That’s a good common sense attitude. Nobody likes abortion. But choice is needed for women with individual circumstances.

well said

But there are those who believe that the child is innocent in all circumstances

And there are those who believe the women are innocent in all circumstances as well. Now what do we do?

Stephanie I’m not 100% in any camp, I don’t agree with abortion as a form of contraception, I think the unborn child has rights, but equally I do not like posters of dead babies being used to try and shame people who agree with abortion, like many things, there is no easy answer……….

Manonthestreet, I don’t disagree with abortion, tho i wouldn’t be in favour of abortion on demand, however I don’t have the right to criticise people who protest against it. You can disagree with their opinion but not their right to protest.

@Tom Indeed there is no easy answer. There are a few of circumstances under which I disagree with the decision to have an abortion, however, that means that I, personally, would not have one in those circumstances. Since there is no easy answer to suit all cases it should be up to individual women to decide for themselves what they should do.

Tom, would you criticise hitlers beliefs or would you criticise hitler himself?
And earlier on I said I respect their right to protest! But I don’t respect them. But I’m not up there shoving dead babies in their faces or telling them they will burn in hell.
I don’t want to get into an argument with you because I nearly always agree with your posts.

My last comment meant for @tom leddy.

I wonder would we have any human rights if everyone who personally disagreed with the abuse of other human beings felt that they couldn’t impose that view on others. Surely, having a view that something is wrong has to lead to action or else we are just bystanders who have no imput into how society unfolds.

@ Tom

I assume you were never raped? I assume you were never molested. Can you imagine how that child, teenager, woman feels after something as horrifying as being raped? No, you don’t you never will. You’re a man. You’re asking a female to carry, live, feel, remember what she went through for 9+ months. So you don’t think she went through enough?

How dare you and people like these prolife individuals assume what is right. The right thing to do for that child, girl, woman is to help her decide, help her to make the decision that is right for her, for her future. They have the right to protest, but not to bully and lie about the facts. I disagree with the time given in the UK for an abortion. But at the early stage of up to 9 weeks seems more understandable and I can accept it.

@shiela, the use of the term “how dare you” really annoys me. I am entitled to my opinion whether you agree with it or not. I didn’t say I was anti abortion so I don’t know where you were going with your long winded comment aimed at me. And on assumptions, why do you assume I’m a man? Just asking!!

Sheila, you really need to stop with the “have you been raped” excuse. Killing an innocent child doesn’t make the rape go away. Steve Jobs mother considered abortion and instead decided to go with adoption. There is always another solution, but murder shouldn’t be it.

Ted Bundy’s mother might have considered abortion too, but she didn’t have one, so we got a mass murderer. The potential person argument is spurious.

Of course abortion doesn’t make the rape go away. It makes the resulting pregnancy go away. Which is the point of the abortion.

@ Tom Leddy

My post was for Tom Kenny!

@ Mary Lowe

My example is a very good reason to have an abortion! That is my belief. That is my opinion and there is absolutely nothing you say or preach to me that is going to change my mind. My body, my mind is mine! not yours and nobody elses. You get on with your life and let everyone else get on with theirs. You are not their judge or jury!

@Shelia, well there you have the danger of being a know it all and making assumptions, I was sexually abused as a child for years, I would like you to explain why and how that has any revelance to this or anything I said….. please

@ Shelia Also please explain your more annoying point “How dare you and people like these prolife individuals assume what is right”. Where did I ???????????????????????

@Shelia, my blood is boiling at the cheek of you, You accuse me of assuming what is right for others, when all I done was voice my opinion in a non threatening way, yet you have the cheek to make all the asuumptions under the sun and ram your opinion inmy direction, get a mirror and take a long look in it

Brilliant!

John, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Showed your class there John.

Wow,John you really put George Carlin in his place with “If you’re a retard” remark. You should be proud,your skills of discussion and debate are second to none!!!

Ru, what a disgusting comment you’ve made. I have a child who with Down Syndrome and would thank you to not make comments like this. Or perhaps you think she should have been aborted?

“If a foetus is a human being, how come when there’s a miscarriage they don’t have a funeral?”
Would you say that to a lady who had a miscarriage ???????????????????????

Mary, I think Ru was referring to a comment someone else made that has since been removed.

@ Mary Lowe

The comment I was replying to was deleted by the Admin.So you are attacking me for seeing the word “retard” without reading the rest of my comment. Which if you had of read the rest of my comment it would have been obvious what I was saying. Anyway, your apology is accepted!!!

Tom, it’s a truth- we don’t hold funerals for a miscarriage.

If the loss happens after a certain amount of weeks it’s technically called a stillbirth as far as i know, which is different.

not very different for the mother Lauren

Ru, you seem fond of using that disgusting word. What a horrible person you are. You are the one who needs to apologise to humanity.

Tom, I’m not minimising the pain and grief felt by someone who’s had a miscarriage, I’m just pointing out the difference between it and a CHILD dying. They’re treated differently (although both are horrific for the parents, I’m sure).

Well that’s the point Lauren, to many mothers who have a miscarriage it is the death of a child, regardless of what it’s technically called and I understand you’re not trying to minimise it

@ Mary Lowe

“In English writing, quotation marks or inverted commas (informally referred to as quotes or speech marks) are punctuation marks surrounding a quotation or direct speech”

So “I’m a horrible person”(see quotation marks ” ” signifying that I am quoting you) because the Admin,deleted the comment I was replying to, which then leaves my comment completely out of context.I’m sorry that your education didn’t extend to use of quotation marks.Your comments say more about you than they do about me!!!

Mary, I think you’re being belligerent now. If I was to say that until recently the word “retard” was commonly used in american medical practice to refer to someone with an intellectual or physical disability it would not mean that I love to use the word. I think you’re being very, very unfair on Ru.

I just have to print this out to give my kids a laugh- even my 6 year old would have a greater knowledge of biology! As a point of interest- many women and their families do have events to mark a miscarriage. I lost three babies and had a little ceremony for each one. The maternity hospitals can provide contacts to order little coffins, nameplates, etc. It’s recognised that it’s a great help in the grieving process to mark in some way the passage of the short life. Just because the law doesn’t reflect women’s experiences of loss isn’t a reason to undermine or minimise that loss.

And it is a great pity that in cases like the women of TFMR the parents have to go through such trouble to get a similar ceremony for their child because abortion is not legal here, even for medical reasons. Are you happy about that Maria?

