of co-operation was, to say the least, questionable. Her support priest Fr James Norman subsequently told the gardaí that he asked the Archdiocese about that statement and that the explanation he received was that ‘we never said we cooperated fully’, placing emphasis on the word ‘fully’.”

Interesting that he chooses to consider the legal position regarding the comments made on his facial expression.
I came across a comment on twitter the other day which made the argument in his favour that his countenance is permanently locked into a smirking, jeery type of expression which may not be reflective of his true feelings. ‘It’s his face’ the commenter proposed while appending a link to various pictures of Mr. Mullen in which, sure enough, he was smirking and grinning to his hearts content!
Now I wonder to myself if the unfortunate senator is afflicted by such a permanent disability of countenance might he have a case for ‘discrimination’ rather than ‘defamation’ in relation to these comments, and is his proclivity for smirking and grinning outside his control. But sure isn’t the good Senator is also a lawyer of some repute and who would I be to be pondering such matters on his behalf!

But then I get even more confused because in my mind it is the unfortunate women who have been prevented by the antiquarian laws of this state to be able to avail of a right to choose a necessary medical procedure that are being discriminated against rather than the smirking and grinning Mr. Mullen. Is’nt smirking and grinning is an awful affliction to have?!?

The senator is trying to have the purchase of sex made illegal….I would imagine he considers it another sin that needs banning.

He is doing this under the guise of helping to prevent human trafficing for the sex trade. A related but separate matter.

Even if it is the case he looked like he was smirking when he wasn’t (I’ve been falsely accused of such a thing once or twice) instead of simply saying something along the lines of “I apologies if it looked like I was smirking, but I sincerely wasn’t” he chooses to contemplate legal action. Says it all really.

He wouldn’t want to be bothered by social media as it can get pretty nasty, so if he couldn’t stand the heat, he’d have jumped ship a long time ago. If you have strong views on human rights, you don’t back down because of a bit of mud slinging. I do think it doesn’t facilitate balanced, mature debate when a person’s physical appearance comes into the equation.

“strong views on human rights”, except the right of a woman facing the prospect of carrying to term a foetus that has died in her womb or will shortly after birth to a safe and legal abortion. Ronan’s commitment to human rights is highly selective and is as shallow as his regret for any offence caused to these brave women by his antics at this meeting.

Desmond, your party leader agreed with his point of view and ordered the government to vote against the proposal to allow further discussion on a possible referendum. And lets not forget this numptyy’s fellow thinker who went all out to educate the Island that pregnancy can result from fornication (also a member of your party). Your apparent disgust at his “smirking” is a little hypocritical when you put it in context, do you not think???

What on Earth are you on about, Cal? I’d take a little lie down there my friend. Just for the record I’m neither a member nor supporter of Fine Gael.

Desmond, FFg/Labour are all the one these days…. There isn’t a chink of light between them anymore, much to the dissatisfaction of the voters.

Ah right, Cal. So like when we last jousted. You make a wild and specious claim., I present evidence to show that the claim is incorrect and you then continue with the claim anyhow. Whackamole, anyone?

I think he’s pondering on whether he might sue the guy who (he says) lied about him, and slandered him.

Where you there, Desmond? You seem to know for a fact what happened.

Desmond, are you arguing my point, or agreeing with me?? A straight answer “Yes” or “No” would be much appreciated to the question … Did your party support the referenda motion to allow women in medical emergencies to have abortions in Ireland? No plaumasing, no spin, just a straight answer. If you give a straight answer, then please feel free to elaborate on your answer.

Threats of violence are surely a little bit more than “unhelpful”. Of course the sensitivities of the families have to be respected, but if women came forward and said that they were hurt or damaged by abortion, people wouldn’t be slow to disagree with their viewpoint. Sad as it seems, if you put yourself in the public arena, you have to be prepared for the fact that there will be those who don’t agree with you especially on an issue such as abortion.

