Well said Werejammin. I think situations where the baby isn’t viable/incompatible with life should be treated as a completely separate issue to standard abortion on demand and legislated as such. In such cases, the mothers health and life should be prioritized above the terminally ill feotus. I hope our political class (or at least enough of them) will now have the balls to finally legislate for this at the very least.

All prolife people agree with that. But, we don’t need legislation for that. Simply clarity from the Medical Council.

Some loons think we live in a theocracy, and not a Republic. That’s the problem.

Daniel – Most sensible comment i have read yet on the subject

Daniel, I am completely pro choice. But that is a completely ridiculous and patently ill thought out argument.

The argument is not to control others lives, but to protect what they think is the child (which you or I would regard as a foetus). I actually get annoyed at people who think it is a child/full human and then are pro choice. We have to defend the weakest, if the foetus is of moral value equal to an adult we must defend it.

I just don’t agree that the foetus, at early stages, is anything remotely close to the moral value of an adult.

But ya, your point is nonsense.

Well said Daniel!!

I think you’re missing the point that abortion is murder.

Maybe not a great analogy, but your point reminds me off piece on here a long time ago about pet ownership, and some people were of the opinion that you OWN the dog, therefor if you want to kick or mistreat your dog, your neighbor cannot interfere, as its your dog. I disagreed.

Now a majority of people were of the opinion that they were entitled to interfere, and not have to mind their own business, as the dog couldn’t protect itself, or protest etc….

As I said maybe not a great analogy, but you see what I mean

Murder? Sorry John, the only people with blood on their hands this morning are people like you who have helped delay legislation which might have saved a young womans life.

“John” You say “Abortion is Murder?”! “Well Then You Tell Us What Is Allowing The Mother To Die Called???!”

John Hayes……..Abortion is murder???? What about that poor woman who was allowed to die because of a faint heartbeat??? At 17 weeks a foetus cannot live outside of its mothers body nor can it live if the mother is dead! Also as you have no womb your opinion is worthless.

I’m glad to see so many likes on that…. It shows that maybe public opinion and the bullshit that goes on in the Dail are two *very* different worlds. And that maybe we can evolve the place yet.

Clare; I think it’s unfair to state that a person doesn’t have a right to an opinion on abortion just because they don’t have a uterus. Remember, it takes more than a uterus to conceive a child in the first place; a mans opinion on this topic is just as relevant as a women’s.

I don’t agree with Clare’s “worthless” or Darren’s “as relevant as”…. I think “worthless” is an understandable, angry abreaction to the fact that men in positions of church and state power have been controlling this issue since God knows when.

I, as a man, find the idea of a cabinet full of mostly male TDs ‘discussing’ or worse still, voting on an issue like this fundamentally wrong in some important way.

Hard to know where the boundary is, and it seems like it is somewhere in between those, but bottom line for me is that if you disagree with abortion, you’re not just protecting your idea of a ‘life’, you are also forcing a woman to go through something that’s on a spectrum of being a burden to a major trauma (and deciding to terminate might have in itself already been a trauma). I don’t see it as the ‘right to abortion’, I see it as ‘how do you justify state control of someone’s body?’

Logical – if you’re against paedophilia don’t do it. Where does this obsession to control people come from eh??

A woman who doesn’t want to go through with a pregnancy is the same as someone who rapes children?

Facetious much?

….not even going to list the reasons I thought of why that is such a bad analogy.

if you’re against children getting bombed to bits in wars then don’t bomb kids to bits in wars, simple???? why control anyone?? Let everyone kill everyone as long as it’s not ourselves doing it.

Illogical Leon – Do you wish peadophilia to be legislated for as well?

Now you can you understand Pro-Lifers objections?

The ‘if-you-don’t-want-an-abortion-don’t-have-one’ argument is really bad logic. It doesn’t work for actions that affect others. Sure if you don’t want to steal, rape or murder, you still won’t whether it’s legalised or not, but what about the members of society affected by those that do desire to undertake these actions? Who protects them?