That’s right.. One of the blog posts I read (via TFMR I think) the mother was speaking of how she couldn’t even bury her baby because she was not permitted to bring her home. She had to have the baby cremated and posted to her.
After the horror of finding out that her baby had a condition that meant she would not survive, having to travel to the UK to a strange place, under a cloud of stigma put there by “pro life” Ireland.. And then be denied the right to bury her child too..

Yeah.. Staunch Pro life is such a compassionate stance..

Often if there’s an abortion for reasons of foetal abnormality, the diagnosis is at a late enough stage in pregnancy. I think there’s a kinder option for mothers fathers and families than the trauma of abortion. I believe we should be much more sensitive to families in these heartbreaking situations and the provision of hospice care and all the supports that go with it should be a key priority.

You think it would be kinder. You think it would be less traumatic.

There seems to be a lot of YOU telling people how THEY should deal with a tragedy. Stop telling grieving families that you know better than they do.

You know Maria, on one point there I agree with you. Hospices and support are very much welcomed. If a woman decides to go through with a pregnancy under such tragic circumstances she deserves every bit of support she needs.

But again, it’s about choice. Not every woman can do that. Some would prefer to euthanise the baby. To *them* it seems a more loving option. But you would prefer to force them overseas and deny them the right to bury their children HERE.

The church like to brainwash the young, before they get to realise the God factor is a scam!

yeah..they brainwash them to not kill… i think it’s one of their commandment thingies .

Most of the pictures aren’t of aborted foetuses either. They’re of still born or miscarried children. See what kind of answer you would get if you ask them where they got their pictures.

It’s sick and cruel of them to use those pictures – and do they get consent to use them at all? Is it like with Youth Defense stealing those pictures for their campaign?

Nellysroom should consult the bible. Plenty of killing in their. Most of it committed or sanctioned by the god they worship.

I agree with you ciaran .. fyi I don’t have religion ..

I just believe in right and wrong and to give life a chance. Life is precious.

The Church need Catholic numbers on their books, they don’t give a damn about people and only interested in the numbers in their flock. They’d multiply the population of the planet, 10 times over for numbers and members of their church. They would call it ‘Gods Will’. not caring about the planet or how to feed the people and call it ‘Gods Will’ If we starved as a result!

Stephen you should look up some articles about the legalisation of contraception in the Philippines, what’s happening there is almost exactly what you’ve just described.

I’m sure the 1000’s of women that have travelled to the UK each year for the last few decades would have preferred this option. Bugger off protestors, keep your noses out. Protest in your own front room.

Just because the general populace didn’t see a problem with slavery at the time, didn’t make it right. It’s a question of who deserves rights, and who’s are more important.

@ Smaointí. Are you seriously comparing the enslavement of Africans in the New World to a medical procedure? I’m not being sarcastic, I just want to know if you believe the suffering of black people in the Americas was no more immoral than women’s medical procedures?

If that’s what you believe I suggest you read a bit more about the African slave trade and the plantations in the cotton states. If nothing else it may dissuade you from making such a ridiculous comparison in future.

Not everyone was able to travel to protest, but for everyone who was there, there were thousands of others who were there in spirit. Funny how some people who would probably view themselves as liberal can’t extend the right to protest to those who they don’t agree with.

Yes, that Liberal stance and that conservative opinion is ironic David. Also by ‘overpopulated’ are you suggesting abortion be used as a means of population control? That’s seems outside of the scope of TFMR, or are you supportive of abortion on demand?

Also John the ‘medical procedure’ you speak of terminates a life. In response to Paul, if that’s not worth protesting I don’t know what is.

No I was not at the protest, but I was there in spirit.

well said ciaran. why these protesters feel its any of their business to stand in judgement against women that do make that very difficult abortion i can’t understand. it is a very private personal thing and who are they to try and make these women feel bad about it.

“Our” is often used to describe children even if they are not our biological children. We often hear people speaking about what a pity it is that “our” young people have to emigrate.

What are you talking about woman? These people who emigrate can stay here and life off your taxes or they can go abroad and see how they get on.
A foetus in the womb is living off someone elses body but only if the woman consents.
A child can be cared for by anyone.

Whats your point?
Hows about if I need your kidney to survive, I’ll refer to it as ‘our’ kidney??

But think how convincing that would be, Tommy. I’m sure that since Maria is so in favour of forcing women to give a foetus use of their body, she’d be happy to give me our kidney if I need it.

Life comes first, after all.

so if it feels wrong don’t do it.. there are other options. there are thousands of people out there who cannot conceive who would love to adopt .

Again, not the issue. Pregnancy and childbirth is 9 months of your life that changes your whole body forever, commonly does life long damage to it, can even cause death, means you have doctors visits and extra bills, means taking chunks of time off work, messes with your hormones something terrible… etc etc.

Adoption isn’t a solution to an unwanted pregnancy, just an unwanted child.

I must be banjaxed altogether! No wonder all I’m fit for is posting on journal.ie.

@Nellysroom

There are millions of babies and children starving, have no parents, because of disease and/or war or because their religion told them not to use contraception. If childless couples, heterosexual, gay couples want children let them adopt those unfortunates. They’d be loved, cherished, fed, educated, all those good things.

Y’know, that’s funny Nelly’s Room because there’s thousands of kids in orphanages the world over who would dearly love a home..
If only there were a way to link them up with these parents you speak of.. Nope? Ok, I guess we had better force any woman with an unwanted *pregnancy* to term then..

# AnnaMaria Look at the UK. Abortions are like teeth extractions over there. As for here, abortions are not perceived as a form of contraception but rather as a mechanism for escaping the consequences of a mistake made. Both men & women opting to kill a child rather than facing up to their responsibilities. As for rape- it’s just reprehensible how pro-abortionists hide behind rape victims in forwarding their agenda. If you believe the even 5% of the much cited boatloads of girls heading to the UK are doing so because they were raped, you’re deluded. They had sex. Bother got caught out. They’re taking the easy, selfish option.

How old are you, Killian? You clearly know no one who made this difficult decision if you think it’s “like a teeth extraction.”

#I think, Nick if you take your head out of your arse you might be able to read better. I didn’t say it was like teeth extraction. I said in the UK it’s so common place it is undertaken just as flippancy. And it is. As for knowing someone who has done it. I move in better circles than that.

#I think, Nick if you take your head out of your arse you might be able to read better. I didn’t say it was like teeth extraction. I said in the UK it’s so common place it is undertaken just as flippantly. And it is. As for knowing someone who has done it. I move in better circles than that.

No Killian, they aren’t *all* rape victims..

Some are contraceptive failure, some are for health reasons, some are because the baby has a fatal foetal abnormality, some are because of mental health reasons, some are because there’s already a family to be considered..