I don’t believe any credible threats have been made, Maria, just inarticulate ramblings – that’s what I mean by ‘unhelpful’. As I said, it’s bile and has no place in a rational debate.

To be fair to the women involved, I don’t think they are talking about carte blanche abortion. They were sharing their individual experiences about the psychological trauma of carrying a foetus that has zero chance of life outside the womb. Ronan Mullen was insensitive and disrespectful by suggesting that they had a ‘bigger agenda’. He should issue an apology. Regardless of a person’s feelings about the broader issue of abortion I think most would agree that it was a difficult thing for those women to speak about in front of strangers.

Senator Mullen’s advisors are not helping him in anyway by suggesting he has a default facial smirk, it’s utterly ridiculous. And he isn’t doing himself any favours by misrepresenting the issue into a broader abortion debate and using threatening legal language towards a person he was grossly insensitive toward.

Maria, I respect that abortion is not a pleasant experience. I also respect that some women will come to regret the decision that they made, we have all made decisions which we regret and I agree, it is an important part of the debate. As is the current range of options with regards hospices etc. the thing is, at present – short of exercising your right to travel – there is no choice. You carry to term or you go to the UK, which isn’t actually an option for all that may wish to seek it.
This is why I am pro choice. Every individual is different, and regardless of my feelings about the issue, I don’t have the right to force another woman to carry to term. It’s her choice to make and I support her whatever decision she makes.

That’s all very well, Shanti Om, but if one really believes that an unborn child is a human being at an earlier stage of development, it just isn’t a legitimate position to sit back and says that choices about that human being’s very right to exist are not my concern. I believe women have choices about their own body, but not about another person’s body. Choice is brilliant, but where choice impinges on another person’s right to ever make another choice about anything, then it has to be limited. That’s what laws are all about-we shouldn’t need them, but there has to be a framework in place to assist the most vulnerable.

First off Maria, In this case we are talking about babies who are not going to survive. So their right to live has already been taken away by nature.
In other cases, the majority of abortions (in the UK for example 80%+) take place within the first trimester, when the chance of spontaneous abortion is still very real as the foetus triggers the womans immune response.

Human rights begin at birth. Up until 24 weeks that foetus depends solely on the woman to survive, and we don’t know her situation. She could have good reason to abort (health implications for example), to deny the choice means forcing changes on that woman’s body against her wishes. And she is born, so her human rights supersede the potential for life that exists within her womb.

Shanti Om, Am I right in suggesting that you are in favour of abortion up to 24 weeks and not just in cases of severe fetal abnormalities? Forgive me if I’m wrong. Do you see the baby as less deserving of certain rights? When it comes to a diagnosis of a condition like Trisomy 13 or Trisomy 18, there have been reports of improvements in the life expectancy so there is some hope for those with this diagnosis, small as it might be. My own sister’s baby was given a diagnosis of severe cardiac problems when my sister was several months pregnant. She was pushed in the direction of abortion by one particular doctor who offered her no hope for a positive outcome. Luckily, she did her own research and following two major surgeries and various treatments, she is the mother of a delightful 2 year old daughter. Sometimes doctors get it wrong- this little girl has amazed the doctors with her progress.

Maria, I think 12 weeks is plenty of time to decide if your reason is related to your health, or if you don’t wish to experience pregnancy, if you were raped, or if you suffered contraceptive failure. And the figures would seem to indicate that this is when the majority take place even when provisions are in place up to the 24th week. After that it is far more likely foetal health was the determining factor.

Your example is one of those very rare exceptions, but it doesn’t make the rule. If you are willing to take the chance then more power to you, I can’t force you either way. It’s not my body, it’s not my life, it’s not my business.

The baby wouldn’t survive without the mother (except for that one baby that survived at 22), so it’s up to her whether she consents to the hormonal changes, the bodily changes, having to buy new clothes as she gets bigger, possible gestational diabetes etc, and in the case of a wanted baby that is incompatible with life well meaning people asking the due date. I do not have the right to force this upon her in exactly the same way I couldn’t force a woman to have an abortion.

