Awh ok then. I spose when talking about the interim options its inevitable someone will come along and say yes (because it’s a right) and no (because it’s wrong).

@Orela
I’m not sure what you’re proposing? Should abortion be made legal in this country or is it only for life threatening pregnancies?

Of course your argument is valid Robert,being a man doesn’t mean you can’t feel strongly on this subject but as a woman I feel that control of what happens to my body should be my choice and the state seem to be ignoring this. As you can see from my pic I am pregnant at the mo, very happy to be but I’m in a good place in my life with a wonderful husband and life. I know myself abortion would not be an option for even in other circumstances but who am I to make that decision for anyone else. There are many women in dire circumstances who are not being giving a choice but to bring a child into what maybe an unsafe world.

@Orela
So abortion should be legal? Sorry, I just want to make sure I know what views I’m arguing with.
Also congrats.

@ Adam. Early abortions in Holland are not counted in the official figures. In fact abortion rates there are higher than one would think.

@Adam. And consistent Millword Browne polling has found that a majority of people favour constitutional protection for the unborn child while ensuring mums receive every necessary treatment during pregnancy. http://prolifecampaign.ie/?page_id=180

I’m pretty sure someone had very serious questions about the objectivity of millword brown polls on a previous articles comments..

Well it all depends on how the question or questions are phrased Eilis. The fact is, a clear majority of voters support allowing terminations in the circumstances involved in the X Case – we even voted in two referenda to uphold that judgement.
And when particular circumstances are listed in a clear and straightforward manner, a majority also do not believe a woman who was raped or due to give birth to a baby who cannot live outside the womb, should be forced to continue with such pregnancies. We have to end this moral hypocrisy of forcing such women to leave the State to exercise their choice in these circumstances.

It was funded by ‘Life’ or somesuch organisation and as far as I recall consisted of one vaguely worded question. Likewise the comment on abortion statistics in the Netherlands is more snake oil, not unlike saying our statistics are skewed because we don’t count the morning after pill. Truly the trolls are out in style today.

@Adam @Sam @Shanti Red C came up with the same result before the General Election last year. Are you questioning every polling companies research? Of course the question matters. A distinction between medical treatment that mum needs and that ends babies’s life and direct abortion is built into the question. People need to be clear on this. Women get all necessary medical treatment even if baby dies and that is as it should be. The intention is not to kill baby. Yes the polls were commissioned by the Pro Life Campaign. Last time I checked polling companies don’t work for free. Every poll is commissioned by somebody. And the Examiner poll you referred to previously was online. The Millward Browne research was carried out face to face with people around Ireland so questioning methodology is not going to get you anywhere. Honest debate please? @Adam Early abortions in Holland are carried out in GP-like surgeries are don’t appear in official stats. Fact.

The Red C poll that found 60% of people favour a liberalisation of the law? And here’s the MB poll. I just hope they gave everyone a day or two to fathom it:
The poll, conducted by Milward Brown Lansdowne on behalf of the Pro Life Campaign, asked 984 adults: “Are you in favour or opposed to constitutional protection for the unborn that prohibits abortion but allows the continuation of the existing practice of intervention to save a mother’s life, in accordance with Irish medical ethics?”

Oh and in the Netherlands women can induce periods up to 16 days late, I presume this is what you refer to. Obviously by this reasoning we should be including gin and hot baths along with the morning after in our Irish statistics.

@ Sam The Pro Life Campaign commissioned Red C to carry out the survey on a quota controlled sample of 1,025 people aged 18+ between 8th – 10th February 2011.
Question 1 reads as follows:
Are you in favour of, or opposed to, constitutional protection for the unborn that prohibits abortion but allows the continuation of the existing practice of intervention to save a mother’s life in accordance with Irish medical ethics?

The finding shows that 68% support constitutional protection for the unborn, 26% oppose it and 5% don’t know or have no opinion. When the don’t knows/no opinions are excluded, 73% of the public support legal protection and 27% are opposed to it.

For more see http://prolifecampaign.ie/?page_id=1396

Aaaaand a differing Red C poll needless to say not commissioned by a Prolife group:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/home/survey-60-in-favour-of-legal-abortion-110224.html

Look, it’s fine to say you don’t agree with abortion, just stop trying to convince us the entire country agrees with you when plainly they don’t.

Strawman, strawman, strawman. Funny how those who want abortion are the ones who always bring up religion.

So Paul you are happy to end the life of an unborn child at 24 weeks. So what about my unborn girl that I saw jumping in her mum’s womb at 9 weeks? She had no right to life?

On an aside what about the aborted boys and girls who are born alive at twenty three weeks, any ideas on what you would do with those?

No, Diorai, I’m happy to let the pregnant women or girl decide.

While I agree with much of your post on what basis are you suggesting that a majority of Irish people want to go beyond the narrow confines already laid out in the X case. Its a genuine question.

A TNS/MRBI poll published in the Irish Examiner on 22/06/07 found that 43% supported legal abortion if a woman believed it was in her best interest while 51% remained opposed. 82% favoured legalization for cases when the woman’s life is in danger (X Case), 75% when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, and 73% when the pregnancy has resulted from sexual abuse.

I would imagine those numbers in favour have increased even further in the last 5 years.

Thanks for providing the info. However looking at how the debate is shaping up it seems that there is an acceptance that there is not going to be a referendum to change the 1983 amendment. Instead the debate seems to be concentrating on the medical issues and what set of circumstances meets the X case test.

I agree Sean, and legislating for the X Case is the immediate priority. In the longer term however, we need to look at removing that clause from our Constitution. As one book described it, it was nothing more than an exercise in ‘halo’ politics, designed to reinforce conservative catholic dogma, which even as early as 1983, was beginning to be seriously questioned. It was all about attempting to keep the progressive influences that most of the rest of western Europe had experienced away from ‘little Ireland’. As if adding a vague few lines to the Constitution was ever the correct way to deal with an issue as complex as abortion..

