Lol, that one gave me a laugh.. As Oscar Wilde said, If you’re going to tell someone the truth it’s best to make them laugh, or else they’ll kill you.

Mmmmmmm? Animal Farm springs to mind- all animals are equal but…….!!!

How exactly Maria?

Its not the only choice otherwise we wouldn’t be having this debate

Wow Justin, you really need this spoon fed to you, it the only fair, just and logical choice. I as a man have NO right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Church as state should be exactly the same.

Mark, as a man and father, of course you have “some” right to decide on the fate of your child if abortion is being discussed!

Mick. Abortion is the hottest of hot potatoes but I would say that a man has a say but not the ultimate choice. Woman’s body, woman’s choice. Everyone has the right to an opinion and that’s mine. I’m not looking to fight it out with anyone.

The simple facts of biology mean that the woman has more of a stake in this than the man. It’s unfortunate that the opinions can’t carry equal weight but that’s just the reality. Pregnancy affects women far far more than it affects men.

Mark
If it is the only fair just & equitable choice then make your case & the electorate in this democracy will agree with you

The electorate has twice expressed the opinion that abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances. It has never been given the opportunity to express the opinion that it should be allowed on demand.

Murder sounds a good a bough reason to me.

Murder sounds a good a enough reason to me.

Mark, I don’t want to fight it out either. I just feel that abortion is so serious that making it a gender issue (ie it’s a women’s body, let her decide) is not good enough. It is a human rights issue, and the right of the baby and father has to be respected before any law can be written.

Murder of pregnant women? Good point, especially since domestic violence is one of the most prevalent causes of death among pregnant women in developed countries. Did you know that a survey done in 2000 found that one in eight women at the Rotunda hospital had experienced domestic violence while pregnant? Or that 30% of women who experience domestic violence are pregnant the first time they experience it?

Murder of the child Stephanie!

@ Mark – it’s not her body that’s being aborted, it’s the babies!

Mick. I agree it’s a serious as it gets. However not allowing gender to play the major role that it does is to shift focus completely on the unborn. Some people call abortion murder, it’s a HUGE word. Pro lifers call the denial of the right to abortion as hijacking or kidnaping the woman’s body amusing visible distress and massive emotional and physical change. While I can see past the gender issue I do linger on it for as long as the issue deserves within the greyer argument.

I meant causing visible… as opposed to amusing
Bob, I do not believe its murder but that’s the crux if the matter isn’t it? It is VERY plain to see the stress and emotion and pains on a woman denied an abortion. A woman can articulate and express same.

@ Mark – emotions aren’t a consistent standard for determining right from wrong. I understand and pity a woman under this stress, however I wonder what pain and stress the baby undergoes in order to relieve its mother from hers. Definition of murder, is to take the life of another.

Bob- ou are pretty wild about throwing the word ‘murder’ around. As unsaid earlier, I disagree with that label. You say you sympathise with the suffering of the mother and yet you blindly brush it aside and favour that which could be over that which is. The ‘murder’ buzz word does not have the shock effect you want it to when people disagree with you. We could both go on and on I know. Best to keep the answers short on this forum though.

@ Mark – ok Mark, let’s keep it short and straight to the point, define murder?

Bob, to answer your question.

None.
The foetus feels no pain. The relevant bits of its brain have not yet developed and so it is completely incapable of pain. It’s also in a state of suspended consciousness, like someone under a general anaesthetic.

Shops that helps you.

Bob, to answer your question.

None.
The foetus feels no pain. The relevant bits of its brain have not yet developed and so it is completely incapable of pain. It’s also in a state of suspended consciousness, like someone under a general anaesthetic.

Hope that helps you.

shanti any reasonable person belives that murder is wrong because it denies a human a future abortion is no different than murder

Bob – a woman was killed while pregnant with twins. There were many others killed in the incident. Her death was not pregnancy related. Her unborn babies were not counted in the death toll because in order to qualify the babies would have had to live for at least a day outside of the mother. A mother and two babies dies that day in your opinion. The law disagreed. It’s not an abortion comment but it is relevant. How then is abortion murder?