Dunno where the rest of my post went.

It’s not my business..
I cant force a woman to undergo the bodily and hormonal changes associated with pregnancy, I can’t force her to have to buy new clothes to accommodate her bigger size, I can’t force her to endure well meaning people asking the due date if her much wanted baby is not viable.
No more than I can force a woman to have one. All I advocate is choice.

Is there any situation where the law would regulate a woman’s decision to have an abortion, Shanti Om?

Could I ask you to clarify please, I’m not quite sure what exactly you are asking..

Actually I see where I was not very clear, I wouldn’t advocate abortion post 24 weeks as at this stage inducing birth is pretty much the same thing. There isn’t really anywhere that aborts up until delivery unless there is a serious medical reason for doing so. A baby born at 24 weeks would be far more capable of survival than if delivery were any sooner.
In the case of non viability, again, it’s the woman’s choice, she will grieve either way, why remove her of her autonomy over how she grieves?

I respect your position of disagreeing with abortion, this is your choice, it’s quite safe to assume that even if the service were on offer, you would never avail of it. All I am saying is that in order for me to respect your choice, perhaps you should be willing to grant other women the right to make their own choices about their own bodies?

You can’t have it both ways, Shanti

“Maria, I think 12 weeks is plenty of time to decide if your reason is related to your health, or if you don’t wish to experience pregnancy, if you were raped, or if you suffered contraceptive failure.”

“I cant force a woman to undergo the bodily and hormonal changes associated with pregnancy, I can’t force her to have to buy new clothes to accommodate her bigger size,”

A lot fo those changes, especially with regard to size, occur after the 12th week. So you are in fact willing to force a woman to go through the clothes buying, weigh-gaining thing

Ok, dunno where the rest of that went….

I was saying; you are willing to force a woman to go through weigh-gain and clothes buying if your own criteria for life are met.

I’d ask what you’d say to a girl who finds out she is 13 weeks pregnant, but I know your answer is to pretend that never happens

Apart from prof John Crown I never came across a good one yet

EDIT: I did not use the phrase playing the victim to infer thats what the ladies in question were doing. Upon reading the post I can see how it might be construed as such. Thats not what I meant.

Isn’t there such a thing as feeling very sorry for a person’s tragic situation, but disagreeing with how they feel that situation should be dealt with? I don’t understand the view that there’s only one possible response to the circumstances these families found themselves in.

@Maria It’s called ‘Empathy’ .. something to which the Blessed Mullet is lacking.

Yea, but you won’t change your views to agree with me would you? Empathy doesn’t mean that you support something that you fundamentally disagree with.

@Maria. It’s the nub of the whole issue really. Ronan can’t empathise on this issue because he is not a woman. His views on abortion are null and void because he will never be pregnant – he’ll NEVER have to face the choice of continuing with a pregnancy – such as these women had – or of travelling to the UK for medical treatment.

Of course there is. But we are not talking about disagreeing are we? We’re talking about a state with a legacy of church interference and political cowardice making it necessary for these women who were suffering deeply to travel to another country to be treated with compassion and dignity.

You don’t have to be a woman to show empathy to women who find themselves in these circumstances. I’m sure fathers are just as upset and traumatised by the sad news. Many women have never been pregnant and have never been in this particular situation, so they don’t know exactly how it feels either. A diagnosis of severe problems in the development of the baby affects mothers, fathers and other family members too. That’s why I’m disappointed that there’s barely been a mention of any option other than abortion and that the only kind and caring approach is to view abortion as the only answer to such a tragic diagnosis.

@Maria But what other options are/were available here for those brave women who met TDs and Senators – other than travelling to the UK? If one option is that they continue (or be forced to continue) with a pregnancy that is going to fail then that is ADDING to the trauma of the expectant mother and expectant father.