@Eilis

The poll commissioned by the Pro-Life Campaign which you refer to was based around a very leading and suggestive question, designed to encourage a particular answer. This is not to question the professionalism of Red C in any way, who conduct research based on their clients preferences. But it does give an insight into the methods employed by anti-choice organisations and right-wing, social conservative groups more generally – the same misleading tactics have also been used by those opposed to marriage equality for example.

It is a fact that a majority of Irish people favour legal terminations here in circumstances covered by the X Case – to save the life of the mother. That is borne out in unbiased opinion polls, in addition to two referendum outcomes. And there is also evidence that points to public attitudes on abortion becoming more liberal across a number of areas.

@Eilis – I would also question your points regarding the Netherlands, especially in the light of the fact that some on the anti-abortion side are so extreme, they consider emergency contraception to be a form of abortion.

@Eilis – I would also question your points regarding the Netherlands, especially in light of the fact that some on the anti-abortion side are so extreme, they consider emergency contraception to be a form of abortion.

There is no human right as ‘the right to life of the elderly’ either. But does that right exist? Of course.

Also, the European Convention of Human Rights, adopted in 1953, makes no specific mention to “the right to life of the unborn child”.

Shur you don’t believe in human rights for Tibetans either .and you favourite country China has a demographic nightmare due to the mass abortions of female unborn babies.

Does it refer to the right to life of the elderly possibly?

A false equivalence, Diorai. Of course, a elderly person has many rights. An unborn child, before the point of viability (with present medical technology around the 24th week of pregnancy), completely depends on the mother for survival. Therefore, the mother has the last word on whether the foetus lives or dies. It’s not rocket science.

John: Please stop spouting lies about me. I believe in the human rights of all people and my favourite country, for all its faults, is Ireland.

Actually it used to be 24. Now at 20 weeks a baby has a good chance of surviving if born premature.

Yeah yeah. Your constantly on here supporting the Chinese and denying the Tibetans their right to self determination.

Hey guys,

Can we please keep the debate on topic and away from personal insults.

If you need a refresher, here’s our comments policy: http://www.thejournal.ie/comments-policy/

Thanks,
Sinéad

Not true, John. The most premature baby yet was born, as I recall, at 22 weeks and 1 day. Generally speaking, the 24th week marks the point where the foetus enjoys a more than 50% chance of survival outside the mother’s womb with medical intervention.

John, at 20 weeks a foetus has no chance of survival. At 22 weeks there’s some chance, but 20 is pushing it.

Er – why would the elderly need separate rights to life? They are already human, LIVING, lives, their right to life started at birth and continues until their time in this life is up.. Silly comparison..

A foetus is not alive YET.. And the survival at 21 weeks was a once in a million, not the norm I’m afraid..

So there is actually people out there who believe human life begins at birth?

It doesn’t say a lot for our education system. Best educated in the world – O yeah.

The Universal Charter or Human Rights and all other human rights protocols and treaties that I’m aware of apply to all people once they are born. The question of whether you agree with abortion or not is has nothing to do with international human rights law.

Diorai
I said the right to life, with regards your false equivocation with the elderly, began at their birth.

POTENTIAL life exists within the womb, after a certain point of development, this has the “potential” to exist outside the womb. But is still massively dependent upon medical intervention for its survival.. At this point, abortion should only be carried out in extreme situations as birth could be induced and the baby could potentially be saved.

But really, before this point if you are ascribing rights to life for the unborn then you must define life vs potential life, and that’s a whole different argument. The majority of abortions are carried out within the timeframe where spontaneous abortions or miscarriages are also common, those carried out later are more frequently as a result of discovery of birth defects which would result in a painful and very short life.

Thanks for the circumstantial ad hominem about my educational status.. It shows the level of your own education if you must stoop to personal put-downs to make your argument :)

Sorry Shanti Om but human life begins at fertilization. Have you ever heard of such a thing as an ultrasound? Amazing things really.

Yes Diorai, I have heard of an ultrasound, booked in for one soon actually, not pregnant though, they’re used to image things inside the body.. What’s your point?

Again, potential vs life.. Different ball games..

Shanti Om – So you are actually arguing that human life begins at birth?

Whenever human life begins, human rights apply only from birth. Like I said, trying to rely on human rights conventions to argue that their protections apply to foetuses demonstrates quite staggering ignorance of human rights legislation.

The UDHR states there is a ‘Right To Life’. It does not specify that it is for the unborn, born, middle-aged or elderly. It states that everyone has the right to life. Everyone. And not every single possible deserved right is stated in the UDHR. It would take too long and take up too much space. What did we do before the UN existed? Our form of democratic law is based on natural law, which was established long before Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity etc. Also, a Parable was a story told by Jesus to get a message across, mainly to show how the love of God effects humans. It was not to state a right that was already in place, thousands of years beforehand. (By the way I;m not a man who hates women, I’m a young woman, and all my friends share my views :D )

Shanti Om, If a feotus is “not alive yet” how can it move, have a heartbeat, brain waves , move it’s hands, hiccup – and that’s before week eight. How can you ignore the scientific evidence of ultrasound and pretend that it’s not alive. I wonder if it were your premature baby born at 21 weeks ,would you still think it wasn’t alive. It is convenient for you to think that the baby is not alive in the womb. It’s the only way you can justify killing it.

Fair enough Nuala.
Please bear in mind that before 12 weeks that foetus is entirely dependent upon the mother as it has no lungs.
In fact, up until 12 weeks the body is actually producing antibodies against the baby and actively seeking to reject it, hence why spontaneous abortions are so common and pregnancy can spark a false positive AIDS test.