I’m just saying it’s not that simple ‘is all.

It’s not simple Rab, you’re right. My view of law is like yours – I think that you don’t need a lot of it, just the fundamentals to protect people from infringement by others. And infringement is *only* justified in the case of said protection.

My view is that disallowing abortion is an infringement on women. But yeah, I can see that even under my view, you can make a case for protecting an unborn child too.

I don’t mind people being anti-abortion (refuse to call them ‘pro-life’), as long as they are willing to acknowledge the grey areas like that. I write off those who have such a sentimental view of ‘life’ that they can’t acknowledge women’s boundaries and choices as well as their desire to protect the unborn. My guess is people that hard-line simply inherited their views from religion, and don’t care much for those living who are post-birth.

I agree with Conor, your argument is nonsense. I’m strongly pro-choice, but just because a person is pro-choice doesn’t mean that every argument they give for it makes sense.

‘If you don’t agree with rape, don’t rape someone!’, ‘if you don’t agree with torture, don’t torture someone!’. How does this make any sense? Morality is not just private thing which you keep to yourself. If I saw someone being raped, I’d intervene to help them. I’d also want the state to vindicate that person’s right not to be raped.

So while ultimately we are on the ‘same side’, your reasoning is specious and lousy.

Ultimately the ties between Politics and that Roman Catholic organisation is still to blame for Ireland’s backward stance on abortion. The same bastards that turned a blind eye, and actually covered up for their fellow members, when they systematically destroyed thousands of children’s lives. That evil cult should have been deemed an illegal organisation years ago. I just hope that the parents who still drag their kids to Roman places of gathering every Sunday, don’t live to regret it.

I read “profound moral values deeply embedded in the fabric of society” as “forced moral values due to deeply embedded catholic church influence in the government”

Don’t forget dear Enda is against abortion and thinks it’s not a priority… http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/11/14/time-ly/ Though him being a politician I think he thinks it’s a priority now all of a sudden.

Whats so good about the death of an unborn baby through abortion, is this what you call coming out of the dark ages introducing large scale murder. As an atheist i find it barbaric that we as human beings can kill our young and call it a Right. Value life not death ,

Brian
That’s a remarkably silly assertion. Kenny could decide to undo the Supreme Court ruling by holding another Referendum or introduce a simplified Law that more prescriptively sets down guidelines for a Savita type case and separately allows abortion where the life of the mother is at risk from suicide but only on the clinical judgement of three independent Psychiatrists.

Yes, that’s a brilliant idea, Gary. Ignore the fact that two referendums on this issue have shown the Irish people want women to be able to access medically necessary abortions. Just keep delaying against the will of a majority.

@Martin Gallagher, You say value life not death but in this case abortion would have saved a life, not providing it took a life.

@ Jason. Yes he changed his tune pdq!

Martin, as a man, it’s not a decision you’ll ever have to make so I don’t believe it’s your right to decide whether a woman who’s life hangs in the balance gets to make the better choice. It’s not an argument about mass murder you fool, it’s about if a woman’s life depends on it and her baby already has no chance of survival, can the decision be made to save one of them. Do you have a wife/sister/daughter, if so and they were in this situation, do you think you’d still have the same views?? I think not.

He hasn’t the Guts to Brian.

Tony, Enda thinks Property tax is immoral and wrong. Look how fast, that’s coming in and no delay there!

But Enda said that he will never legislate for any law enabling abortion under any circumstance. Therein lies the problem.

They’ve dropped to 30% and still falling!

@Tony You are confusing the EU with the ECHR. And the ECHR didn’t say we have to legislate, simply clarify.

The ECHR said we had to give effect to the Constitution. As the ob/gyn specialist on Vincent Browne made clear last night, confusing and contradictory medical guidelines are insufficient to give effect to a woman’s constitutional right to a medically necessary abortion. Therefore, yes, we must legislate to meet the ECHR requirements.