Therapeutic abortion is the termination of a pregnancy for medical reasons, such as life-threatening consequences for the mother (e.g., ectopic pregnancy), situations of rape or incest, fetal abnormalities, death of a fetus, or to selectively reduce a multifetal pregnancy.

http://www.mdguidelines.com/abortion-surgical

They clearly didn’t get the latest “talking points” memo from Youth Defence.

So are you saying it is not ok to feel offended by someone smirking at the pain and suffering that these couples had gone through , and that they should just put up and shut up and go away ???
I say fair play to the man who stood by his wife and supported her throughthis awful time . I also want to say how brave they are in reliving their ordeal in the telling of their individual stories . Mullen should be told to shut up and say no more .

Well, Susie, that depends on whether he was smirking or not.
He says he wasn’t.

I am saying it is not ok to get caught up in this “he-said-she-said” nonsense. This argument has no conclusion, as those arguing were not in the room at the time and so have absolutely no facts to back up their case, whichever side they are on.

As ever, a lack of facts does not seem to prevent public debate. Instead, “facts” are made up, based on existing prejudices and agendas.

In the first sentence of your comment, your implied Mullen was “smirking at the pain and suffering”. Nobody here, including yourself, knows if that is true. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. In this case, you really have to ask yourself what your certainty is based on.

The same certainties that you base he wasn’t smirking on …. Actually I do not like the comment you made about Anti authority sentment , I am not anti authority , but just because someone is a senator are you saying he can not be questioned ?
And
Saint Ruth
The people in the room say he was smirking !

I did not say he wasn’t smirking. Please re-read.

At this point I think it’s fair to say that he got his hands on a shovel and he is digging as fast as he bloody well can.

But potentially lethal!

And speaking of defamation…

Defamation by definition would be something that is untrue. Consider this rather to be an ugly fact.

In your opinion, which is probably coloured by the fact that you just don’t agree with his opinions. Can people not see the good in anyone who disagrees with their life view? I don’t dislike everyone who holds an opposing view. Have you ever actually talked or interacted with him.

I try to see the good in all people Maria, but Ronan and people like him make it inordinately difficult. I’ve never spoken to him personally but I’ve seen his website and read seanad transcripts in the past. I don’t think that I would care to exchange pleasantries with such a person.

Would you not talk to someone that you disagreed with? I have to say that no matter how far removed someone’s views were to my own, I’d still like to discuss their views. Everyone’s different, I suppose.

Wow Dave A few rational comments about Abortion from people who have strong feelings on both sides of the argument and can articulate there feelings and arguments properly and you come along with this bile. I am so sorry for your frame of mind
Thankfully religious freedom is still available here to all and long my we allow it to be so .

Women are constantly striving for equality, but we constantly have pregnancy being painted as some sort of major illness that puts an unbearable burden on our fragile bodies. Yes, there can be very tough pregnancies and a normal pregnancy cannot be compared to one where there’s a difficult diagnosis, but many women sail through the 9 months without any major problems and actually enjoy the experience. If there’s any major stress, it’s probably several years later when you’re dealing with a couple of hormonal teenagers. ; )

I don’t see how a wife or lover makes any difference- I have a husband, lover and kids, but I still see that abortion can hurt women and that there are other options that aren’t being discussed at all.

Maria, a healthy pregnancy certainly isn’t an illness, but even the healthiest of pregnancies puts a big strain on the body, especially in its latter stages. Your feet spread. Your pelvis loosens, sometimes causing severe back and hip pain, if you don’t already have backache from the extra weight you’re carrying. Your immune system is suppressed so that a cold can last forever and a flu could land you in hospital (oh, and you can’t take a lot of medication because it might harm the baby). Your skin stretches, sometimes scarring. It’s hard to find a comfortable position to sleep – at one point I got a baby foot stuck under my ribs and thought I had appendicitis until my GP told me what it was. And that’s not even counting the elevated risk of dangerous conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, pre-eclampsia. A friend of mine got migraines so severe in late pregnancy that the first time it happened her husband thought she was having a stroke. My own pregnancy was pretty unremarkable and I still wouldn’t have wished the experience on somebody who didn’t really, really want the baby at the end of it. Oh, and there’s all the postnatal hormonal fun as well – including, if you’re in the situation those poor women were in, lactating for a baby you’ll never get to feed.