Actually, there’s a lot of reasons people choose to terminate. But it’s nice to see that from your high horse in your “better circles” you are happy to judge.. Maybe they just wouldn’t tell you because of your opinions on the subject.. Maybe they don’t feel like being judged by you.

Are the anti abortion side against abortion in every conceivable(pun intended) situation? If the foetus had zero chance of survival (nil, nada, zilch, it is merely in the womb until miscarriage) and the mother only a 1% chance of survival, would you still all be against it?

Ah yes, the mental Heath card. We can’t win the moral argument….yet the public seem to be receptive to allowing termination where the mothers life is in danger….lets wrap abortion up in that & get it in through the back door by getting women to pretend to be suicidal. Clever. Highly immoral, but clever.

#Shanti…I notice in your list of reasons for abortions you don’t mention irresponsible couples who are just trying to make a problem go away. Do they not exist, no? Because the dog on the street knows they’re the vast majority of abortions. That’s why pro-abortionists spend so much time focusing on exceptions.

Killian.
Citations please for these figures that apparently even the dogs on the street know about.

There may well be some for whom your assumption is correct, but I figured that was already covered as it seems to be the only scenario that those on the pro life side wish to entertain, yourself included evidently.

And why do the pro choice side focus on exceptions? Because that’s life. It’s not black and white, there’s a whole spectrum of colours, they don’t go away because you don’t want to deal with them.

Oh, and as for your comment about how women pretend to be suicidal to access services, that’s really quite despicable. From someone who spouts from their moral high horse your lack of compassion for the living (specifically the mentally ill) is truly astounding.

I presume that you have the relevant qualifications to make this assertion? That you have spoken to women who have mental health reasons for wishing to terminate a pregnancy (ps – that’s about more than just suicide risk, there’s previous post natal depression / psychosis and the risk another pregnancy brings, mentally ill mothers who may not wish to continue with the pregnancy due to the fact that oestrogen tends to worsen conditions etc) and that you have done a full psychiatric assessment upon each, sought second opinions and upon collating all of the data – come to your conclusion that they are lying?

Or are you just spewing out logical fallacies as though they are fact?

My money is on the fallacy, based upon your previous contributions..

#Shanti…I’m so hurt about being called despicable by someone who advocates murdering children. And I wasn’t ridiculing or being less than compassionate to those with mental illness- I was lamenting those who would feign it. And those who would cynically use it to kick open the doors of abortion for all. You know. People like you.

I’ve never met a woman (and unlike you, I bothered to inform myself) who just decided “oh, a baby would be inconvenient.” A woman called us last week saying her partner would kill both her and the foetus if he knew she was pregnant, women who are worried about feeding their current children much less another one, women who have no help from their parents and no support. Calling these women wimps who just want to avoid an inconvenience and feel that it’s just like getting teeth pulled highlights your ignorance.

And you admitted you have no personal knowledge of this so leave it to people who do.

Killian it’s right there. You tried to insinuate that women lie about their mental health in order to access abortion services. You may wish to weasel your way out of it now but it’s too late.
You’re also doing your best to ignore the fact that a sizeable chunk of abortions happen for very valid reasons contrary to your assumptions.

No, instead you wish to attack the people who are trying to explain this to you. Shoot the messenger rather than the message.. I do not advocate murdering children because a) it’s not murder – that’s killing an independent living being and b) they are foetuses not children. Again, please consult a dictionary..

If you must rely on logical fallacy and deliberate misuse of grammar to make your case then I’m afraid that you don’t actually have one. Feel free to judge me, it’s not like you actually *know* me.. Same way you, by your own admission, don’t know any of the women accessing these services (well, to the best of your knowledge you don’t). You’re welcome to live in fallacy land if you wish, it’s a pity you don’t seem to realise the only person you’re fooling is yourself.

Banning abortion is no different than banning murder, assault, rape. It is there to protect the innocent from those who would do them harm.

Except that a pregnancy is, to a woman who does not wish to be pregnant, the equivalent of a rape. It’s having your body being used as an incubator for 9 months against your will. Having your nutrients depleted in order to feed the foetus, your hormone levels being massively disturbed, your internal organs being squished and displaced, your body changing shape and size, discomfort, and many health risks..

But hey, that’s what women are *for* isn’t it Killian.. You can tell them what to do with their own body, who cares what they want eh?

abortion for rape… 0.00000001%
abortion for lifestyle choice/ form of contraception…. 99%.

Woah, Nellysroom where did you get those stats from? Abortion is very very very rarely used as form of contraception, for one thing who the hell would put their body through something like that again and again?
The vast majority are women who either made a mistake or had a “technical malfunction” and were let down by their contraceptives.

Have a bit of compassion and check the judgement at the door please.

Nellysroom – that is just wrong on so many levels and just shows how little you know about the subject.

Good point.

In general, the reporting from RTE would have more of a pro-abortion slant. On Drivetime yesterday, Mary Wilson referred to abortion” services”, a term you’d never use if you were against abortion. The same term was used on the Six One News. It’s about time there was a report that portrayed the pro-life side. There was a big pro-life rally in Belfast in the summer and there was no coverage of it at all. This protest had to be covered as it was being widely reported on outside Ireland. It would have looked odd if it wasn’t mentioned in our own media.

I suggest you prove your allegation of RTE being pro-choice Maria. Either that or stop making it.

Also, since she would never use the term if she was anti-abortion, what term should she use if she was being neutral as is required? And what term would you use? As for portraying the pro-life side, did you see Primetime?

There may have been no coverage of the pro-life rally but there was no coverage of the pro-choice rally either. Seems fair to me. Especially since the pro-life rally wasn’t in the country.

I’d just use the term abortion without adding the word “services.” I think it’s very cold to call the ending of a life a service.

But surely with your medical background Maria you can appreciate that “abortion” refers to the death of a baby in utero. Be that natural (which we tend to call miscarriage – but is scientifically termed “spontaneous abortion”) or medical (a drug induced abortion, if they called it a drug induced miscarriage would you feel better about it?).

So in providing the drugs to induce the miscarriage / abortion they are providing a service. So really all she was doing was calling a spade a spade.. How that makes them sound biased I don’t know..

@Sarah Curran

It’s called propaganda! Trying to use the shock treatment on people that are vulnerable.

That’s it precisely. SHOCK VALUE.
It’s a logical fallacy, misleading vividness.