Well said Sean. The guy is either a troll ( and a poor one at that) or is deluded.

Wow!!!

More exclamation points, more emphasis!!!!!

John.
By any slim chance are you perhaps on the hook for a child that you did not want to have? Or someone that you know?
Your passion suggests a personal connection to the scenario, as would mine regards abortion (it would be a very dangerous experience for me). I do wonder if the level of anger that appears to be present in your posts hints at negative experience in your life.

(For the record, one of my brothers was kept out of his childs life, and required to pay child support – so I can appreciate your frustration on the uneven nature of how parents are treated in this state. But you should probably realise that this is related to the constitutional view of women as baby making and rearing factories and little else).

Conor,

Compared to the UK and other Europeans, Irish people are INCREDIBLY backward.

Embarrassingly so.

Compared to Saudi Arabia Ireland’s abortion laws are incredibly backward. They allow abortions to preserve the mother’s health not just save her life. We’re in the same boat as Uganda who are currently voting on a death penalty for gay people. :(

The following headline in the India times http://www.indiatimes.com/europe/ireland-murders-pregnant-indian-dentist-47214.html, something has to change

Sorry but India have absolutely NO right to talk about the human rights in another country.

Not to take away from inexcusable and unjustifiable ordeal Savita went through, but as a completely separate matter India have more than their fair share of human rights issues to address.

Savita was one of their nationals. They have every right to comment.

Murdered? What is this? The Indian equivalent of the Sun?

Yes they do have a right to comment on what happened. However, I take exception to title of the article, it implies that what happened was done maliciously and had racist motives. That isn’t the case, it happened due to successive governments failing to have the courage to resolve the issue with adequate legislation

“it implies that what happened was done maliciously”

Letting someone die slowly over the course of three days (the foetus) and over the course of four (the mother) in order to preserve your own precious myths seems pretty malicious.

Before people get on their high horses about Indian papers’ reactions to this tragic event, they should remember the reaction in Irish papers to the Michaela McAreavey trial outcome. Our papers and commentators here were quick to condemn the judicial system of another country (Mauritius) because of a perceived wrong over that outcome. This is just a similar situation except that its our judicial system in the headlines.

Especially as Irish women routinely obtain private abortions in the UK.

Are we?

84% of the country said it was Catholic. Almost 70% of the country said they wanted religious instruction, not education, to remain a part of every day schooling and 30% said they wanted their children to attend/remain in Catholic education.

Modern and secular my f**king arse.

@ Mike, so well said! The man never thinks before he comes with his rote soundbites. Such a sad end to a new and half lived life. All losers here…heart is saddened by this whole event, one which could have been totally unavoidable.

Just had a response from my TD with regard to the email I sent him asking for the Government to act on the 20 year old legislation. His letter gave the Enda Kenny line of “A child has been lost…..I guess they have all been given the same standard form letter to trot out here.

They maybe the right wing fanatics, that support FG/FF and keep Ireland going backwards!

Thanks for this link Michael, was able to look up how my TD voted and have emailed him the link and told him I would never help get him re-elected!

The term ‘x case’ is used because the woman involved in the case where the supreme court made the ruling (that abortion should be allowed where the mothers life is endangered) cannot be named for legal reasons – hence ‘X’. The ruling that was made still has not been legislated for ( hence the reasons for savita’s death). Changing this legislation would not require a referendum because of the supreme court ruling. Yet government have not legislated for the ruling that came out of ‘X- case’.

But you are right gearoid that pussy footing around x case and or abortion needs to stop.

I thought the X Case was the one where they were debating whether a teenage girl who was raped (I hope those details are right because it sounds flippant) ought to have the right to go to England… I knew the reason for the ‘X’ though. My bad.

The pussy footing is unlikely to stop with the amount of men in gov, and how they vote almost across the board according to their party whip… And I dunno what the whip’s vested interest is (for each party), but it’s not about to make any radical, thoughtful decisions any time soon.