Even if you’ve had the easiest possible pregnancies, I don’t think you can just dismiss going through pregnancy and childbirth as “no big thing” and something minor that a woman would just have to deal with for a few months if their pregnancy was unwanted/doomed. It’s one of the reasons why having a child has made me even more pro-choice.

Please tell that to my wife who had to have an abortion last week in the UK as after 10 weeks of pregnancy we were told we had no choice as our baby wasn’t growing properly.

I lay beside my wife last night as she sobbed throughout the night. I was wide awake with tears running down my cheeks. The stress of the abortion was bad enough but having to go over to Manchester was inhumane.

Shame on you.

I’ve had several pregnancies and lost three babies so I know all about crying my eyes out and staring at an ultrasound screen desperately hoping to see any flicker of a heartbeat. I’d put up with any of the weight gain, sickness, stretching and other ailments just to banish that image from my head.

I’m sorry for your losses, Maria (I have had a miscarriage myself and it was horrible), but would you really prefer to have gotten terrible news at that scan and then, knowing that news, waited to miscarry at 30 weeks? 35, after everyone asking you when you’re due and have you got the pram and is it a boy or a girl? Delivered stillborn at term? Watched your child die after a few hours? And if you do, and fair enough if you do, do you think all women should feel the same way?

There are plenty of people of all religions or none who don’t agree with abortion and view it as a human rights issue.

Maria .. can you point to the human rights protocol, treaty or convention that says that abortion contravenes human rights?

The European Court of Human Rights in ABC v. Ireland stated that there is no “right to abortion”. Paragraph 214 of the Judgment states that “Article 8 [of the Convention] cannot … be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion”.

Yes, I know that Maria. There is no legally recognised human right to abortion. But that’s not the point you were making originally or that I was asking the question of. So, just for the record, can you point to the human rights protocol, treaty or convention that says that abortion contravenes human rights?

Saying “it isn’t a human right” doesn’t mean that “it contravenes human rights”. I don’t have an explicit human right to ice cream but I’m not expecting to be dragged off to jail for eating one.

@ Maria. That paragraph that the article in question does not convey the right to an abortion. It does not state that abortion contravenes human rights. Two entirely different things.

Careful Lisa. Ice cream can lead to fornication, and apparently thats the leading cause of pregnancy in good ol’ catholic Ireland.

Desmond, do you believe in a right to life?

You’ re not answering my question, Maria, but I’ll play along. Yes, I do agree with the right to life. Take a look at the following extracts from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the primary global statement of the rights that we are each entitled to and which carries the status of international law:

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

So, as you can see there IS a universal human right to life, but that right can ONLY be vindicated from birth. Whatever objections you might have to abortion, to ground such objections in the language of human rights is clearly and quite deliberately misleading.

You only have to look to the past, Desmond, to see that there were numerous of abuses of human rights and various sections of society whose lack of human rights was supported by law. I happen to believe that every human being has an inherent right to life which exists solely because of his or her humanity. The only different between me and a 11 or 12 week old unborn baby or foetus is our stage of development. I think the ECHR recognised the right of each country to make their own decisions on the legal protection for unborn human life and how to balance this fairly with the rights of the mother.

@Maria, Even if we were to grant fetuses an equal right to life, does that really detract from the argument for abortion? You and I have the right to life, but if I had leukemia and you had compatible bone marrow, I wouldn’t be able to legally force you to donate, because my right to life doesn’t override your right to bodily autonomy. The right to life is contingent on the ability to execute it without overriding the rights of others.

If we were to grant fetuses the same rights as the rest of us, then abortion would be legal until about the 24 week when the fetus has the potential to survive without the mother. Which is roughly how it works in countries were abortion is legal.