Now, the thing about logical fallacies is that they are also a great way to manipulate those who are not schooled in logic. This is manipulation plain and simple. Same way they like to describe late term surgical abortions as though they are the norm, and throw around slogans like “abortion is murder”. It’s all designed to manipulate people into taking their side.

It’s a very divisive issue, an emotional one and an intensely personal one. For this reason BOTH sides should stick to the facts. It does no one any favours to try and use emotional blackmail and manipulation, it’s a cheap tactic, usually the last resort of a poor argument too.

exactly!
and to be honest you dont see pro choice campaigners using these kinds of shock tactics because obviously they don’t need to

So Sarah, you’re saying pro lifers can’t show pictures of born babies in their campaign either? The point is termination/murder stops babies developing to that stage so it’s fair comment. Now, as a pro-life person I do think doing that is terribly counter-productive as it alienates reasonable people but the moral reprehension expressed by those advocating infanticide carries no weight given where their moral compass lies.

Killian. Please consult a dictionary.
Abortion refers to the death of a foetus in utero. Be that natural death or medically induced. What you call a miscarriage, allopathic medicine calls a spontaneous abortion.

Infanticide refers to the mass slaughter of infants, who are already born, and are breathing air via their own lungs.

Killian, the reason I am against such posters is because I care for the women going into the clinic. I actually care that they are not abused, not called names and not shouted at while going into the clinic to make what is usually a very difficult decision. I’m also against them because of the trauma they may cause to passers by who may have had stillborn children or miscarriages. I’m also agains them because they are deceptive and the sources of them are questionable. Many are of still births or of miscarriages. Was consent given for this kind of use of those pictures? They’re also deceptive because this particular clinic is only offering abortions up to nine weeks. The picture that represents that is a used sanitary towel.

Killian, Infanticide is what happened when God murdered all the first borns in Egypt. Apparently the God the protesters drag into the arguement has no problem mass murdering babies himself.

no killian that’s absolutely not what what i was saying

Everyone has a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The ” I wouldn’t do it but I respect the rights of others to make their own call” is a cop out. If you won’t do it because you believe it’s a life and you couldn’t do it to your own baby well then you can’t let anyone else do it either. It’s not like Divorce of Gay adoption where there are civil liberty issues and ultimately no one gets hurt. It’s life or death.

One choice, one voice, one vote! I wish they would bloody let people decide once and for all. It’s a joke at this stage.

Leave people vote and decide on this matter, if the anti-abortion crowd think the majority support them with their “not in our name” signs then they have nothing to worry about at all on any level

There are lots of situations where we don’t agree with letting people off to do what they want. Even if a person wanted to die and was about to jump off a building, huge efforts would be made to dissuade them. How many people have dived recklessly into a river to try to save someone who voluntarily threw themselves in? I’d hate if a time came when the plight of other humans was something that we just minded our own business about. Would anyone walk past a person who had fallen in the street or was drunk and staggering out onto the road? We interfere in all sorts of situations to help other people, It’s the measure of a good society- looking out for the weak and vulnerable.

Unless the weak and vulnerable woman happens to be someone who is carrying a life threatening pregnancy apparently.

Our maternal mortality rate is higher than a lot of countries that provide abortion. A pregnant woman has a better outlook here than in most countries including the UK, Germany or Italy. We have a very low mortality rate for children under 5. Of course,even one death is one too many which is why our obstetricians, midwives and health care professionals are always striving for better standards. Women are not being refused life-saving treatments. To state otherwise is scaremongering.

I wonder has that got anything to do with the fact that you can just nip across to England. I know I’d do that rather than simply wait around for the law to change.

Also the maternal mortality rate is better in Sweden and abortion is widely available there. And as I said to you on a different thread, what does the infant mortality rate have to do with this debate? And again, Sweden also has a better infant mortality rate. AND the maternal mortality rates in most of the countries where abortion is illegal is shocking. Our proximity to England saves lives, not our laws on abortion.

Oh and one last thing, explain Michelle Harte.

Yes Maria, and that interference is not always appreciated. In fact, some people resent that interference with their personal freedom.

Sometimes we like to think that we know better for another person but really, we are making a fatal assumption.. We are not walking in that other persons shoes, we cannot truly know what is best for them. We can know what *we* want for them, but that is what *we* want, not what *they* want. And you or I will never truly know what is “best” for someone else, because we have not yet discovered a way to swap minds like the Vulcans have in Star Trek.

That’s not an evidence based assessment, Stephanie. Are you saying that doctors here are denying life-saving medical treatments?

So Shanti, for clarity’s sake, are you advocating that if someone wishes to end their life for any reason that it would be wrong to stop them, or dissuade them in any way?

I don’t think the fact that the UK being so close and offering abortion on demand does decrease (artificially in your opinion Stephanie) maternal mortality. However if you could show evidence to the contrary I’d like to see it. As Maria points out, one life lost is too much.

I being pro-life would never stigmatise a women for having an abortion. Whilst I absolutely think its wrong, even in the most tragic of circumstance, me pointing out that I think it is wrong (in an appropriate and sensitive way) is not insensitive or wrong, however heavily frowned upon these days.

This post is too large to respond to every comment, however I noted elsewhere, and this is not an uncommon opinion but it reads by Gerry Sutton;

‘The only ones with a right to choose in the case of abortion is the woman carrying the foetus/child. The important word in that sentence is choose! Women should have the right to choose end of story, it’s no one else’s business, it has nothing to do with religion of any creed’.

This post is interesting because it touches on a number of points. One, this person acknowledges the rights of the unborn. Two, the second statement ‘Choose’, disregards the prior statement as obviously the child cannot choose. Three, it is society’s business, of whom I’m a member, obviously. Lastly, I agree, I don’t think religion or creed have anything to do necessarily with being pro-life, being atheist (which I’m not) and pro-life are not mutually exclusive.

I’ve also heard it said elsewhere by Sean O’Reilly ‘While I am pro life I also believe that nobody has the right to tell people what to do. End of story.’

By this logic, I could hypothetically state that whilst I am not racist, I have no right to intervene where someone else calls a black person a N*****’.

That statement is not ironic using Sean’s logic. This seems to be the predominant opinion of those who are pro-life however have ‘no problem’ with other people having abortions. It’s quite hypocritical and apathetic in my opinion.

Also I agree with Shanti’s ‘walk in my shoes’ mentality to a point, however not when an innocent child is victimised for the sake of apathy, of which I will not be a part.

And if I am being unsympathetic anywhere in this post, please point it out as it is not intended. My argument stands however.

Also if someone could identify stats on the reasons women have had abortions I’d grateful, I can’t find them anywhere despite having looked.