@ Shanti – is this an observation or a belief? If its an observation, I would love to hear your evidence for this?

treating law as a divine code is a tad bit immature
sorry I can think for myself

Bob, several academic studies in the area have been done. As you see, even anti choice groups concede this point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10403496

@ Mark – thankfully our judicial system does not determine the meaning of words. The dictionary defines murder as: Noun:
1: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being
Verb:
1: kill intentionally and with premeditation;
I certainly do not accept that a baby only becomes a human when it leaves the mothers womb. Scientists have
proved that to be totally inaccurate. It’s a baby from conception. What standard do you apply when dealing with moral issues like murder?

Funny how you don’t bother to provide a reference for that.

And if Bob asks for citations because he believes it’s relevant, we’re going to provide it. Yell at Bob.

Stephanie, your point on domestic violence is well made, but you are talking about African countries there. Domestic violence due to pregnancy is not the main reason for Irish women having abortions, or is it?

Sorry, Bob. Our legal system does not define abortion as murder and woman would not be prosecuted under that offence. You knew that, right?

the bullshi t area of law may not define abortion as murder
but it still kills and denies a human a future which is murder to me and most people

Obviously that comment published a bit late. Mick, those studies refer to Irish women, as these are studies done by the HSE. Domestic violence is hard to evaluate as a cause of abortions, because it’s very hard to get women to admit domestic violence exists. Regardless, it’s a fairly common problem and it just ilustrates that you never know what circumstances are in women’s lives to determine their choices..

Bob, I see Nick provided a link for you, here’s the scholarly article.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

I should qualify, I meant that at the stage when most abortions are carried out (80% before 10 weeks) the foetus cannot feel pain.

After this most abortions are for medical reasons – and that is a different kettle of fish.

You are correct Mark , murder is huge word. By definition murder is probably, in simple terms, the deliberate ending of an innocent life. So people have to decide for themselves is an unborn baby a life. I’ve been thinking about for years and I feel life begins at conception, the DNA of the parents have mixed to form a new life. So no matter what is going on in the parents lives, the baby is alive and has the right to exist.

@ Nick – My apologies for not providing the reference for that definition, i git it from my “FreeSaurus (v1.2)” iphone dictionary, but if you look it up under most dictionaries you’ll find similar definitions.
You seem to be getting mixed up with morals and our legal system. Our legal system changes over time but morals do not. They are constant throughout time, universal in their application and written upon the conscience of every man and woman.

Medred, that article does not discuss death rate amongst pregnant women due to domestic violence. So unless you can provide an alternative health study about Irish women or a complaint about the methodology of the HSE study….

Still waiting on your reference for foetal pain at 14 weeks.

Sorry, Medred, if you’re going to avoid all my points of logic and just go to “you must hate foetuses”, I’m not going to respond to you.

While I disagree with Mick and Bob, at least they are attempting to contribute to a further discussion.

You are correct Mark, murder is huge word. By definition murder is probably, in simple terms, the deliberate ending of an innocent life. So people have to decide for themselves is an unborn baby a life. I’ve been thinking about that for years and I feel life begins at conception, the DNA of the parents have mixed to form a new life. So no matter what is going on in the parents lives, the baby is alive and has the right to exist. It not so simplistic, but that’s the summary.

Mick it is a biological fact that novel life begins at conception

From a perspective of sentience, it’s minimal. You would not be aware of either not being conceived or being aborted.

Again, you have yet to provide alternative figures on domestic violence occurrences or foetal pain. But what else is new, Medred? You rarely debate with informed figures.

No, Medred, the European Court of Human Rights has noted that there’s no scientific or philosophical concensus as to when life begins. While a new DNA sequence is formed, that’s far from the only moral definition of what it is to be a person. Please inform yourself.

I don’t claim it – the HSE does. Not really a bastion of feminism. But sure, keep making claims you have no support of. Not everyone can make reasonable, sourced debate. Some people have to be the tinfoil hatters!

People without real medical degrees shouldn’t call themselves doctors. Let’s save that for people who have earned it, shall we!

You mean you were claiming all along that it was unreliable without having read it? Now I know why you can’t provide me a source for foetal pain. You don’t actually read things!

@ Nick – “no philosophical or scientific consensus as to when life begins” and yet pro-abortioners are asking that we accept their point of view and legalise abortion! Seems to me that we need to investigate this a little further before more innocent lives are lost. This is why you need to address my question above; assuming that I (and many others) am correct when I reason that life begins at conception, would you then define abortion as murder? and if not what standard are you applying when you are dealing with issues like these?

No, what I am arguing is that since there is no concensus (and plenty of academic work), the decision should be left to the woman who is forced to give her body as life support to decide.