The problem is, Maria, that the anti-choice groups only ever look to the past rather than deal with women in the present. There are many arguments that can be had over the issue of abortion from the reasoned to the religious, but the attempt to appropriate the language of human rights to make the case for denying aborions to thsoe women who choose that option is, as I have said, deliberately misleading. The phrase “human rights” is not just some random choice of words, it has particular legal importance and ramifications. You may take the religious view that human life should be protected from conception, but human rights law says something very different.

It’s not really the same situation, John. The mother is the life line for the baby and there are no other options outside the mother’s body. Surely, instead of this being a reason to deny rights to the baby, it should be an added incentive to do everything to support the two lives that are so intimately connected. It’s not as if the baby is some alien entity or poisonous parasite- it’s the mother’s own offspring. Imagine if you were given a sick child to care for and you were in a situation where there was no one else who could fulfill this role. Even if it demanded a lot from you, you wouldn’t decide not to do it solely because the child was a burden or a drain on your resources. A dependent human being is not something bad, but is just a more vulnerable member of the human race.

@Maria, I’m not arguing that the fetus isn’t a dependent and for the sake of argument I was willing to grant it the same right to life that the rest of us enjoy. The question was does that really change things? If someone has leukemia, then their life may depend on a bone marrow transplant, and it can be very hard to find a compatible donor. In many cases you would be lucky to find a single one that is compatible enough to chance a transplant, your life would be dependent on a single persons choice, yet we do not legally force that choice or force people to register their bone marrow for consideration.

I really don’t think it’s the same, John. There are other options in the case you mention, but not for the baby. And, haven’t we already had an amendment that placed into law protection for the rights of the unborn, so babies in utero are already recognised as having a right to life?

@Maria, there really aren’t other options when you need a bone marrow transplant. It is a pretty high risk procedure for the recipient and it tends to be one of the very last things they try. If the graft fails, then the new bone marrow literately kills the recipient.

There may be choices when it comes to donors, John. To be honest, if a sibling needed a bone marrow transplant, I can’t imagine refusing them. Would the majority of people not be generous when it came to saving life?

@Maria, not everyone will have a matching sibling, and some have to rely on complete strangers joining the bone marrow registries and being willing to undergo a relatively, but not completely, risk free procedure to donate. Less than 1% of the Irish population (according to wikipedia) participate in the marrow registry and every day people die without having found a suitable donor. When they find a donor, I’d imagine the donor is usually willing, because participation is voluntary. But not everyone is willing to participate or donate for a stranger, and the law doesn’t force them to no matter the odds of survival without a donation. In fact it is so difficult to find a match that registries are run on an international basis to increase the odds.

But all that is besides the point, which remains that your right to life is completely dependent on your ability to exercise that right without impinging on the rights of another person. So arguing that fetuses deserving of the same right to life, is completely misleading because their right would be equally dependent. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable argument why a fetus should be given the right to violate the rights of others. Clearly dependance on another isn’t enough or it would work for those who only have one available bone marrow donor, so what is?

Are Catholics the only people who have a problem with abortion? There were atheists on here recently saying they opposed it.

I’m sure there are pot smoking hippies who oppose abortion but they do not represent the main lobby group. They don’t even come close. I should know I’m an active atheist and secularist and I don’t know any. That’s not to say there are none but rather they are insignificant. Its a bit like Ulster Unionists in the Gaeltacht. One cant say conclusively that there are none but if there were they would stand out.

Is that only because there aren’t that many atheists?

If you start talking about majorities and minorities I will start losing respect for your argument. There are a minority who oppose blasphemy in Pakistan and a majority are happy to have them murdered. A minority opposed chairman Mao, Stalin, Ahmadinejad Abbas etc. A majority believe that the creator of the universe answers prayers etc. I would rather be perceived arrogant by those who are gullible than pander to mob definitions of reality and what constitutes intelligent debate.

Well, surely in Ireland, you’re more likely to meet a Catholic than an atheist which could be the reason that it’s less likely that you’ll encounter an atheist who’s against abortion. I’m just basing my supposition on the census results.