So Maria you can’t explain Michelle Harte?

And what isn’t an evidence based assessment?

Many a person is very relieved, Shanti Om, that someone did intervene and give them a helping hand. Laws impose behavior which is viewed as being beneficial for society although that can go badly wrong! We are all constrained in some way or another and can’t really do exactly as we please. I actually believe that others can know what’s best for us. Parents often know that certain behaviours aren’t in the best interests of their children and they protect them from the consequences of ill-judged actions. A person who has endured difficulties and conquered adversity can be a great mentor and advisor to those who follow in their footsteps. I remember a time when I thought I knew everything, but I look back and realise that there were others who were older and wiser or more experienced than me and that they actually did know a thing or two.

I think it would be wrong to comment on a case unless I was privy to the details of that case. I’m from a medical background and it wouldn’t seem very ethical. I do believe that every woman should be given total clarity about her treatment options and should be made aware that she won’t be refused life- saving medical treatments in pregnancy.

But Michelle Harte WAS denied life saving treatment. It’s not particularly helpful for a woman when you deny her experiences existed.

I would assume this tragedy would mean you would be determined to ensure beyond a shadow of a doubt that women receive necessary care. Michelle Harte and the C case have put this in doubt.

The suicide argument is a difficult one.. Having been there personally I have thought about it a lot..

You see, if the person really wants to die – they *will* kill themselves anyway, regardless of your interference.. Unless you lock them away and keep them on suicide watch. If they can be talked around they will be. Many suicide attempts are not successful, in fact, many are more “cries for help” than true attempts at suicide. So of course you can try and discuss it with them, but ultimately, it is their body and *their* decision.
What if they have just been diagnosed with a serious degenerative disease with no cure and wish to kill themselves before they can no longer do it for themselves? As euthanasia is also illegal they can’t make provisions for it any other way unless they travel.

People tend to refer to suicide as the “selfish option”, but who is being selfish? The person trying to end or prevent their own suffering, or relieve others of the burden they perceive themselves as, or the people protesting that they might have to suffer the grief of loss?

It’s an extreme example. When I said some people do not appreciate interference I was referring to the fact that if a persons mind *can* be changed, they will probably change it. But if their mind is made up – should we not respect that?

Nice photo of Katie Taylor there Peter.Would you call her a head case and bigot to her face?

Don’t think she was at the rally.

So is it just the people at the rally against abortion are bigots and head cases or all people who are pro-life.You could also easily be called a bigot as you are treating the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

I’m calling a spade a spade is what I’m doing.

How do you know Katie Taylor is anti-abortion, by the way? Not every religious person is. I hope you’re not making baseless assumptions. Tut tut if you are!

Isn’t it amazing how advocates for the right to life are so quickly dismissed as religious zealots? People more than capable of disregarding religious doctrine when it comes to divorce or contraception are not credited with the capacity to look at the abortion issue in a similarly balanced way and coincidentally come down on the side of the Church. It beggars belief how pro-abortionists will tag their argument on to anything to garner support; mistrust of the church, is one example. The more sinister one is how they attempt to hijack the horror of rape and use it as leverage to push in legislation to open the doors to widespread abortion. It’s morally reprehensible. All because they know they cannot sell their basic argument- that any woman under any circumstances should be allowed abort to the general population so they use smoke & mirrors instead.

any woman under any circumstances should be allowed abort

Yes, that’s the position. Abortion on demand, no apologies. And that is what will happen in the end. Women are entitled to bodily autonomy; women’s uteri are not democracies. You have some neck to think you’re entitled to a say in what women do with their own bodies. Clear off.

Some neck. Nim not the one advocating murder, my friend. And don’t talk the intricacies of biology to me. It boiled down to this: if you abort will you end a life. Yes. Well then nothing else matters. Nothing. Always amazes me how men have no say re: abortion yet if the woman decides to have a baby, all of a sudden the responsibilities of the man are equal. Can’t have it both ways. If its mine after three months, it was mine before 3 months.

Also, that may be your position. But thankfully in this Republic, that ain’t the law.

By not giving a kidney you may be ending a life. Why is not donating a womb any different?

You’re a maniac. You cannot be reasoned with.

#Stephanie- not donating a kidney is a passive act. You may or may not do it, but ultimately that there’s a problem with someone else’ kidney is not something of your making. A baby, on the other hand is very much of your making ( along with the man). There are responsibilities attached to it as a result. You are responsible for it after it is born, legally and morally. You are responsible for it before hand, morally and (thank God for Irish independence) legally.

#Petr hermaphrodite ….clearly judging by your first response to me “reason” is not your forte. When you stop talking crap, I’ll stop shovelling it.

So a child should be forced on a woman for having sex? Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. You cannot imply consent for your use of someone else’s body.

Sadly Tom, I don’t think this is an issue that will ever be resolved even with a referendum. So I agree, I can’t see a mature discussion happening anytime.

They’re also agains the children’s rights referendum.

You couldn’t make this sh1t up.

When it comes to lack of maturity, those who support abortion are well able to throw out insults and unhelpful comments. There are people who are over the top on both sides. I, personally, think that in any discussion, it’s better to be as civil as possible.

Or a woman who has suffered a late term miscarriage or stillbirth.

This post is interesting because it touches on a number of points.

One, you acknowledge the rights of the unborn.

Two, the second statement ‘Choose’, disregards the prior statement as obviously the child cannot choose.

Three, it is society’s business, of whom I’m a member, obviously.

Lastly, I agree, I don’t think religion or creed have anything to do necessarily with being pro-life, being atheist and pro-life are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, Dave, we typically allow the blood/body donors to be the ones to choose.

Should you be able to choose not to give blood, Dave? Shouldn’t it be the person dying who needs a blood transfusion who chooses?

Because even in 2012 there are some people left who think, you know….murdering unborn defenceless babies is wrong and that an evolved society will defend its most vulnerable from those who would hurt the innocence, very often for reasons of expediency. Makes me very proud to be Irish that we continue to make a stand.

Nobody said they don’t have a right to protest. They were protesting.
I have the right to criticise them for it.

manonthestreet what give you the right to criticise them for protesting, if you think you’ve a “right to criticise” anyone that has a different opinion than you, well you can figure out what that says about you…………

The same thing that gives you the right to criticise pro choice people.
Have you got a brain in there?

What an inane comment ^

Damn, that was directed at Tom Kenny.

Where did I criticise pro choice ??

My point is you can have a different view point without having to criticise the other side, although it does seem to call on more maturity than many are capable of even understanding, is that inane Stephanie, I think not…..