Sadly I don’t think he is a troll. I think he just likes the sound of his own voice.

I’ve no interest in furthering women’s rights regarding children while men are continually stripped of theirs.

Well how about using your voice to fight for fathers rights rather then causing anger and pain through thoughtless comments on a very sad story.

Believe me, Ciara, I’ve an awful, awful lot of sympathy for the Savita and especially for her widower who has to continue on in life without her.

I have, however, never been more disgusted with the Irish people, their Church and their hypocrisy than ever. To see this being used by the feminist movement to demand abortion on demand, and for politicians to gain popularity, is almost vomit worthy.

@ ciara and john donovan. Possibly both ciara. Re John donovan’s comments on the one hand john has come out with statements above where he disagrees with abortion. On the other hand e.g. In his posts/ comments in the journals article yesterday “Bacik says ‘legislation is clearly necessary’ amid outcry over savita’s death” ( http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-death-abortion-x-case-ireland-673744-Nov2012/) he goes to great pains giving out about the Catholics in this country and lecture about how he is going to ‘ get off this rock’ etc. Indeed he went so far as to say that everyone who put themselves down as catholic in 2011 census is complicit in this woman’s (savita’s) death. Me thinks dear John should make his mind up!!!!!!!!
Quite conflicted it seems.  John donovans ethos ( re abortion) is pretty much as catholic as it gets, yet at the same time he is quite happy to give out about the ‘hypocrisy’ of the Catholics in this country. 
In yesterday’s article he made a snide comment against someone for not knowing what is meant by the term hypocrite. Interesting that. Of course perhaps it was a completely different John Donovan posting in yesterday’s article. Doubt it though. He gives similar moronic arguments for the agenda he was pushing in that post.
Of course, as you suggested ciara, it is possible that John is a troll ie someone who  just like’s to stir because he has nothing better to do. Sad. Readers beware!
If your going to troll John just to be controversial try being a bit more clever about it :) 

Irene,

I saw my name mentioned but I’m not going to sort through a paragraph-less rant. Sort it out dear.

In the case of John Donovan it’s not either a tool or a troll, it’s both.

@John, you wrote “abortion on demand”, nobody here has asked for that, self serving twit!

I don’t suppose you have any statistics on this “abortion as contraception” concept?
I am pro choice, but would never want to have an abortion. As pregnancy would be risky for me I use contraception, because it is far easier, cheaper and lets face it – in spite of its drawbacks – far more pleasant than a rather unpleasant procedure (abortion). It is better to prevent, and education about contraception, sex AND relationships needs to be a priority. But there is no form of contraception that is infallible, and there will always be exceptional cases.
Women do not make the decision to abort lightly, to assert otherwise shows a level of disrespect for a woman’s emotional intelligence that is quite insulting.

So in conclusion:

In the case of an accidental pregnancy arising from consensual sex, a woman should be able to:

A: Abort the child without any input from the father to be or indeed, completely against his wishes.
OR
B: Decide she wants to keep it, against the father’s wishes, and then stick him on the hook for decades of child support.

Where do men’s rights come into this? Why should women have COMPLETE and UTTER control over what happens a man, when it took both of them to get her pregnant? Why should she be the ultimate decider of his faith?

Unless we bring in some sort of right for men to legally and financially detach themselves from a pregnancy I will never support “abortion on demand”.

The fact that this has been made into a woman-only issue disgusts me also, but is typical of the feminist agenda in 2012. “Get all the good for the woman, dump all the bad on the man!” seems to be the mantra these days.

fate*

Its more than sad that someone would disagree with legislating for an emotional difficult procedure because they are playing tit for tat

The reason why a woman has complete and utter control is because the sperm has left the man’s body (he had sole control of it while it was there) and entered the woman’s body; its as simple as that. If you want sole control don’t share it.

It takes two people to conceive but only the women can fertilise the fusion of the ovum with the sperm eventually leading to an embryo, feotus and baby.