I don’t think it’s murder in the same way denying a blood transfusion to a dying person is not murder. I am under no obligation to have my body used as life support.

Bob, I think the point is that if there is no philosophical or scientific consensus as to when life begins, it means it’s up to individuals to make their own mind up about it. Pro-choicers want to give each and every individual a choice so that they can make their own informed and personal decision on the matter.

And aside from that, there’s an equally important debate to be had about who has ultimate rights over a pregnant person’s body: the pregnant person, or the organism existing inside them. It’s been said time and time again that in no other circumstances would a person have to donate their entire body, put it through 9 months of physical and mental stress and strain and danger against their will. It’s important to understand just how big a deal pregnancy is, and just how distressing it can be to be pregnant against your will. For people who are pro-choice, giving the person who is pregnant control over their own lives and their own bodies is the most important thing.

@ Nick – until you provide a solid foundation for morals, other than the varying opinion of man, every argument that you present in this moral issue is simply arbitrary.

To say that the decision to take away the life of another depends upon the one person who is able to support that life, is to simply say “let’s legalise murder”. It takes most ‘babies’ at least 18 years before they can fend for themselves and no longer depend upon their parents, why not extend abortion until then?

You talk about forcing mothers to carry their babies full term (as opposed killing them); in most cases (except rape) two people enter into a physical relationship fully aware of the possible consequences.

Thankfully the law in Ireland protects the life of all people (babies included) and unless you can provide a logical reason as to why we might even consider an amendment to this law, I think its best to position the protection of all life before the preference of any man or woman.

@ Ellen – are you saying that morals are simply decided by individuals?

Er Bob, where do you get *your* morals from?

Morals are subjective, what may seem immoral to you may be perfectly moral to another.
In general we tend to assume that murder is wrong – murder being one person ending the life of another. But what if the other requested to be killed? Is that murder? Many people reckon it is, others call it euthanasia and consider it to be a kind and compassionate act..
For example – Buddhism does not oppose abortion or euthanasia on a point of morals as it is seen as merely another form of life experience. Another part of karma. Despite what you may think, your morals are not universal.

I think war is immoral – plenty disagree with me, I think chemical weapons are immoral- but they’re a fact of life in certain parts of the world.

THIS is why choice is relevant. The only thing in this world that you own is you. And if the state is going to tell you that you don’t even own that, then we are back to the place where women are second class citizens (if only temporarily).

Yes – we know that sex causes pregnancy, which is why most people use contraception – but it’s not infallible, there’s no mode of contraception 100%, there are mistakes, rapes, and there are also medical reasons that women do not wish to be pregnant – pregnancy is always risky, but for some women it’s really risky – but I guess you feel right in telling them “tough, you made your bed so lie in it?”.

Deny access to safe, medical, controlled abortion and you will continue to have homemade ones – which are NOT safe, you will continue to have women who can afford to – travel. You will have women who’s babies were given a 0% chance of survival either being forced to carry the pregnancy to term or go overseas and not even be allowed to bring their babies body home.
Is that moral?

Maybe it is from where you’re standing, but not for me.

Ps Bob
“Life” depends on your definition of life. I ran into this problem below for using the word “alive”.

Your eyeball is living tissue, is that life?
Your sperm are alive – do you mourn all those lost lives anytime you crack one out?
Most likely not, because they are POTENTIAL. And the entire universe acts in a state if potential, no one is guaranteed a right to life, if they were we would see miscarriages very differently. If you manage to survive until birth you get a “life”, your parents may or may not protect you for the first while – but it’s always up to you to ensure you stay living, it’s not a right.

Couldn’t have said it better myself Shanti Om!

Shanti, you have raised a number of points here, so if I may, I have copied your comments and inserted my response after each comment below.

“Er Bob, where do you get *your* morals from?”
Excellent question and I’m glad that you asked. Morals have to be universal in order for us to make sense of right and wrong. Without a universal code we’re left with no rational explanation for correct or incorrect behaviour. God gave us His standards for right and wrong by hardwiring them into the conscience of every living human. These standards are unchanging, therefore they remain reliable, universal, in that the apply everywhere and they are abstract, as they did not originate from matter but rather from a mind, the mind of God.