I would not endorse abortion past the first trimester except in cases where the foetus has a life threatening birth defect only discovered later in pregnancy.
In all other cases, 12 weeks is long enough to make the decision. At that point, even nature may abort.

Clearly Criostina you have a very shaky knowledge of human rights law. ALL international human rights instruments , and I mean ALL, clearly and very deliberately apply only to people who are born and exclude the unborn. Human rights law comprises both the conventions and treaties themselves as well as case law determined by international and national courts. There is not one instance whatsoever where any court, anywhere conceded that e unborn have a right-to-life under any human rights conventions or treaties. This is avert serious issue and it beehives all of us, including you Criostina, to inform yourself reliably before commenting.

*a very* and *behoves* ;-)
You try typing on a bus!

Ciara, you presume that abortions heal women who are ill, this is never the case. I will ignore that point, however, and ask you to produce evidence that women are suffering because of the present situation. For too long the IFPA have made statements along these lines. It’s about time they were asked to produce EVIDENCE.

Of course Liam is completely correct here. I have never seen the IFPA backup its statements with facts and some of the media which the journal.ie has now joined never seem to botherd to ask them for Facts

The IFPA has produced considerable evidence to back up its statements about the effect that denial of access to abortion in Ireland has on these women. This is a classic denial strategy on the part of the anti-abortionists, i.e. make a false claim about your opponents and turn the discussion into a debate about something other than the central issue. The question here is why the Irish government and Oireachtas has not yet legislated for women to exercise their constitutional right to a termination in certain limited circumstances here in Ireland.

Desmond, they have not produced any data that is verifiable. If they have then point to it. Ireland remains the safest place in Europe for pregnant women. The reason why the Oireachtas have not legislated to date is because the majority of people have made their feelings clear. They know Ireland is a safe place for pregnant women, it is not necessary to change the law despite what the Labor party would have us believe.

Liam, your assertion that this is the safest place in the world for women to be pregnant is kinda not the issue.. This is about women who do not wish to be pregnant (in this case for either health reasons or due to rape / incest) and I’m pretty sure I saw someone post links that disputed your assertions in the comments section of another article on this subject.

Liam: Ireland remains the safest place in Europe for pregnant women?

I doubt that. Of course, you don’t include the 4,000 odd women (that we know of) that go abroad to get an abortion every year. As soon as they leave the country, they’re wiped off the slate, only to magically reappear when they return to Holy Ireland.

The Establishment adopts the same disingenuity with regard to unemployment. Once you emigrate, son, you’re off the live register and you are forgotten.

Sorry Paul where is the statistical info to back up your argument?

http://www.thejournal.ie/over-4400-irish-women-travelled-to-england-and-wales-for-abortions-in-2010-142753-May2011/

@Liam … So, you’re accepting that the IFPA have backed up their statements, that at least is progress. As to whether it is verifiable, well yes it is …that’s why it’s called “data”. As to the safety of Irish obstetrics, this is due in large part to the skill of Irish medical personnel, but also to the fact that so many “problem” pregnancies are terminated abroad, thus skewing Ireland’s figures. Ireland’s abortion rate is comparable with other western European nations, it’s just that our abortions take place in the UK. As to the reason why the Oireachtas has failed to legislate for the constitutional rights of Irish women on this matter, that has nothing to do with the majority of the Irish people, but rather with the very aggressive “lobbying” by minority activists. I’ve witnessed such “lobbying” myself and it can get pretty ugly. The government’s decision to refer this matter to an Expert Group, will provide the necessary basis for the Oireachtas to legislate for the SC and ECHR rulings, notwithstanding the attempts at intimidation by the zealots.

Desmond, English must be your 2nd language. I said that the IFPA regularly make outrageous claims without providing any evidence.

Sorry Paul you did not answer the question – my unborn girl that I saw jumping in her mum’s womb at 9 weeks? She had no right to life?

What about the aborted boys and girls who are born alive at twenty three weeks, any ideas on what you would do with those?

Diorai
Your little girl could have spontaneously aborted for another 3 weeks after that, and had no lungs.

So Shanti Om you accept that my little girl was a little girl but she is not a human being.

Diorai, I had a spontaneous miscarriage at 12 weeks some time ago, and no, I don’t think he or she was a fully-fledged human being. A *potential* human being, yes, and I grieved for that potential life and our potential family life, but not in the same way as I would for an actual person. And damn straight I would have felt like my life trumped that of a 9-week fetus if the issue had come up. I wouldn’t have risked leaving my son motherless.

Also I have no idea what you’re on about re “aborted boys and girls born alive at 23 weeks”. All abortions that late in pregnancy are for grave reasons such as serious fetal abnormality incompatible with life. It’s not like people rock up after getting through all the ills of early pregnancy and go “oh, hang on, don’t want it after all, better have an abortion”.

No Diorai D, your little girl is – I presume – a little girl NOW, back then she was something that did not yet possess lungs and could easily have been spontaneously aborted for another 3 weeks, had she been “born” then, she would have died. I referred to her in the manner you used in order to preserve context, but nice try..

YOU would have seen her as your little girl as you would have attached emotion to the POTENTIAL she represented, and went on to fulfil, as was your choice.

If you were to make life begin legally at conception then every miscarriage would need to be registered as a death and marked – but as it stands this is only done after 24 weeks.
Personally, I would prefer to see abortion limited to 12 weeks generally and 24 weeks only when there is a fatal birth defect or threat to the life of the mother, as there have been limited cases where life survived birth before 24 weeks, but there will never be a baby born and survive before 12 weeks unless artificial wombs are invented, lungs are kinda vital, I’m sure you would agree.

Sorry Shanti Om to disappoint. What I saw on the ultrasound was not a potential human being but a human being.