Reproduction happens in a womans body, its up to the woman to decide if she wants to subject her body and mind to this process, if you don’t like this simple fact you can always keep your sperm under your control.

“Get all the good for the woman, dump all the bad on the man”
That’s given me a chuckle..

Lets look at it in terms of the mans duties.
Scenario 1 – Father embraces his role.
He comes, she gets pregnant, he supports the woman in his limited capacity to do so through the pregnancy, he attends the birth and THEN starts fatherhood.

Scenario 2 – Father rejects his role.
He comes, she discovers pregnancy, he leaves. He may get pursued to pay some maintenance – he has the right of appeal.

For the woman.
Man comes, woman becomes pregnant.
She suffers morning sickness, her body is stretched, her hormone levels are massively disrupted. Her organs get squashed, depending upon her medical state there may or may not be complications – some minor, some life threatening. She needs maternity wear and has to take maternity leave, and most importantly – she has to go through child birth!
If the father’s around she has his support, if not she does not.

A fathers role is optional, unless his financial role is enforced by the courts.
A mothers role is compulsory until birth unless she has an abortion. Giving up the baby for adoption isn’t easy either.

In reality, you oppose women having the same rights to abdicate responsibility as any man can, given that the only responsibility that can be enforced is financial – this makes your priorities clear.

All the good is for the woman, and *men* get the raw deal.. Give me a break..

Jay. What makes you think that 30% of the people that voted no were all women? Judging from some comments above I’d imagine some of the ‘no’s’ were men.

Would thart work though John? If the foetus cannot survive anyway why wait until the mothers life is in ‘explicit danger’? Is it not better to do everything straight away to lessen the chance of the miscarriage developing into a situation where the mother is in real and imminent danger i.e. allowing it to continue for days with an elevated risk of contracting septicemia?

If it can be proven that the foetus won’t survive then absolutely, remove it before it becomes an issue.

For the time being, I cannot back full, unquestioned access to abortion though, as they have in the US or similar.

The majority of Irish people support abortion when a woman’s life is in danger, for fatal foetal abnormalities and in cases of rape and incest. Passing abortion on these grounds SHOULD be relatively uncontroversial.

Rape and incest would be hard to prove, would it not?

That’s making a massive assumption that women lie about rape – which is quite rare. Studies by London Met and TCD put Irish false rape accusations at about 9% (the highest in Europe), primarily due to alcohol related factors. Meaning that over 90% of rape accusations are true. The idea that rape and abuse survivors should be forced to carry a pregnancy because otherwise women lie? Frankly, it’s insulting to women to argue that we’re a bunch of liars.

DNA testing would prove that

How is almost 1 in 10 rape accusations being false RARE, Nick?

I couldn’t care less if there was alcohol involved, this is a life destroying accusation to make, which for men is almost impossible to disprove meaning the actual stat is probably higher, as it’s relying on women changing their story, and since almost 1 in 10 are making it there is absolutely NO way I support such an accusation as grounds to terminate a healthy pregnancy.

1/10 potentially healthy children dying because the mother is a disgusting liar? No thanks.

Thar’s what happened in Savita’s case. That’s what this whole debate is about. Once the miscarriage is underway with no chance of stopping it the process should be speeded up, foetal heartbeat or not.
No point waiting till the mother contracts blood poisoning or some other fatal complication before taking action.
I speak from personal expeeience, btw.

* experience – sorry.

Ah, and here we go. Women are “disgusting liars”, are they, John? But they should be forced to parent anyway? Your views of women here speak for themselves.

And no, it’s not higher. Only 6% of rapes are actually ever convicted. Have you even been reading the news lately? Women are being treated appallingly by judges in the criminal justice system. But your concern is more than a woman saying she was raped could ruin lives and if young girls like those in the X case have to suffer, too bad!

Nick,

This is hilarious. Forcing to parent, you mean like women do to men who didn’t want children almost every single day? By either getting pregnant and not giving the man the option of leaving, or indeed those who trick people into getting them pregnant?