“Morals are subjective, what may seem immoral to you may be perfectly moral to another.”
This is where I’m going to have to ask you to go to the library and read up a little on philosophy. Morals are certainly not subjective. You may claim that they are, but try and live that way! If they are subjective then murder is right and murder is wrong. We ought to release all prisoners who claim that the crimes that they committed were completely moral, at least in their eyes. You can’t tell me it’s wrong to kill a person, and I can’t tell you that it’s right….completely arbitrary!

“In general we tend to assume that murder is wrong – murder being one person ending the life of another. But what if the other requested to be killed? Is that murder?”
This of course is a totally separate issue. However if you want to follow this logic, we need to allow the baby to reach the age of reasoning. Once they have reached this stage, then we can ask them if it’s ok to ‘murder’ them….I’m sure you get the point.

“For example – Buddhism does not oppose abortion or euthanasia on a point of morals as it is seen as merely another form of life experience. Another part of karma. Despite what you may think, your morals are not universal.”
Buddhism is an extremely irrational worldview. They don’t believe in logic or differences in reality, all is one…etc. The fact that they don’t apply a universal standard merely shows us that their position is arbitrary.

“I think war is immoral – plenty disagree with me, I think chemical weapons are immoral- but they’re a fact of life in certain parts of the world.”
But if your view of subjective moralism is correct and if I was to disagree with this statement, I am also right and therefore you are wrong. In order for there to be morals of any sort with any meaning or value, they must be universal.

“THIS is why choice is relevant. The only thing in this world that you own is you. And if the state is going to tell you that you don’t even own that, then we are back to the place where women are second class citizens (if only temporarily).”
The state doesn’t ultimately decide on these issues Shanti, God does, and he sees men and women equally. If choice is relevant, well then it must be relevant to babies also. You could of course put an age limit on this ‘choice’, but then who decides that, and if subjective moralism is correct and I disagree with this age limit, who gets the final say?

“Yes – we know that sex causes pregnancy, which is why most people use contraception – but it’s not infallible, there’s no mode of contraception 100%, there are mistakes, rapes, and there are also medical reasons that women do not wish to be pregnant – pregnancy is always risky, but for some women it’s really risky – but I guess you feel right in telling them “tough, you made your bed so lie in it?”.
You guessed wrong Shanti; I feel more like doing something about helping these women in this position. In fact, one of the main reasons that I talk to people about these issues, is to try and help them avoid the guilt and shame of taking the life of an innocent baby. ‘Mistakes’ like these aren’t erasable, we can however learn to live with them and adjust our lives so that these mistakes’ get a chance at life too.

“Deny access to safe, medical, controlled abortion and you will continue to have homemade ones – which are NOT safe, you will continue to have women who can afford to – travel. You will have women who’s babies were given a 0% chance of survival either being forced to carry the pregnancy to term or go overseas and not even be allowed to bring their babies body home.”
There’s nothing ‘safe’ about killing a baby. Legalising abortions will never stop the “homemade” ones either. Many counties have legalised certain issues (abortion, drugs etc.) only to find them still on the ‘illegal’ market.

“Is that moral?”
Are you asking me to make a moral judgement? Well, if subjective moralism is true, then yes it is moral and no, it is not moral. If God determines morals, then yes it’s moral to expect people to take responsibility for their actions.

“Maybe it is from where you’re standing, but not for me.”
What about from he position the baby is standing?

Ps Bob
“Life” depends on your definition of life. I ran into this problem below for using the word “alive”.
“Your eyeball is living tissue, is that life?”
There are two or more meanings to every word, but I think that it’s obvious from the context of our conversation that we are referring to human life and not just ‘life’ in general.

“Your sperm are alive – do you mourn all those lost lives anytime you crack one out?”
This is the fallacy of equivocation. We are talking about human life as above. Please make logical arguments only in support of your position :-).

“Most likely not, because they are POTENTIAL. And the entire universe acts in a state if potential, no one is guaranteed a right to life, if they were we would see miscarriages very differently. If you manage to survive until birth you get a “life”, your parents may or may not protect you for the first while – but it’s always up to you to ensure you stay living, it’s not a right.”
Apologies Shanti, but I’m not 100% sure what you’re trying to say here, perhaps you could clarify?

There’s no point in debating the matter of reproductive rights with someone who professes their belief in “God”.
I would take the capitalisation and the disdain for other belief systems as an indicator that we are talking about the biblical god, and for this reason there is no sense in attempting to rationalise with you.
You reckon you know what god wants. I don’t know if there is a creator – so I will not attempt to speak on its possible behalf. We enter a stalemate where your belief that you know these inner secrets of the universe will never be shaken.
Pointless conversation..