Let me clarify I mean as a percentage of Atheists.

I’m an atheist.

I’m an atheist; I oppose abortion because it’s a human rights issue, not a religious one.

http://www.secularprolife.org
http://www.godlessprolifers.org

“godlessprolifers.org” … LMAO .. an astroturf organisation, or rather webpage, if ever there was one!

The classic line from Fr. Ted comes to mind “Of course there are no Maoris on Craggy Island” only to be faced with one Maori lone ranger. Or when Bill Maher asks the members of the gay Muslim society where the two of them go at the weekend. Of course Islam isn’t homophobic. One thing I give the religious is marks for trying in an argument.

Cyril, if there was no catholics to rail against, what would you do all day? I suppose you’d just invent them…….like you’re doing now

It’d be a bad day for Ireland if you had to resign because of a facial expression and exercising your freedom of speech.

Gosh, we’re very conservative if we want to silence anyone who disagrees with us.

@ Maria – It must be our Catholic upbringing. ;)

; )

AlMar on catholic protection patrol duty……again….

Gavin: how does the ad hominem attack on me advance the debate in any way?

Would it really matter whether he was smirking or grimacing? Considering Rónán has definitely got two faces! One face for when the pope is coming at him and one when the pope is withdrawing. Rónán’s response to the Ryan Report – which outlined the physical and sexual torture of children by Catholic clergy and the cover-up and facilitation of physical & sexual torture of children by religious superiors – was that the tortured children hadn’t committed any sins! Was he ‘smirking’ or ‘grimacing’ when he said that? Has he got three faces perhaps?

Well AlMar I only ever notice you posting on the journal when you are defending the catholic church, their institutions or some other “cathoholics”….

I’m beginning to wonder are you doing this professionally. You don’t by any chance work for the catholic press office?

Is it not legitimate to have an interest in particular areas? I notice that the issues to do with Catholicism attract the most comments by a long shot. You can’t have much of a debate on a story that attracts little interest. Is it that difficult to believe that there are other opinions out there?

Perhaps I comment in these issues because of the persistent misinformation going on here?

You’re not exactly behind the door in coming forward yourself when it comes to these issues Gavin.

As for working for the Catholic Press Office!! LOL! Even the suggestion shows you know little about the Church in this country.

I’m sure Almar, that Mr. Mullens smirk would disappear rather fast if he was forced to carry a fatal foetal pregnancy to full term!

It’s not an ad-hominem attack unless you’re offended by being called a Catholic.

yes Almar, especially when you bring so much depth to it

Almar/Maria

This is not the Iona Institute guys, nor is it Independent.

Why would you try to defend this twit

QUOTE “”" He told me i should of carried my baby till the end because Ireland has the best Palletive care in the world, he also said that he was sponosoring some child in africa that had one of the conditions that the other girl Ruths baby had. Then he asked one of us at the end of our session with them on the quiet he said “what is your [expletive probably] real agenda here?” this was to a girl who lost her daughter Aoife at 22 weeks “”" http://bit.ly/I6dfG9

The link itself was taken from another journal article. http://www.thejournal.ie/ronan-mullen-horrified-at-nasty-suggestions-over-abortion-debate-424919-Apr2012/

Did you add in that bit about the expletive, Andrew? I didn’t hear anything about him using bad language.

No, nothing added, that’s verbatim from one of the brave women.

Andrew, the opening comment might not be something the lady in question wanted to hear or might totally disagree with but surely you are not trying to say it was RUDE !
Now if he used bad language to the people and it is recorded then he is in big trouble but I don’t think it was as people seem to be suggesting it was his body language that gave them the most offence
Slagging people off because of there religious convictions is not going to get anybody anywhere and while I would never have been a great supporter of Mr Mullins I think in this case these people have behaved appallingly bad towards him and have wrecked there cause .

Well said Jerry.