And yes, it would be higher. If 9% are PROVEN to be false allegations, it means that the women stepped forward and admitted it was a false allegation. That means there’s most likely lots who didn’t and that there’s men serving time for a false accusation.

And no, I did not say women are disgusting liars but great bit of selective quoting there. You knew what I meant, manipulated it and took it well out of context so I’m not going to address you any further.

This is academic research. By your arguement, the 93% of rapes which aren’t convicted are false allegations. So since only 10% of claims are false and only 6% of rapes are convicted, it’s VERY unlikely men are serving times for false claims. Rather than considering it through the court process, the academics actually analysed rape claims. But sure, what would peer reviewed research know that you don’t?

You clearly have a dislike of women and are absolutely ignoring the fact that MEN also lose options under current restrictive abortions laws. Men often make the decision to terminate with their partners. All people who oppose abortion don’t dislike women, but unfortunately, too often, men who dislike all women do so under the guise of concern for foetuses.

I don’t support this myself – It would abhor me to see a situation whereby a woman could decide to abort a healthy pregnancy without any input from the father simply because she didn’t want the child, while if the man doesn’t want the child but she does, he is on the hook legally and is responsible for payments for years to the child he never wanted.

No thank you.

Abortion in the case where the woman’s life is in danger or the baby won’t make it – absolutely. Otherwise, no thank you for the time being.

“willie nilly every time a someone gets pregnant be accident that the get an abortion” – am, have you spoken to many women who have had abortions? It’s not a decision they make lightly… There is no such thing as 100% effective birth control either, plenty of couples out there have taken all precautions and still ended up with unplanned kids.

“I don’t support this myself – It would abhor me to see a situation whereby a woman could decide to abort a healthy pregnancy without any input from the father simply because she didn’t want the child”

If the mother was made pregnant through rape, should the father still have input?

Or a violent partner – pregnancy can often be a trigger for domestic violence and abuse to begin. Many women with an abusive partner feel they’d be doing a worse thing to bring a child into that situation.

Er, no, clearly not.

Violent partner?

No, sorry, that’s not an excuse for an abortion.

First of all, father’s are not “on the hook legally” because the mother decides whether or not to include them on the birth cert and they have very few rights in this country where their children are concerned unless the mother gives him those rights – but that’s a separate issue.

The situation at hand was one of what used to be called a DNC, this is VERY different from an abortion of a healthy fetus. I have family and friends in the US who have had to go through this procedure, it is heartbreaking and traumatic. The insensitivity and lack of compassion for mothers-to-be who find themselves in this difficult situation in this country is appalling.

I really, really hope you would have more compassion for a female loved one who was pregnant and in a violent relationship. “Sorry, tough luck” is an easy thing to say when you’ll never have to fear violence within the home.

Yes accidents happen and your right there no 100% safe contraception but having sex is taking a risk that a pregnancy will result and if that happens you should face up to that not take a get out of jail relitively card and yes I do acknowlage that its a hard decision and for many people they dont go into it lightly if the was a referendum on this I would vote for abortion because a think there should be a choice im just saying that abortion isnt a solution I would agree will personaly

Michael and John – if you are that bothered, get a vasectomy ( a quick, painless and reversible operation), use condoms just in case, and ask your partner to use the pill on top of that. Or refrain from sex.

John, a pregnancy can often be *part* of an abusive relationship. A documented tactic of abusers is to (forcibly or otherwise) impregnate their partner in order to exert more control over them.

People, women in particular, are trying to yet again push for privilege here which is why you’re seeing red thumbs.

Abortion on medical grounds is necessary and something that should be brought in. What the women here want is complete and unquestioned access to abortion which, while men have ever diminishing rights to children here, I absolutely cannot support.