Now now Tom, Dont try change the subject, It’s an absolute right to criticise anything I don’t agree with.

Would you accept your boss’ opinion that you should work for free or would you criticise that opinion?

Ehhh manonthestreet, big difference in criticising someTHING you disagree with and criticising a person because their view is different than yours, which was your starting point

Now you are just being silly. I’m on an anonymous forum criticising the actions of people miles away, not them personally. You know full well what I meant. You are obviously in the mood for an argument. I’m not.

“not them personally” ??????????????????????? who then

For Tom and the 200ish protesters

http://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Especially those waving pictures of late term abortions outside a clinic that is restricted to administering medical abortions in special circumstances and no later than 9 weeks gestation.

Thank you for the red thumb, care to share why?

sorry to hear about your loss chris and i can only imagine what seeing those pictures would do to a person who has had a miscarraige

Thank you Brian, It was a long time ago, but it is a very painful experience. I know that I am not the only woman to go through it, and thankfully also had two very healthy and robust children, who I am very proud of.

I actually agree with you Chris in this respect. I don’t think shock tactics help our cause one bit. I’m also sorry to hear about your loss.

I’m the eldest, my Mam had to miscarriages prior to me. Whilst I too can sympathise with how some may feel they ‘need’ an abortion, I still don’t agree it can ever actually be justified.

two *

Hi Chris, that terminology is still used, yes. Sorry for your loss and congratulations on being a proud mum! :)

Confused much.

… as in the nut-cases seem to have moved to Belfast for the day?…

1. Vast majority of protesters in Erris are of a left/anarchist persuasion; they support a woman’s right to choose.

2. They are not nut cases.

Ross, I’ve seen some truly idiotic comments online before, but that one really brings the bar lower than ever. My usual policy would be to ignore a comment such as that, to treat it as I would the rantings of a deranged drunkard screaming nonsense on the street: you feel sorry for them momentarily and then carry on about your business. No point in trying to reason with them.

But this is so ridiculous I just can’t resist a little further consideration.

Let’s see if I can summarise the view out from between your blinkers: there are people protesting in Belfast; people sometimes protest in north Mayo; they’re probably the same kind of people; in other words, the world is made up of two types of people, those of us who think everything’s grand and those weird people who protest about stuff.

Your comment is like a caricature of the world view propagated by our right-wing media establishment: there are the trouble-makers (the “nutcases” as you so eloquently call them) and then there are the ordinary decent folk who get on with Work, TV, Shop, Sleep and let the government look after the complicated stuff.

Plus, as Petr has pointed out, pro-lifers are about as far removed politically as it is possible to be from those campaigning against Shell’s inland refinery in north Mayo. The pro-lifers are reactionary, intolerant, right-wing and are against the notion of woman’s own right to choose. Anti-Shell protestors are progressive, left-wing and campaigning for the right of the affected community to choose whether a dangerous refinery is situated in their neighbourhood.

So anarchist are not nut jobs…riiiiiggghhht!

Cian, I’d say you’re a real authority on the anarchist oeuvre. Would be most interesting to hear your critique.

Cian, maybe you should look into what anarchism actually means.

I was really agreeing with your points, Kate Call, until you got to the last paragraph where you characterised people in the same sweeping terms that you accused Ross of doing.

@ Kate Coll, I’m pro-life. I’m neither intolerant or reactionary nor am I a nutcase or a religious headcase. You’re comment however is quite a good example of someone who is intolerant and reactionary

@Ross McCarthy

You can’t call people that protest ‘nutcases’! They’ve a a right to protest. Whether they feel they’re right or not. When protesters start intimidating others that’s when it’s wrong. Just because you don’t believe the protesters in Corrib are right, what makes you think you’re right in saying what you say!

I believe that everybody has the right to protest peacefully. I don’t agree with these protesters. I believe that everybody has the right to decide what they think is right for them. Nobody has the right to judge them. They’ve to answer for their decisions themselves in time. Everybody makes mistakes in life, that is part of life. Nobody in this world is perfect, not even Mary, the mother of Jesus. She decided to keep her child, she was a lone parent. No, there’s no such thing as a virgin that ‘just’ got pregnant! These stories are man made.

This is no different to people that believe in euthanasia. That is their right and nobody else should shove their beliefs on others. Just get on with you own lives and let others live theirs.

@Maria and @Eimear.
To clarify: when I said “reactionary, intolerant, right-wing”, I was referring to the people who picket the Marie Stopes clinic, not necessarily everyone who is anti-abortion. Now that I think about it, I’m not sure what i think about people who are anti-abortion but who are not fanatically so…

@Kate, as I said I am pro-life. However I admit its not a black and white issue for me either. I am also of the belief that for women who require a termination when, for example their unborn baby is incompatible with life, as in the cases of the three women whose stories were highlighted on The Late Late Show that in these situations women and their partners should be supported unconditionally in their decision and receive their treatment here in Ireland. I am also of the same opinion with regard to those who are victims of rape. I do not agree with abortion on demand. I believe that it shouldnt be necessary with the vast amount of contraceptives available. i also think its very sad that this issue cannot be discussed without the mudslinging that occurs on both sides.

I think that’s what they are trying to do..

That’s funny, I could have sworn they were trying to force women to go through pregnancies they don’t want…

It’s important to note that you are the only person using the inflammatory phrase ‘Pro-Death’ in this forum.

I think you’ll find the majority of the pro-life movement are respectful of the people going to this clinic and voicing protests on their actions (appropriately) is not insensitive. I also agree with Lisa, no graphic images should have been shown.

As regards choice, how can the mothers choice negate the presumption that the child chooses to live?

That’s a silly presumption. I believe my mother had a right to refuse to offer her body up to me. I think most people would die for their mother. But it seems you would not.

Babies dead body?

Who is down thumbing this?! I mean for goodness sake! Is there anything more cowardly than the bloody red thumb. Voice your opposition like a grown up why don’t you.

People red thumb everything even corrections of spelling mistakes! ; )

How would you propose that the father of the unborn child would or could prevent a woman having an abortion? Strap her down for the nine months and force feed her? Its unfortunate for the man who disagree’s with his progeny being aborted but what could he possibly offer as an alternative if the woman’s mind is made up? Biologically his hands are tied.

It would simply interfere with a person’s right to bodily integrity. There’s no way you could ever allow one person to have a right over another person’s body like that. I don’t think you could put that into any sort of law without it going against any notion of human rights. Also, leaves a lot of room for abusive partners to have even more control.

To be able to force another person to stay pregnant and give birth (an extremely risky, possibly terrifying and life-changing experience) against their will would just be terrible.