I completely disagree with you on the issue of abortion, but I do believe that it is possible to have a passionate debate on the issue without descending to the level of character assassination. I disagree with those who want legalised abortion but i can accept that many who disagree with me have good, but misguided, motivations. Unfortunately many online seem incapable of accepting the bona fides of their opponents. That is not a good thing for our society.

That said, it is also true that there are some anti-abortionists who also go in for ad hominem attacks. I profoundly disagree with them in this; but two wrongs don’t make a right.

The Irish Supreme Court have already decided that their cause IS just – legislators have dragged their feet, probably because of ‘religious convictions’.

I’ve no doubt though that if the law had been applied (and pursued by legislators) in the cases of the physical & sexual torture of children by people off religious conviction, the ONLY ‘religious convictions’ we’d be debating would be whether Mountjoy Prison is too tough a place for members of the Irish hierarchy – and others with religious convictions.

I don’t know if I would call it rude, but if he said that to a bereaved family I would certainly call it offensive. Let’s see, we have: “dealing with a catastrophic pregnancy in the most humane way for your family: you did it wrong”. We have a frankly implausible claim that he knows someone brain dead who is still alive (ie “those so-called incompatible with life conditions aren’t even incompatible with life! Bet you just all wanted abortions, you big fibbers. Or if not, you killed your baby WHO MIGHT HAVE LIVED A LOVELY HAPPY ENRICHING LIFE WITH NO HEAD”). And we have insinuations that the whole shebang is part of a “bigger agenda”, ie “you are pimping out your so-called tragedy because you think we’ll all feel sorry for you and lower our guards AND THEN YOU CAN SNEAK IN COMPULSORY ABORTION FOR EVERYONE”.

Frankly I would have decked him.

Andrew .The reason that legislators are dragging there feet is because they know the majority of the people on this Island do not want abortion under any circumstances and if it was put to a referendum tomorrow morning they will still vote no I don’t agree with them but that is the case
I think it has more to do with there moral concious then there religious convictions
Now does who are looking to change peoples opinions are making a horses ass of it by somehow blaming the catholic church or a polticians relegious convictions
It is sad to see so many people who are supposedly liberal and caring to so such hatred to others who do not take the same view as them . Fight the argument lads and not the person

Excellently put lisa.

If we can’t say that there may be other ways of dealing with in utero diagnoses of severe disabilities than just abortion, then it’s not a debate at all.

What exactly is offensive about asking someone *in Leinster House* what their agenda is? Nobody goes into Leinster House without a political agenda, and asking someone what their agenda or aims are isn’t offensive in that context, especially given the fact that this group came into the public eye in the same week as Clare Daly’s bill (which was not related to their situations) was being debated in Dáil Éireann.

I have great sympathy for these women, and, coming from a family that lost a baby who had anencephaly, I know what they went through sucked. But I must respectfully disagree with them that abortion should be legalised for such babies.

But aren’t “the other ways” already the status quo here: ie go to term (or have miscarriage), baby dies with (hopefully) palliative care? Anything else is just tweaks on the above, ie level of counselling, level of palliative care, what does it consist of, etc. It’s not like there’s a “third way” between the baby dying naturally (immediately or otherwise) and not having the baby.

I do understand that possibly the support for women who chose to go to term isn’t ideal and would have no problems whatsoever with it being improved, but if I *had already decided I didn’t want to go to term* I would feel pretty insulted/patronized to hear that “you can’t avail of the same options as women in the UK, you still have to wait around for months getting more and more pregnant waiting for your wanted child to die, but now we’re trying to make it a bit less gut-wrenchingly awful”, and it certainly wouldn’t change my mind.

Anyway, it’s not a debate about whether abortion should be the *only* option here under these circumstances, but whether it should be an option at all. Which it currently isn’t, unless you have the wherewithal to leave the country.

Andrew – the Supreme Court did no such thing.

The situation here is different from that in the X Case and it would not reasonably fall under the parameters of X.

Racist? Explain please, or are you just trolling??

Apparently we are bigoted against people whose faces “just look like that”.

Isn’t the term “west-brit” a racist term?