@ Shanti – Sincere apologies Shanti, my error for replying to the incorrect post!!

I’m not offering a lecture on logic here, just pointing out the inconsistencies in your arguments. You’re welcome to point out errors in my chain of reasoning; I believe that’s what rational argumentation is all about!

Would you like to further explain how my beliefs are the “very definition of circular reasoning”?

I don’t claim to know everything that God wants. I do however seek Him daily to know what He wants me to do, how to live my life and how treat others with the dignity and respect that He expects me to. What I do know He has revealed to me through the Bible. I don’t expect people to live by my rules, but if you want to maintain logic and live right, it makes sense to follow the maker’s manual.

I too advocate the rights of people over their own bodies, and therefore I stand against the position which proposes to take away the life of another, regardless of how they want to justify their proposition.

As pointed out to Mark above, I am pro choice. I am for people having a right to choose what they want to do with their OWN bodies. Abortion proposes to ‘choose’ against the life of another. When a man and a woman decide to enter into a physical relationship, they are very aware of the potential risks involved and possibility of conceiving. This is when they need to make their choice, not after conception. With the exception of rape, both parties made a positive choice in a particular direction, to nullify them of all responsibility through abortion is immoral.

Your claim that you cannot have a discussion with me about morals because I believe in God is again completely arbitrary. You wouldn’t accept if I made the assertion that I cannot have this discussion with you about abortion (moral issue) because of your lack of a positive belief in God.

Abortion is mentioned in the Bible a number of times; however God chose to use the correct word – Murder.

I do understand that there are complex issues within this moral discussion and I certainly don’t ignore these issues. In fact I spend plenty of time discussing these more sensitive cases with others. But in general, those are not the cases that we are dealing with, and because each case can offer a different layer of complication, I think for the purpose of this argument we should remain focused on abortion in general.

If you’re referring to the Bible as my “little bubble” in which I live, well then I’ll take your advice on that one. You see it’s BECAUSE of this “bubble” that I have respect for others, including the unborn. Ironically, I myself am a little taken back at the lack of respect that pro-abortioners seem to exhibit for the life of the unborn!

Bill: “God must exist.”
Jill: “How do you know.”
Bill: “Because the Bible says so.”
Jill: “Why should I believe the Bible?”
Bill: “Because the Bible was written by God.”

This is known as begging the question, or circular reasoning. And your assertion that this is the makers manual and that it’s morals are universal shows this fundamental error in your reasoning.

I told you, you seem to think that you have the inside scoop on what the creator wants, you believe that the bible is truth. Not everyone agrees, indeed, there are many reasons not to. Logic being the top of the list.

At best the bible is one of many theories, but lets call a spade a spade, it’s a calendar. The Sun of God and his 12 buddies, born to a virgin on December 25th, heals the sick, is the light of the world, walks on water, was betrayed, crucified and rose after 3 days.. Just like the other 2000 sun gods before him.

Those “morals” were tacked on by men. But keep calling it the word of god if you like, *that* was what I meant when I referred to your bubble.

So long as you are going to attempt to claim dominion over the truth of what a creator wants as a cornerstone of your argument, based upon a book that was written long after Jesus was meant to be dead and buried and was heavily edited in 400AD, then we will continue to go in circles, like I said – POINTLESS.

I have responded to this above as you have answered me in two separate places. :-)

Agree!

Not all people who are against abortion are against it for religious reasons

The main reason/defense in Ireland is Jesus. The second reason is people’s ignorance/stupidity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Q5gp-oJns.

There is also the factor of people not liking the idea of killing a human life.
For most people, on both sides, there is a combination of factors involved often conflicting.

@Justin: it’s not your life being ended, nor is it you that does the killing.
The beauty of free choice: you don’t have too I’d you don’t want to and those who choose for abortion can.

A cell that does not have a heartbeat is not a human life. Also a baby that we know is going to die once born or which is disfigured should not have to face the pain it will when born. Neither should a rape victim be forced to have the child of a sadist/creep. People are entitled to be pro-life or complete bigots but they are not entitled to take away the rights of others.

@ kevin – “people are not entitled to take away the rights of others”….I can’t think of a more extreme way of taking away a persons rights than that of murder!