A scenario whereby a woman who gets pregnant accidentally can just decide to terminate it without question, or without any input from the father to be OR decide not to terminate it and then string the guy along for child support is one which I cannot support. Increase men’s rights to both their access to children and provide the right to detach themselves legally and financially from a pregnancy and then I will support open, unquestioned abortion.

Until then I will vote against anything put before me with regards to abortion, unless it is very limited, very strictly controlled and isn’t open to people threatening to kill themselves in order to obtain an abortion.

Any other constitutional rights you want us to ignore? Two referendums decided that suicidal women should be able to access abortions. What else don’t you like? Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly? I didn’t realise you had individual veto power over the Bunreacht na hEireann!

Two constitutional referenda did NOT decide that Nick. And I pointed out that above. Both the 1990 and 2002 referenda were opposed by hardline/fundamentalist pro-lifers such as Dana and Youth Defence. Therefore it is completely disingenuous to suggest that in the defeat of those referenda, everyone who voted against them was in favour of “suicidal women being able to access abortions.”

Oh wow, an American living in England is sitting here telling us about our constitution.

How about you mind your own business? The US and indeed the UK has enough problems of its own. What are you even doing here?

Fantastic argumentation John, because someone lives outside the country their points on the constitution become invalid. I’m not American or live in America, but I think I have enough sense to know that to legally allow human / horse sex as legalised in 23 states of America is pretty stupid and still deny gay marriage.

Very childish response there John. Not surprising considering your babbling ranting posts.

I have no idea why they voted the way they did. Maybe the thought pro life meant women’s lives (heh. Comical, I know.) But if the referendums had passed, they would have eliminated grounds of suicide as a means of accessing abortion. They did not. So we must legislate according to the way the Irish people have voted.

Because my children will be Irish, John. I will be having children in Ireland. But hey, Savita wasn’t Irish either, so why should she have had a say in this, right?

@ John Donovan; the American is perfectly entitled to an opinion, this story has been thrust onto the worlds stage!!! You don’t have to have been born and bred in Ireland to comment on Irish legislation.

And actually, I would argue as I’m far more likely to suffer having children in Ireland (like Savita, a non Irish national), I have far more on the line than someone who will never be bleeding out slowly.

I also have a degree in law from an Irish university, so yes, I’d put my knowlege of constitutional law against any other law student. Do you have a law degree, John?

@johnDonovan “People, women in particular, are trying to yet again to push for privilege”. A privilege really? Your ignorance on this subject is embarrassing.. What privilege is that exactly? The right to do what they want with their bodies? The right to proper medical care? The right to live, survive? And that American you told to mind her own business, is a lot better informed than you my friend…

Oh she’s entitled to comment, her opinion is worthless though.

I miscarried last year, John. But thanks. I have no idea how anyone reading this would think you hate women.

John you are disgusting. End of.

I don’t hate women, Nick, I hate feminists and misandry.

“Increase men’s rights to both their access to children and provide the right to detach themselves legally and financially from a pregnancy”

And you think WOMEN are pushing for ‘privilege’!

Well there you have it.. John hates feminists, the women who have fought for women to have equal rights to men.

It may interest you to know John that the reason for the bias towards mothers in this country comes from the notion that women are there to breed and be mothers. The reason fathers do not have automatic rights to their kids is because of sexist ideals – sexist ideals that feminists have rallied against..

But you hate them. Even though the majority support equal rights for fathers, indeed, many are male – sadly that cannot extend to granting autonomy over the woman’s body to the father..

Couldn’t have said it better myself!!

Anything to be said for another mass??

It would have ended her labour. And at least she would have been given options for her care and her views respected. Why are pregnant women the one patients who are denied aggressive treatment?

And you are qualified to make such a sweeping and wide ranging statement? Are you also privvy to facts about this case that the rest of us arent??