Women should and do consult their partners when making these decisions and that should definitely be encouraged because I can see how terrible it must be for a man to not have a say. But nature is nature and it’s not fair and just all the time – women have babies, men don’t. That’s the reality.

So mothers have rights and fathers don’t ,is that it?

@n365 Men have rights over their own bodies. Women have rights over their own bodies. Pregnancy and abortion affects the body of the woman only. Therefore it is her right to decide whether or not to do either.

No, women have a right over their own bodies and what happens to it, men do not. Fathers DO have rights and should have rights over their children- that’s not the same thing as what is being discussed here.

A pregnancy is something that occurs in the woman’s body alone and no matter how it happened or who it happened with, that fact can’t change. You just cannot be allowed to force someone to do something with their body against their will. Do you think you should be allowed to force someone to, say, donate a kidney because you or somebody else needed one?

I’m just wondering Stephanie would you make a man work and hand over money for eighteen years for a child he doesn’t want? After all its his body, why should he be forced to put it through that?

Not sure about the law in this country regarding this, but I know that in other countries if a man states he wants nothing to do with a pregnancy and the woman goes ahead with it anyway, he does not have to pay anything.

I’d agree with that approach. (Also, is it not that in Ireland fathers don’t automatically pay alimony – the woman has to chase them and bring them to court for that if he refuses. – Anyone able to fact-check this for me?)

It’s not perfect, but biology isn’t designed with fairness in mind. We do our best with what we got.

So mothers have rights and fathers don’t ,is that it?

Basicly, yes.
The mother has the right to abort because it’s her body; the father has the right to not get her pregnant in the first place because it’s his body. So noone needs to have kids just because the mom won’t abort them; and if you want the kid in the first place, then it’s probably something you should both have committed to first, more for the kid’s sake than for your rights’ sake.

Mark are you female feminist by any chance? How can you say he shouldn’t get her pregnant? Does it not take two to tango?

what’s female feminists got to do with it? I think what Mark means is that if you have sex, you should expect that pregnancy is a possibility. I’m a female feminist and I’d be against the pretty standard argument (hurled against women mostly) that if you don’t want a kid, don’t have sex and if you do end up pregnant (or getting someone pregnant), tough sh*t. I think that’s a pretty horrible attitude. And yes it does take two to tango and there are a lot of ways contraceptives can fail, or mistakes can be made by either party involved.

But needless to say if you’re with someone (especially long term) you should probably talk about what you want before hand to make sure you’re both on the same page. Because pregnancy IS a possibility, so being sure you’re both prepared for it in case it does happen (and are on the same page) is important.

Men who are pro life better be darned sure that whoever they’re having sex with feels the same way. Imagine the total heartbreak of helplessly sitting by while a baby you really want is aborted.

You know Maria, I actually agree with you there. I think potential pregnancy is something a couple should always talk over before having sex. I know my boyfriend and I are both very much pro-choice and that he would respect any decision I made should such an event arise.

That said, I wonder if you could extend that same compassion to the women of TFMR?

Ok so. She wants to abort and he wants to keep the baby. She has the sole right by law to make that decision (eg. Uk )and he has no rights. Both feel they have made a mistake but he wants to bring up the baby. Is it not fair to ask that she goes full term and signs over custody ( without commitments) to the father ?

Of course it’s fair to ask. and of course it’s fair to let the woman know how you feel and what you really want. and hopefully she’ll take all that into account. As long as the man takes into account just what a huge sacrifice she’d be making for him, and respects her decision either way (ie. doesn’t try to bully her or pressure her into doing what he wants). It’d be wrong to have to hide your true feelings, and it’s wrong to dismiss the pain and hurt that men go through when this sort of situation arises.

Bottom line is people have to have respect for each other, and if you’re going to have sex you should know the score on this front to avoid as much of these complications down the line as possible.

Diego, no, I’m a father.

Maria, do you never bother to read the comments you’re responding to?

@n365 He has the right to ask certainly and ideally his view would be taken into account but simple biology dictates that he cannot force her through the pregnancy. Abortions aren’t simply about women not wanting to be parents, if it was just that they didn’t want to be parents they would opt for adoption. Women have abortions because they don’t want to be pregnant.

Pregnancy for many women is simple enough and hopefully uncomplicated but for all women it has a huge effect on their bodies, many of which are unpleasant and several of which are permanent. I’m a physio and I have treated scores of women with pregnancy related back pain, years after they have had their kids. Women who have had c-sections, women who have back pain while they are pregnant. My own mum had four kids and got three slipped discs because she’s quite petite but we were all very big babies (9lbs minimum). I’m not saying all women have a terrible time and should all abort their babies, personally I’m very much looking forward to the experience of pregnancy! What I’m saying is that tough as it is on men to not have an equal say – the pregnancy itself will not affect them.

FYI, one woman I know suffered scoliosis as a result of pregnancy – so now her spine is permanently deformed.
Another is now deaf because the excess oestrogen that goes with pregnancy worsened her otosclerosis and now she only has something like 20% of her hearing.

Those are things that go far beyond just having the baby, they are irreversible and permanent. To require a woman to run all of the risks included with pregnancy is something you would need to take into account when asking her to do so against her wishes.

If I could have spoken when I was unborn I’d be on the side of the Marie Stopes clinic.

I think if the unborn could speak, they’d mostly be making “glug glug sputter glug” noises through the amniotic fluid…

Ever try stand-up, you’re a scream.

Those brandishing the placards are the sickos.

Especially when they are in danger themselves. or have no real means to support and raise a child well….The harpies….

That was sarcasm!!

Do you hold the same attitude to cells? What about sperm? I mean how far do you go back?

Do you have a Christian burial after a wet dream?

Er, perhaps because most of those “images of dead babies” are of very late-term abortions, stillbirths, or miscarriages and hence bear no resemblance or relevance to anything that might result from the services offered in this clinic, or indeed the vast majority of legal abortions anywhere.

You do know that this particular clinic will and can only offer non-surgical abortions (ie an induced miscarriage) for pregnancies of less than 9 weeks gestation and where (in accordance with NI law) the pregnancy is a threat to the health of the mother, don’t you? Hence we’re talking about a procedure that will a)result in something like a very heavy period rather than “a dead baby” and b)be considered A NECESSARY MEDICAL TREATMENT.

cian Im personally against abortion but its not really for you to judge a woman’s reason for abortion. you don’t know what the deciding factors are. and the people flashing the fetus images are the sick ones.

How can you not understand the reasons?