But forcing pregnant women to give life support to another human being against their will isn’t a violation of their rights? Sorry. My right to bodily integrity should trump another person’s right to survive by forcing me to grant them life support.

@ Bob – “I can’t think of a more extreme way of taking away a persons rights than that of murder!” Ireland needs to come to terms with reality and the year we are in. Ireland is the only country in Europe that is so right-wing about abortion, no one else is. A cell without a heartbeat is NOT murder. Putting a baby that is going to die immediately on birth or that is going to suffer a life in pain/misery is not right. We are as bad as Islamic states look at the map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

@ Kevin – that’s actually a fallacy Kevin, appealing to the ‘majority’. What ‘year’ we live in also is irrelevant. You certainly wouldn’t accept if I said that stealing another’s goods is acceptable because it’s the year 2012. No one is talking about killing a cell, we’re talking about killing an unborn baby.

kevin you have no biological understanding
a heartbeat doesnt determine who is human

Sorry, Medred, I don’t respond to those who harass people and make slanderous comments. Sure you understand.

Oh sorry Medred the Pope and you do.

Oh sorry Medred the Pope and you decide that. I forgot.

Kevin, I am pregnant at the mo and baby had a heartbeat since at least 6 weeks – 2 weeks after missed period. That’s a life – no question. I’m also against abortion and I am not religious or ignorant. I just believe the right to life trumps all other rights.

That’s fine Maria but your opinion should have no say on another woman’s body. It’s their business and no one else’s.

@ Shanti – I was expecting at the very least an attempt at rationality in your comeback. Your response is emotional but lacks any rational argument, this should indicate to you that your position is unsustainable, it was nice talking to you.

@Bob, that’s the most stupid line or arguing I ever heard. Your own arguments are very emotive:
“I can’t think of a more extreme way of taking away a persons rights than that of murder!”
“No one is talking about killing a cell, we’re talking about killing an unborn baby.”
A tat dramatic and certainly played to and/or from emotions, don’t you think?

The argument is very simple: What allows you to force your set of values and believes (religious or otherwise) upon another human being? Why won’t you just keep to your own business and let other do the same?

@ Mark – thanks for joining the conversation.

I certainly don’t believe my comments were a “tat traumatic’ and I never claimed that they were without emotion. Emotional comments are fine, however when they are made without the support of a rational claim, they are irrelevant; since this is a debate over the killing of innocent babies, I’d say that my points remain very relevant.

I do find it ironic though the fact that you claim that people shouldn’t be allowed to force their opinion or beliefs upon others (an opinion offered with force)…which is then followed by your very own forceful belief about people keeping their noses out of other peoples business(self refuting position).

This is about protecting the unborn baby’s right to life, the law currently does that and it’s the pro-abortioners that are the ones who are trying to change that; I (and many others) remain a voice for the unborn who are currently unable to protect themselves from the opinion of others!
Thanks Bob

Bob: I already took part in the debate long before you.

First of all you’re ignoring my question: Who are you to force you’re will upon those women who can’t handle a pregnancy for physical or mental reasons, who are pregnant beyond there own will, or where baby and mother will suffer a lifetime, just because of your believes?

Secondly, unlike you, I don’t force my believes on you, but am for giving people the freedom of choice.
I think that people should be left to make their own choice. Changing the law does not take away your freedom not to want abortion, but it does enable other, who think differently then you, to make that choice.

Bob.
If you are gonna reply to me, try replying to me – not elsewhere.. I only caught this out of sheer fluke.

Who are you to lecture me on logic when your beliefs are themselves the very definition of circular reasoning? Be careful there, woe to the hypocrites and all that..

You don’t know what a creator wants any more or less than I do, and for you to expect others to live according to YOUR views is illogical. I do not advocate people having abortions, therefore I cannot be “pro abortion”, I advocate people having the autonomy over their *own* bodies to make their *own* decisions. I am pro CHOICE. The very fact that you oppose choice shows that you have no respect for that.

I stated why I cannot argue morals with you, it’s pointless. I would rather not make myself look like a fool by trying. You think you know the absolute truth and despite the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the bible, you still reckon you know best.
I reckon it’s a very complex situation with infinite variables – something you don’t seem to want to look at. So keep living in your little bubble, that’s *your* choice. All we ask us that you have the good grace to respect other people’s.

@ Mark – apologies Mark, I actually responded to Shanti in the wrong section earlier, that’s why I welcomed you to the conversation that we were already having!!