Possibly you can tell me what a potential human being looks like?

Claim to be a feminist? Check. Mention Ireland’s maternal mortality rate? Check? Abuses of system in UK? Check. Mention one death due to abortion? Check. Claim women who abort are damaged? Check. Cite ‘gendercide’? Check. You forgot to claim that abortion is an industry and cite falling population numbers in Russia but very nearly a bullshit Prolife full house there, well done.

@ Sam -

With all due respect, you haven’t made any real point in your comment.

If you have a specific issue with something I have said, then say as much and I will address it.

Simply calling my argument “a bullshit Prolife full house” is a bit too facetious for a discussion on abortion.

I presume your intentions are good, but so are mine and as such, we both deserve to have our opinions respected.

Cora, stop being so naive most of the pro life groups are stuffed with religious inspired fruitcakes. That’s why you get them abusing women and medical professionals outside clinics singing hymns and spouting crap from the bible. You may not want to see the discussion as a religious one and either do I but the fact is that even on here many of the same people who defend the catholic church and it’s disgusting treatment of children who are born are the same ones who attack ANY discussion about abortion on here and then when they can’t get their own way attack the authors, moderators and the Journal itself for hosting the discussion in the first place. How you view abortion is your business and nobody is going to force you have one should you unfortunate enough to ever need one but it should be available to those who do wish to avail of the service. “Fundamental human rights” here we go with that old cherry, what about the rights of the woman concerned? do they count or is it just the ‘potential’ human in development who counts in your eyes? Choice is what is needed and the decision to have an abortion is and should be a private matter for those concerned not a political football or cause clebre for certain people to enforce their brand of ‘humanity’ on others who do not share their views. If you don’t agree with abortion then don’t have one, you see.. choice!

@Ed -

You are making a number of generalisations which are not true.

The Pro-Life Campaign is a non-denominational organisation with a sole purpose surrounding the right to life and related issues. It does not concern itself with religious matters and is open to people of all creeds or none.

I would again re-iterate that the Catholic Church should not per se be brought into this discussion – abortion concerns human rights, not religious freedoms or beliefs. You are bringing religion in this context – why not instead deal with the issues surrounding abortion instead of throwing out the red herring of religion?

Of course I am concerned for the human rights of the woman concerned – if you read my earlier post then you will see that my opposition to abortion is based on the evidence that abortion is a negative experience for women too.

I appreciate the fact that you are interested enough in this debate to make a comment, and have no doubt but that your intentions are the same as my own – to ensure that women receive the excellent medical treatment that they deserve, and that the rights of every member of our society are protected by our laws.

Liam, are you saying that the EHCR are lying?

Liam, are you saying that the ECHR are lying?

Hi Liam,

Nowhere in the piece does it claim that any woman has died or could die because they do not have access to services.

As I’ve pointed out to others on the thread, you may be interested to read the judgement from the European Court of Human Rights which found that the practical implementation of the constitutional right to an abortion if the woman’s life is at risk is different to the theory (that as you put it medical treatment is never withheld).

That ruling, in full, here: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2032.html

Thanks,
Sinéad

Sinead, no need to patronize me, I have read it. All I’m asking is that you do some more work than actually printing IFPA press releases. Is that too much to ask?

Liam .. you state that Journal.ie is reporting that “Irish women are dying on a regular basis because they do not have access to abortion.” I have seen no such claim made by Journal.ie. Please can you direct me to where such a claim has been made.

Desmond,
What does “life threatening” mean where you come from? I made my point clear, thejournal.ie is printing IFPA press releases without any analysis, without any commentary. The remarks I made were about the IFPA, I think you’ll find that if you read what I said.

So, Liam, i see from your answer that you cannot stand over your allegation that Journal.ie has claimed that “Irish women are dying on a regular basis because they do not have access to abortion”. That pretty much renders your other allegations suspect so!

I standover what I said, the IFPA are making false claims without producing a shred of evidence and thejournal.ie are printing pieces that reproduce statements by the IFPA without questioning their data.

Cora, I would not be holding your breath for balance on the Journal on the issue of abortion. It has been pushing the pro-choice agenda for months now. Think about it how many times have you seen the photo at the top of this article? Numerous times. How many articles from the Pro Life Campaign? You will be hard pressed to find any.

If the Journal is agenda driven on this then on what other areas is it also pushing its views as opposed to publishing the news. When a publication is agenda driven, really what is the value of it?

“I do not know of a life threatning illness that means an unborn life must be destroyed.”

Well, for example, some forms of cancer, as in the Miss C case described in the article. And, in fairness, “early labour … in the hope that the unborn will survive” is nonsense unless you’re talking about someone in the later stages of pregnancy. Obviously some women will try to delay treatment until early delivery is possible, IF THAT’S POSSIBLE, but if it’s a matter of “have this treatment now/soon or die”…

Good for you,delighted that you were once unborn but some women do not want to be or should not be parents and accidents happen.

You obviously haven’t looked very far into it, there are many instances where a woman’s life may be put at risk due to pregnancy.
There are also many instances where a pregnancy does not form correctly and the woman (in Ireland) is forced to carry to term only to have a stillbirth or watch their baby die an agonising death within a few days – or travel to terminate.

If you disagree with abortion no one will ever force you to have one, but by opposing the choice, those who do so are imposing their will upon others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th6Njr-qkq0

@Sinead. Can you give a link to the decision you are talking about? Thanks.

Hi eilis,

The link to the decision is below in a response to Cora. Thanks, S

That is an outrageous lie and fairly typical of the sort of scaremongering that the zealots are now resorting to.

Sorry Desmond but Criostiona is correct. The report is readily available.