Correction: Termination, if carried out by qualified personnel, is an identified medical/surgical procedure, for which the relevant are actually trained to carry out (Even in Ireland). The medical condition to which you refer – pregnancy – does have risks identified with it, one of which is the risk of miscarriage. The leading risk that arises from a prolonged term of miscarriage is that of sepsis, for which the only way to avoid is by carrying out a termination and sealing any wounds that arise, thus protecting the patient against possible infection. Termination of a pregnancy does carry its risks, as does any other surgical procedure, however the doctors and midwives are trained more than adequately to contend with any risks that do arise. Hope this helps your POV.

” the procedure of removing a living foetus would be equally risky to the healthy and life of the mother.”

No, It wouldn’t. It would have saved her life. The sad fact is, some pregnancies are non-viable and an abortion can save the life of the mother, and end the suffering of a foetus that was never meant to live.

I hope your not training as a doctor!

Then Michael what is your opinion re John Donavan’s comments he made yesterday against Catholics for their stance against abortion? See his comments in relation to yesterday’s article and see for yourself. Troll? Hypocrite? Confused? Take your pick. Don’t take my word for it see his comments for yourself http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-death-abortion-x-case-ireland-673744-Nov2012/nnEither which way savita had a right to live and a termination should have been carried out. She wanted it, her husband wanted it. Legislation needs to be clarified/ changed on this issue.n

Irene im just going by his comments in this thread I myself dont agree with unregulated abortion ie were the mothers life isnt at risk but that is outweighed by my opinion that people have right to choose wheather they have one or not but ill admitt that I am worried about if I want to raise the child but the womab goes and has an abortion anyway

Because as this story shows all too well, childbirth is risky. Even if they don’t die, plenty of women suffer chronic health issues as a result. You don’t get to decide for a woman to gamble her health.

Your right is to use contraception. If you can carry the foetus inside you, you can have equal say.

I’m sick of people saying that a man contributing a whole £30 a week towards raising their own offspring is the same as a woman having her body permanently altered and having primary care responsibilities for the rest of the child’s life.

Why is it that a guy wants to be a father to at unepected potential child the bad guy. Im sorry evolution chose women to carry a baby for nine months it takes two to make a baby why should only one have a say wheather it lives to be born if both are ok then I dont have a problem.

Because the foetus is currently living off the woman’s womb. Until a man is going to experience possible health complications from the pregnancy, he can’t force a woman to offer up her body against her will.

Any human being forcing another human being to offer up their body against their will is awful close to slavery for my liking.

I understand youre arguement all im saying is that the guy has to be considered too imagine that you get excite about becoming a dad even if its unplanned only to find out that because the woman out right doesnt want the baby and she terminates it with out considering him its going to be distressing for the guy. Alsi if you turn the tables the she wants the kid but he doesnt she can perssue him for child support regardless how much he contrabutes. Im saying force her do one thing or the other as I said it takes two to make a baby I know guys cant carry the thing but its half there genetic material afterall

Also on the point about health issues if every pregnancy carried a huge risk of complications no one would have children its unfortunette as it is with that poor woman in galway that there can be health issue but most are ok

While not a lot of women die, a lot end up with health complications. Post partum depression, chronic body pain, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia. Pregnancy is an incredibly physically trying process.

But if you think there should be equal rights, Michael, do you feel a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion?

my apologies in my reply I ment to say that im not for forcing anyone into anything im just saying that maybe have a be a bit of consideration about the genuine guy that wants to be a father what affect an abortion of his unborn child might have on him I know personaly I would be devestated while as I said I understand your point view your right that its not the guy physicly carrying the baby you dont seem to consider the implications of this on a guy we are not all heartless and run at the first sign of a kid

On the point of the health issue im struggling to grasp why anyone would have a child if we all followed your out look on having kids is so life destroying

Because most women WANT to risk it because they genuinely want to be mothers. But it is a difficult physical process and for most women, the risks are less than the reward of having a baby. So plenty of women will have children, why should we force those who don’t want to risk it?

I have every sympathy for a man who wishes for a pregnancy to continue. It must be a horrible situation and ideally, a couple would make it together. I simply can’t support giving him legal rights over the woman’s body.