If you have a logical objection to make against my arguments I’d love to hear it, other than simply calling them stupid!

I’m certainly not ignoring your question; you just didn’t like my response. Most abortions nowadays are carried out as a matter of human preference as opposed to the reasons that you have put forth. In many cases (some of which I am personally familiar with) the doctors have made the wrong call, in that both baby and mother were perfectly normal after birth, thankfully they refused to go with the doctors advice to abort.

I also want to deal with this pro choice issue that you keep raising. You see, I too am pro choice. The difference between your ‘pro choice’ and mine is that my view takes into account the choice of the baby (a choice which the babies are unable to voice for themselves). In most cases (except in a rape case) parents are fully aware of the potential ‘consequences’ involved when having sex. They know that no form of contraception offers 100% protection, and therefore the choice is made BEFORE conception. Once conception has taken place (after sex), the only way to erase the ‘error’ is to terminate or abort the life of the baby. My logic is quite simple: having sex may produce life, therefore if you’re absolutely certain that you don’t want to produce life, the only choice left which doesn’t involve murder, is the choice of not having sex!

If I wanted to kill a member of your family (regardless of the reason), would you stand back and say “who am I to force my opinion on another?” I’m pretty sure that your ‘non-forceful’ approach would go out the window as you protect the interest of your family member at risk. That’s what I am doing for the unborn Mark.
Can you please tell me how this is morally wrong?

@ Shanti – please see below!

Bob.
I believe your creators manual tells you: Judge not lest ye be judged.

Who are you to determine what reasons women have for having abortions? Have you asked every single one of them and crunched the numbers to arrive at your conclusion or have you made an illogical assumption based upon your own prejudice?

Your suggestion that everyone who does not want children should just avoid sex is completely ridiculous. If sex was solely for procreation then women would have an oestrus, and men would only become aroused when we were in it. That’s not how it works, perhaps your god should have considered that in his design. We are not the only animals for whom sex is about more than procreation, it’s about bonding and intimacy.

Lastly, if I as a woman say that I do not want to have children then that is MY choice. It ticks me off when people assume that because you’re female that you must want kids, that you are going to have them one way or the other – NO. I am under no obligation to become a mother and I’d thank you to take your judgement out of my uterus unless you wish to appear as a deluded self righteous dolt. It is MY body, and *I* will give or refuse consent for another being to live off me. Maybe your god doesn’t like it, but seeing as he’s made up, I really don’t care.

I will follow the same method in my response to you, apologies for the delay.

“This is known as begging the question, or circular reasoning. And your assertion that this is the makers manual and that it’s morals are universal shows this fundamental error in your reasoning.”

Thank you for raising this valid point Shanti. It is interesting to note that this discussion, which began with morals (abortion), eventually led to a discussion about competing worldviews. That’s exactly what’s at issue here; two different worldviews are at odds. You’ve got a natural worldview; I’ve got a supernatural one. You believe that man determines truth; and I believe that God determines truth. When I mentioned to you earlier about your need to study a little on philosophy (and logic too), I was not being ‘smart’ (although you may have taken it that way). I was trying to encourage you to see past the surface and get to the nuts and bolts of the moral argument.

Circular reasoning is unusual in that it’s actually valid, because the conclusion does follow the premises. There are valid forms of begging the question, but most forms are arbitrary in argumentation as they are merely assuming what is trying go be proved. However, when it comes to a worldview discussion, everyone is guilty of circular reasoning. Everyone must assume an ultimate, self-authoritative standard. Let me give you an example of this using your fictional figures Bill & Jill.

Bill: Abortion is right!
Jill: Really, how did you come to that conclusion?
Bill: Because every woman has a right to decide what happens to her own body!
Jill: I know what you mean, but who determines what’s right or wrong?
Bill: Well, morals are subjective….and therefore we do.
Jill: Ok, so what you’re saying is that, you decide right from wrong and therefore you are your ultimate authority?
Bill: I suppose so.
Jill: So in essence, it’s right because you say so, therefore because you say so it is right?
Bill: Mmmmm
Jill: Kinda circular don’t you think?