Sorry Desmond, I forgot to add the link to the report by the British Journal of Psychiatry. Here it is: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180.abstract
Thanks a mil for reminding me. :)

Actually that’s been revealed to be nonsense:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/08/anti-choice-campaigners-abortion-science

Thanks Sam. You beat me to it. Like I said, the claim that abortion causes mental illness is an outrageous lie unsupported by any credible research. When it comes to scaremongering and lying about the issue of abortion, claiming that it damages women’s mental health is an appalling allegation to make.

So 4400 Irish women are going to the Uk every year for abortions. Why arent our mental institutions full of women who are in their due to the effect their abortions have had on their mental health?

Well said Ciara. This fallacy is constantly trotted out by the anti-choicers and it has to be nipped in the bud, it’s yet more control masked as concern and utterly disingenuous.

Ciara, as Paul Carr said. They tend to suffer in silence.

And Desmond, Sam : I think you have gotten your reports mixed up. The article in the Guardian has informed us that an American report has been ‘debunked’. The report I was referring to was a completely separate one, performed in the UK. And it states a different result, that risk of mental illness increases (not occurs) by 81%.

Just one of the criticisms to the report you posted which has been comprehensively debunked:

Professor Coleman’s systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on termination of pregnancy and mental health1 featured several significant omissions: an undislosed conflict of interest; no assessment of publication bias; and no assessment of the quality of studies included. The search strategy was also inadequately reported, and the meta-analytic technique was faulty.

I believe ‘undisclosed conflict of interest’ says it all.

Also they ‘suffer in silence’? How terribly convenient for your argument. How exactly have you come to this conclusion? I’d argue women manage to ‘happily get on with their lives’ quite silently too.

But Sam, like I said, that’s not the report that I got my facts from. It actually has nothing to do the British Journal of Psychiatry. And I made my conclusion from women I have met, interviews I’ve seen, articles I’ve read etc.

Oh dear Lord, Criostina! Do you even read the reports that you link to?

You linked to the following report: “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009″. The author of this report was Priscilla K. Coleman. The Guardian article that carried the evidence of a report being debunked referred to an article carried in the Journal of Psychiatric Research which was prepared by Priscilla K. Coleman in 2009. In other words, it’s the very same report that you linked to.

I know that reading is difficult and can sometimes be very tiring, but you really should read the so-called evidence that you link to. A necessary condition for engaging in an informed debat is that you be “informed” .. that normally requres you to do some reading. Sheesh!

Right so you posted a report from the British Journal of Psychiatry, I replied citing a Guardian article and also in a further reply concerns with regard to that specific report (which are in the responses on that page if you would care to, you know, read it) and now you are claiming you are not relying on the report you posted to back up your claim. You appear to be existing in a vortex of illogic which I can’t really be arsed to battle at this point.

Hi Evelyn,

Just wondering what false information you are referring to?

This article is based on the 2010 ECHR ruling which was discussed by Minister Reilly last week. The judgement can be found here: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2032.html and the PQ here: http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/03/29/00197.asp

Thanks
Sinead

Evelyn, I work in a histopathology lab in a maternity hospital. My job IS testing for cancer. I know what im talking about.

Some of these women dont want to give birth. They want to survive!

@Sinéad

1. Medically, there is no such thing as a “life threatening pregnancy”. There are life threatening conditions which can occur during pregnancy. This phrase does not stand up medically and is blatantly false. Using it at all is inexusable but the fact that you chose it for the headline is quite incredible.

2. There is no such thing as a life-saving abortion. All medical treatments, for any conditions, including cancer, are available to pregnant women in Ireland and are never withheld because the fetus may die as a result.

3. There is a distinct impression given throughout this article that the ECHR is requiring us to legislate for abortion in accordance with the X case. This is simply untrue — you might want to follow that link to the ruling yourself. What the court said was that we have to get our house in order i.e. that our constitution and legislation not have the current disparity. This is not the same as saying we have to legislate for abortion. In fact the court respected the right of the Irish people to make up their own mind on the issue of abortion and did not mandate us to introduce legislation either way.

@Ciara You’re a lab technician. Whop-de-doo. I’m a medical student. Neither of our professions give us the right to monopoly of opinion on this issue; grow up.

The medical facts stand: abortion is never required to save the life of a mother.

Of course women should be given the treatments necessary for their survival, even if this means the fetus, sadly, won’t survive. This treatment is never withheld in Irish hospitals because of our laws. In fact, Ireland has been a pioneer in developing treatments for pregnant women with life-threatening conditions. Women are in fact safer here than in other countries!

Evelyn, when youre actually working with pregnant women who have cancer then come talk to me! Are you going to tell a pregnant women whose tumour is feeding off her pregnancy hormones that shes gonna be just grand or are you going to tell her the truth that the pregnancy is exacerbating her cancer? I have an aunt who had ovarian cancer and found out she was pregnant. She was advised that if she did not have treatment, she would die and that if she did have treatment she could still die and so would the foetus. She was lucky enough that she had the energy to travel, had an abortion and she came through the other side. You know well the link between ER/PR and certain cancers.

So Evelyn, what are you suggesting happened with Miss C? Are you saying that she *did* (or could), in fact, get all the treatment she needed here because actually we’re all hunky dory for women’s health in pregnancy?

Also distinguishing between “life threatening pregnancy” and “life threatening conditions in pregnancy” is a bit of an obfuscation when you’re talking about a life threatening condition that is gravely worsened by/caused by/rendered untreatable by said pregnancy.

Ciara

You might be interested to read that he eminent Irish oncologist, professor and senator, Dr John Crown has written that he has never encountered a situation in which abortion was needed to save a mother’s life.