I despair of the education system in this country. The knowledge of basic human biology is severely deficient!

That is the problem, they are showing photos of full term babies, that is not what is aborted. Cop on and find out the facts

So abortion is okay, but pictures of it aren’t? I think you’ve got to seriously consider your priorities. And those are accurate portrayals of 24 week fetuses, the abortion limit in the UK (although not in NI, I’m speaking more generally).

Dave, if you can’t appreciate the difference between a 24 week fetus and a sperm then you’re ignorant beyond salvage.

eh jayk showing those pictures is not ok. they are upsetting and something a woman having abortion does not need to see. its hard enough for her to go through. a women doing this is full aware of what will happen and doesn’t need these images trusted in her face upon entering an abortion clinic

You don’t abort a ‘child’; you abort a foetus.

What Jkay is failing to mention is that something like 97% of abortions in the uk are before 12 weeks and only 1% are at 24 weeks, usually they are due to medical problems, anaphylactic babies that sort of stuff i.e. babies that won’t live.

I’ll leave aside the irony of somone like you calling me ignorant!

If the baby is seriously sick then the 24 week limit does not apply, so the limit is not in place in order to accommodate non-viable pregnancies; its for otherwise healthy pregnancies where, for whatever reason, were not aborted earlier. These are facts, not opinions.

I don’t believe insulating people from the reality of abortion is going to lead to informed debate. If it’s morally acceptable, why are the pictures upsetting or inappropriate? I honestly believe shielding people from the reality of what constitutes abortion is far more inappropriate. Placards outside of the clinic are absolutely not the correct way to achieve this, but I believe its a lesser evil than excluding or sugar-coating the process. The Germans did fine ignoring the concentration camps when they were out of sight.

I’m primarily arguing against later term abortions here as those placards are not relevant to Northern Ireland where the 9 week limit is much shorter, not 24 weeks. In that regard, arguing the morality of the fundamental concept rather than the logistics, it doesn’t matter if .001% or 100% of the abortions are carried out at 24 weeks, at 24 weeks any abortion is morally reprehensible.

Jayk.. May I ask.. Why would a woman carry a healthy baby for 6 months and *then* abort it? I mean, it seems highly implausible.. You wouldn’t wait that long and go through all those changes just to change your mind 6 months in.. The later term abortions are, like you said, much more likely to be as a result of complications. The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are terminated very early, I would imagine the only exception to this to be very late discovery (which can happen).

Exactly. I recently read a document that BPAS released describing the women they had seen in the preceding few months who were looking for “late” terminations. *None* of them were healthy adult women who had known they were pregnant for months and then suddenly “just decided” to terminate. As I remember, many of them hadn’t realized they were pregnant at all (surprisingly common, many women get regular period-like “bleeds” during early pregnancy), one of them had just discovered her partner who had persuaded her to go ahead with the pregnancy had been sexually abusing her other children, one of them had just received a non-fatal but horrendous foetal diagnosis and had been told by experts the child would have a very poor quality of life even with medical intervention, a couple were very young teenagers who were in denial about what was going on (one where the parents only found out when they found her repeatedly punching herself in the stomach trying to make it “go away”), quite a few were serious drug addicts/alcoholics.

As Shanti says, seriously, why would a woman willingly go through the often unpleasant first trimester of pregnancy, get to the point where they are visibly pregnant and undergoing dramatic bodily changes, and *then* decide “oh no, don’t want it”? Not to mention the fact that late terminations are much more expensive and complicated than early ones.

I’ll dig out the document if anyone wants to read it, it’s heartbreaking.

Serious abnormalities are not relevant to the discussion because the 24 weeks limit does not apply to them. As I’ve already explained, the 24 weeks limit applies to (physically) healthy pregnancies that were not terminated earlier. If the fetus has a serious abnormality then abortion is available after the 24 week limit. Therefore the 24 week limit is NOT in place to accommodate abnormal fetuses, because in those instances the limit does not apply. Please try to understand this.

You ask “Why would a woman carry a healthy baby for 6 months and *then* abort it?”. Good question. The only reason I can think of is late detection of the pregnancy, which I accept is a complicated situation. In fact I think it’s the biggest complication in my personal moral framework. So; reduce it to the fundamentals.

How late is too late? When is it so late in the pregnancy that even if it was detected in the late-term and is unwanted, its morally objectionable to terminate? This eliminates considerations about abnormalities, because the limit doesn’t apply, and “standard” terminations, because they will have been carried out much earlier.

Let’s say 24 weeks, which is what I’ve been focusing on thus far. What changes between 24 and 25 weeks to tip the balance? Officially, its because premature babies born at 24 weeks have survived, while before that they haven’t. This seems almost arbitrary to me. More premature babies may not survive in the long term, but they are born alive. They might breath, or kick or cry. They are clearly “alive”, by anyone’s definition, even if they won’t survive. It is acceptable, however, to surgically terminate an otherwise healthy baby/fetus here. (Terminology is a bit grey at this stage because it depends on the location of the baby/fetus inside or outside the womb rather than its developmental stage). This is morally objectionable to me.

Compare this to a 9 week fetus. The degree to which it’s “alive” is much less clearly defined. It may show movement, but this is likely automatic rather than conscious behaviour. It’s nervous system (including its brain, which I think best defines “alive”) is in an extremely early stage of development and probably not functional. This is a significantly different situation to a 24 week fetus.

Its widely accepted that eventually, after X many weeks, its unacceptable to terminate a healthy pregnancy; that the rights of the fetus exceed those of the parent that doesn’t want it. We need to define the fundamental moral principle that decides that limit. At 24 weeks I can’t see how any can describe a kicking crying baby as “not alive”, so I don’t believe the current system is sufficient. Additionally, as medical treatment improves, more premature babies are going to survive, so even todays system is doomed to anachronism, and I can’t stand by a moral system where I know that’s the case. Surely no one can.

If someone can explain a gap in my logic, or at least the moral principle we disagree on and why, I’d appreciate it. But if you’re whole moral foundation is build on one line blurbs like “its a womans body” then there’s no need.

A foetus is not a baby.

Foetus or baby.. looks the same when you see a scan..

nose, ears,legs,hands,nose can all be seen .

don’t be so callous nellysroom. is it better for a baby to be born into a home were they are not wanted or the mother may not be able to care for them? another child in state care?

Stacey ..yes it is better . once born that baby will be wanted and be loved. nature will kick in.

Nellysroom that is simply not the case with millions of children worldwide.

Apparently child abuse no longer exists! No need for me to go into work tomorrow, lads.