Thing is Crown is the author of 150 research papers and is recognised as one of the worlds leading cancer specialists, told Twitter followers some weeks that while making “hard decisions re: chemotherapy in pregnancy.” “I don’t think I ever had a case where abortion was necessary to save mom.” – look at his twitter feed if you need confirmation

As Des above said. Abortion is happening, its just happening in another country that women have to travel to. I have yet to hear of a woman whose foetus survived chemo so why do you think its ok for a woman to have to go through chemo when pregnant to then have to go through the trauma of a miscarriage and to have to go through labour at the later stages when she barely has the energy to do anything!? When you are face to face with a pregnant woman with cancer, you are expected to tell her the truth. Some cancers use hormones for growth, you know that. Why deny it?

[sorry posted separate to thread initially by accident]

@Ciara Pregnancy does not cause cancer. In fact, pregnancy has somewhat of a cancer risk reduction effect. Only a tiny percentage of cancers are exasperated by hormones in pregnancy. ALL cancers occuring in pregnant women are treated in Ireland (I’m blue in the face saying that at this stage) and our record in maternal mortality and health is always in the top two according to the UN statistics.

I know of several babies who have been born alive to mothers who received treatment for cancer while pregnant with them.

@Lisa There *is* a really big difference between the concomitance of life threatening conditions and pregnancy, and the concept of “life threatening pregnancies”. The very term “life threatening pregnancy” suggests that it is the pregnancy itself which is threatening the life of the woman, and implies that the solution is to end the pregnancy as that is the source of the danger. The term is baseless and has no medical fact to support it. As Jimmy O’Brien quoted above, in his entire professional career one of the country’s top oncologists, Prof. Crown, has NEVER seen a case of cancer during pregnancy that necessitated an abortion.

With regard to C in the ABC case, my understanding is that when she raised the issue of aboriton, the Ethics Committee of the hospital could not come to consensus whether her life was endangered, so she was not legally entitled to an abortion in this state. Abortion is not a treatment for cancer. Medical treatment for cancer would never have been withheld from her because of the possibility of the fetus dying (nor should it ever be withheld in such cases).

Oh, so my sisters surgeon was lying to her when he said that if the womb cauterisation hadn’t rendered her sterile and she fell pregnant she would die then?

@Evelyn have you never heard of the life threatening pregnancy condition called ectopic pregnancy? If an undetected ectopic pregnancy ruptures it can cause severe internal bleeding which can be fatal to the pregnant woman. Termination of ectopic pregnancy is carried out in Ireland.

Jane – the procedure used to treat ectopic pregnancy is exactly the type of treatment that pro-lifers have been referring to for years. This treatment is legal and available and it is not an abortion. Nobody opposes it. An abortion is the direct and deliberate destruction of the unborn. On the other hand, the treatment for ectopic pregnancies results in the death of the unborn as a side effect of that treatment.

@Almar the removal of a living embryo from the fallopian tube of its mother by laparoscopic surgery is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy in order to save the woman’s life. It is not a side effect of the treatment. Evelyn said there is no such medical condition as a life threatening pregnancy. I say there is. I suffered one and if my ectopic pregnancy had not been diagnosed in time, I most likely would not be alive today.

No sign of the Journal reporting on the Pro-Life Campaign’s awareness event to mark the 20th anniversary of the X Case decision.

Did they submit details to the Journal Cora?

Hi Cora,

Here is that decision:
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Del/Dec(2012)1136&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=immediat&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864#P1660_76839

As you can see, everything that is in this article is reporting on recent events in the Dáil or at European level. It is not an agenda on my part, or that of TheJournal. In fact, I haven’t given any opinion or reflection on my own thoughts on abortion. Which I won’t be doing either.

Thanks,
Sinead

Sorry Sinead but when you print pictures of photo ops for pro-choice advocates you are offering your opinion on abortion.

Diorai D,

See here:
http://www.thejournal.ie/in-pictures-youth-defence-anti-abortion-protests-in-dublin-380259-Mar2012/

This is the last post I’ll write defending my unbiased, balanced position on the issues.

Thanks,
Sinead

I know press the abortion hash tag and see the huge amount of press coverage the journal has given to abortion. Impartial my ass.

Hi Diorai D and John,

As you are probably aware, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the landmark X Case which brought the issue of abortion to a head in Ireland. The recent coverage by TheJournal.ie is not any kind of campaign, it is merely because there is a number of things happening in this area.

As John suggested, clicking the hashtag you will see stories about a Private Members’ Bill that has been debated in the Dáil and the expert group which has been established, as well as recent protests by anti-abortion campaigners.

I said above, the article is not a comment or opinion on abortion – it is a statement of fact following a Parliamentary Question answered in the Dáil last week.

Thanks,
Sinead

The Republic of Ireland is the only country in Europe, with a population of over one million people, not to have abortion on request either de jure or de facto, with the exception of Poland. And, even in Poland, abortion is still allowed in cases of rape, incest and foetal malformation.

The Republic of Ireland is an outlier’s outlier on abortion. De facto no abortion under any circumstances is an open sore and national scandal. I think thejournal.ie should prepare an article every week on this open scandal on order to preserve the appearance of impartiality on this important issue of gender equality. If that means some of the pro foetal rights crowd emigrate from the thejournal.ie, I politely suggest to thejournal.ie staff, that that is no great loss.

For you perhaps. I’m happy to see the gag taken off this issue. And its very encouraging to see the amount of redthumbs the anti-choice comments are getting.

I enjoy reading The Journal and I read it regularly and I can honesty and clearly say that it is promoting the availability of abortion in Ireland.

The fact that the above article fails to distinguish between life saving treatment that one receives in Ireland where everything is done to preserve the life of the mum and her unborn child, even where the unborn child dies as a result, and direct abortion, is proof of this.

I enjoy reading The Journal and I read it regularly and I can honesty and clearly say that it has printed some articles that factually state some news.

When any of these articles so much as mention abortion, a vocal minority of anti-choice, rosary-bead-clutching lunatics start getting their knickers in a twist because people dare to express contrary opinions to their pet cause.

Grow up.

I completely agree with Diorai D – it does seem that the journal are running some kind of campaign -i cannot recall any pro life article on the site – and i visit most days. I am sure people like Prof William Binchy or Dr. Berry Kiely would write an article giving the other side of the story – has the journal ever done this

Hi Jimmy,

Here you go: http://www.thejournal.ie/in-pictures-youth-defence-anti-abortion-protests-in-dublin-380259-Mar2012/

Thanks,
Sinead

You’re doing a very patient job there, Sinead, but I. afraid there is a class of anti-choice protester that thinks that anything other than blind obedience to their positions on abortion means that you are promoting baby-killing. For the rest of us there is now in Ireland a refreshing openeness to discussing these difficult issues and the Journal.ie should be commended for the space it gives to their discussion.

So publishing one pro life article (all be it a poor one) against about 10 pro abortion ones is deemed balance, sorry Sinead you are not fooling me – definite bias here

desmond

i have no problem with the issue being discussed but i want it in a fair and balanced way – balance is what i am looking for on this topic and every other topic discussed on this site, problem is i cannot take the journal that seriously when i know this topic is not balanced, i assume every other major social issue it discuss’s must have the same imbalance

Jimmy,

As I said earlier, I have not made a comment or opinion on abortion.

The article is based on a PQ answered by James Reilly last week in which he discussed that no changes have been made to Ireland’s processes in this area, despite the 2010 ECHR ruling.

It is not about being pro-life/anti-abortion/pro-choice/pro-abortion, it is about the fact that Ireland has failed to tackle an issue that Europe is putting pressure on us about.

I sent you the link – although it is unrelated – as you asked about our anti-abortion coverage. If it’s newsworthy, we will cover it. The protest at the time was. There is more coverage in recent weeks about the issue because of the Private Members’ Bill going through the Dáil, the European Council meeting, the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review hearing and the 20th anniversary of the X Case.

Sinead

Ah come on Sinead the dogs in the street know that the Journal promotes abortion.

Most pro-lifers have given up following the Journal but it is your loss because I presume you actually want to advertise to more that the couple of dozen hardline pro-choicers which is all you are currently attracting.

Ok Sinead

follow me on this one – if a user hits the abortion tag at the top left hand side of this article – it gets after a while 2 pages where the word abortion has been “tagged” – The majority of the artcles are news items, my count there is about 50 articles. 2 of these artcles show pro life views, the one you sent me and another one. I notice you have gone out of yer way to publish the most unflattering pictures of pro lifers etc – but i digress.

Any reader of the 50 of so articles will see a pro choice / pro abortion stance.

Of the 50 articles 3 of them are columns or opinions pieces all of which are Pro choice/ pro abortion. I am sure if you want to publish the pro life side you can contact the Pro life campaign and Pro William Binchy will submit an article anytime.

If you truly want to balance the site this needs to be done

I think Jimmy is either wilfully misunderstanding what news outlets are all about, I.e. reporting the news, or he’s engaging in a pretty unpleasant piece of intimidation. Attacking a news outlet for reporting a minister’s statement and demanding that it be “balanced” by the publication of an article from an anti-abortion spokesperson is a clear attempt to close down debate. The other comments about hitting Journal.ie’s advertising revenue adds further to this menacing air. Ireland is a much changed country from when this issue was first debated in the 1980s … we are well past the time when zealots could close down debate.

Desmond – please point out where i have being unpleasant or intimidated anyone on this page.

Never said any article should be deleted, moved or replaced, i am not afraid of debate, i want debate but evey debate has 2 sides, all i am saying is one side is getting all the time on journal.ie – i would like to see the other side

@Graham O’ Malley

On a point of order, you are the only person to mention religion.

Also This isn’t a pet cause – this is a serious issue, i am pro life, this is a sincerely held opinion – i respect your right to articulate your opinion all is ask is that you do the same, without name calling.

Jimmy.
Sinead has pointed out to you a couple of times now, this is not an opinion piece, it’s a report on events in the Dáil. Specifically how we have been deemed to have failed to introduce the legislation required on these cases for 20 years, and have been criticised for same.
If the journal was flooded with opinion pieces you may have a point, and if it were – you would be welcome to contribute your side, they accept submissions from what I can see.

Hi Almar,

Just wanted to clarify something. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2010 that although the theory is there that all medical treatments, including a medical abortion, are available to women if their life is in danger in Ireland, the practical implementation of this is something entirely different.

Miss C, who had been suffering from cancer when she became pregnant, had to travel abroad to access services and so the Grand Chamber ruled that Ireland had failed to implement the existing constitutional rights of the woman.

I’m not giving an opinion on abortion here, just wanted to clear up the facts of the case. Here’s a link to the judgement if you want to read it: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2032.html

Thanks, Sinéad

Expert group to study this! Expert group to study that! Expert group to study nearly everything it seems! Can’t this shower of schoolteachers make any decisions without consulting a so called expert group? Who are these experts? I bet they’re well paid, well connected cronies of the ministers that employ them! Another scam I’d say!

Your first sentence as a statement of fact is correct. I have no idea what the disease statement is about.

As for the second paragragh I see that Sinead has already jumped in there. In practice, if an article that appeared in the Irish Times a couple of Saturdays ago is correct I beleive most of the “medical treatments necessary” that you refer to are actually carried out in Room 5 of the Womens Hospital in Liverpool!

Almar.
Please, stop lying.

1. Terminations are not available in this country – other treatments which may end the life of the baby may be pursued, but terminations are not available for any reason – this is why the ECHR are on our backs, but then, they obviously wouldn’t know what they are on about would they?

2. It may not treat a disease, but if a woman who has had cauterisation treatment for endometriosis for example – pregnancy can be fatal for her (this treatment usually renders women infertile but pregnancy can still happen. And FYI, it’s a common complaint and treatment), so – she should have to travel should she?

I’ve asked you this several times now Almar and you’ve never had the decency to respond, don’t suppose you could now??

And ovarian ,breast, cervical, and endometrial cancer can kill a pregnant woman much quicker than a non pregnant woman. Whats your point?

And cancer ends the life of the already born.

Hi Sinead:

The facts that we are aware of in this case indicate that the “service” C travelled to England to obtain was an abortion. There is no indication whatsoever that this was necessary to save her life. In fact, it seems that C did not in fact have cancer when she went for an abortion. If she did have cancer, all relevant treatments for it would be available in this country, even if those treatments resulted in the death of her unborn child.

Almar..
Aside from completely ignoring my question for the I don’t know how many-th time, are you now suggesting that the court judgement in that case was wrong?
And by extension, so are those who have criticised us for our failure to legislate in the wake of these cases?
Are you accusing the unnamed lady at the centre of the case of perjury with regards her health status at the time?

Yup. Well, if it’s a choice between risking killing the woman *and* the fetus, or just killing the fetus, then yeah, I’m going for option B. What would you suggest someone who’s 8 weeks pregnant and needs urgent cancer treatment should do? Tell them that they have to hang on and hope they don’t die in the next few months? I mean, you do realize that there’s quite a long bit of pregnancy that goes on *before* you can induce early labour with *any* chance of a live baby?

“always use the hard cases to underpin their argument”

While I am generally pro-choice, I don’t think that’s what this article is about. It’s not about how there should be more liberal abortion laws here (though I think there should), it’s that we should implement the ones that we actually have. At the moment, even though abortion is permitted to protect the life of the mother, women whose lives *are* threatened have to travel abroad for terminations. And I think that’s disgraceful.

Are you saying ‘to hell with the mothers life? Sure you have a cancer thats feeding off your pregnancy hormones but we cant treat you because theres no point and you cant abort here so we’ll let your body be eaten by the cancer but as long as the foetus is ok then who cares?’ Ridiculous. Right to life of the unborn, my eye. What about the right to life of the already born?

In fairness to the current government the review group chaired by Sean Ryan is to clarify the circumstances/wording on when abortion may be performed in line with the X case. Until now there have been no guidelines therefore medical professionals were unclear on whether they were acting legally or not. You cannot ask doctors to perform procedures unsure of their legality. It’s not enough but it’s a hell of a lot more than any previous government have done and they should be applauded for at least facing the issue.

Ed, you are aware that Ireland without abortion is the safest place in the world for pregnant women?

To defend some of the anti choice supporters on here, they go to great lengths to distance themselves from the religious side of things in registering their opposition to choice..
Then you come along and post this.. Are you a troll out to make the anti choice defenders look bad, or are there people out there who truly believe that the Virgin Mary (or the Constellation of Virgo) is writing blog posts for them?

@Ciara that’s not true. Women are victims of abortion too. More and more of them are telling their stories now about how much ‘choice’ they actually had. http://www.womenhurt.ie I’m glad that we can debate the issue respectfully here.

Eilis, 4400 women went to the Uk last year and who knows how many went to other countries. I have yet to hear of an overwhelming number of women ‘suffering as victims’ of a medical procedure that they went into with their eyes open. Women are not stupid, they know whats involved. Its explained to them. We have abortion in Ireland, we just export the Irish to have to procedure done. I know a few who had abortions and not one of them regrets their decision.

Ciara what about the women whose lives have been destroyed by abortion? Are these irrelevant?

Its not at all irrelevant to them but to other women who make the decision to have an abortion its irrelevant. For every one woman whose life is ‘destroyed’ in your words, there are others who are relieved that theu are no longer pregnant. I wouldnt let another womans experience stop me making the decision for myself. Its already happening! Women are having abortions. Your opinion on that will not change it or influence their decision.

@Ciara. Your response lacks compassion for women who have undergone abortion and are suffering as a result. Would you really say to someone in that situation ‘you made your choice live with it’? I think we need to learn from these womens’ experiences, not dismiss them. Thanks.

Easily knowing your a man , it’s not that black or white there’s plenty of grey area

@Orela
I don’t think a man makes my opinion invalid. Nobody is a baby/fetus, which I think is the most important opinion or say we can have in this matter. It’s simple really, a human life cannot be taken unless in self defense. The principle carries over regardless. Don’t you think?

Lets not forgot that according to the UN, Ireland without abortion, is the safest place in the world for pregnant women.

Ireland does have abortion, Diorai D, it’s just that our abortions take place outside of the State.This a large part of the reason why Irish hospitals are able to report the very good results for neo-natal care of women. The “export” of problem pregnancies to the UK skews Ireland’s results.

Sorry Desmond you are wrong. The UK British abortion statistics do not bear out your argument.

No Diorai, I am right. Irish women do travel to the UK for terminations. British abortion stats do bear that out.

I think you’re right Robert the fact that your a man does not invalidate your opinion. However I don’t agree with you, I feel that it is murder even when only one life is taken. One of my main problems with the X case, is that there is nothing to stop a woman from claiming that her life is in danger (in suicidal cases) if she is desperate enough – as recent investigations into UK Abortion Clinics etc. have shown. I would hate for the population of Ireland to become victim of this kind of fraud.

Again Criostina, you are wrong with your comment that there is nothing to stop a woman making a false claim of suicidal intent in order to procure an abortion. Such a woman is likely to have to rely on the diagnosis of at least one clinical psychiatrist. Before you start routinely accusing such women of dishonesty you should at least get your facts straight.

That was actually God in the Old Testament ;-)