Worldview discussions cannot avoid some form of circularity – there aren’t any exceptions to this. As a theist, God is my ultimate authority, the book stops with Him, He calls the shots, He sets the standards, and seeing that He created that world, I’m ok with that!
Now I understand that you may disagree with my position that God created the world and so on, but you must start from somewhere, and that ‘somewhere’ is your ultimate authority or starting point. Your starting point is the ‘opinion of man’, in some shape or form (although I did detect from you a hint of openness to the possibility that there’s a God of some sort; correct me there if I’m wrong). But if this is your starting point, I’m saying that this position is simply arbitrary. The opinions of man (that’s mankind) differ from person to person, or in other words, if you were to compare the opinions of two separate people there would be many inconsistencies; this is hardly a solid standard or position to hold if you wish to maintain a sound argument, and we can never reach absolute truth.

“I told you, you seem to think that you have the inside scoop on what the creator wants, you believe that the bible is truth. Not everyone agrees, indeed, there are many reasons not to. Logic being the top of the list.”

You would have to supply evidence of how logic provides a reason not to accept the Bible. My argument is that without the Bible, we have no basis to assume the laws of logic. I understand that this is a different way of thinking, but that’s why I exhorted you to study philosophy. I can go into this in more detail if you are interested?

“At best the bible is one of many theories, but lets call a spade a spade, it’s a calendar. The Sun of God and his 12 buddies, born to a virgin on December 25th, heals the sick, is the light of the world, walks on water, was betrayed, crucified and rose after 3 days.. Just like the other 2000 sun gods before him.”

I assume “Sun” was just a typo here. We certainly don’t claim that Jesus was born on the 25th of December. The miracles that Jesus performed were verified at the time by hundreds of eye-witnesses. Even his enemies couldn’t deny Him that, so they tried to kill Him. I’m not 100% sure what this has to do with this discussion though.

Those “morals” were tacked on by men. But keep calling it the word of god if you like, *that* was what I meant when I referred to your bubble.

Those morals were inspired by the Holy Spirit and given to man through revelation. Without them, there remains no foundation for morality leaving people in the position to do as they wish (as long as they can avoid the consequences).

“So long as you are going to attempt to claim dominion over the truth of what a creator wants as a cornerstone of your argument, based upon a book that was written long after Jesus was meant to be dead and buried and was heavily edited in 400AD, then we will continue to go in circles, like I said – POINTLESS.”

I don’t claim dominion over truth at all. The Bible is there to be read and understood by the least of men to the greatest. The claim that the book was written long after Jesus was buried is not only irrelevant but simple untrue. The majority of the Bible was actually written as prophecy before Jesus came. These prophesies (and there are literally hundreds of them) were all fulfilled by Jesus – thus indicating a book of supernatural origin.

Bob.
“I believe your creators manual tells you: Judge not lest ye be judged.”

I’m not ‘judging people here, I’m simply standing by God’s standards to protect the innocent, unborn children.

“Who are you to determine what reasons women have for having abortions? Have you asked every single one of them and crunched the numbers to arrive at your conclusion or have you made an illogical assumption based upon your own prejudice?”

You can research it for yourself Shanti. In many countries abortions are the main form of contraception, killing millions of babies every year. In any case this debate is about abortion in general; is it right or wrong morally? I’m maintaining that it’s wrong, regardless of the ‘reasons’.

“Your suggestion that everyone who does not want children should just avoid sex is completely ridiculous. If sex was solely for procreation then women would have an oestrus, and men would only become aroused when we were in it. That’s not how it works, perhaps your god should have considered that in his design. We are not the only animals for whom sex is about more than procreation, it’s about bonding and intimacy.”

I never said that sex was just for procreation. I said that if people are 100% sure that they don’t want to have children, then the only way that’s 100% sure not to have children (that doesn’t involve murder) is not to have sex. In other words the choice is made before conception not after.

“Lastly, if I as a woman say that I do not want to have children then that is MY choice. It ticks me off when people assume that because you’re female that you must want kids, that you are going to have them one way or the other – NO. I am under no obligation to become a mother and I’d thank you to take your judgement out of my uterus unless you wish to appear as a deluded self righteous dolt. It is MY body, and *I* will give or refuse consent for another being to live off me. Maybe your god doesn’t like it, but seeing as he’s made up, I really don’t care.”

I agree with you here, having a baby is your choice and not every woman wants to have children. But when is the choice to have children made, before or after conception?

You mean Dr Medred who can’t read a medical paper? Yes, I wonder whether they would have got banned for the quite frankly juvenile ad hominem attacks upon Nick when they weren’t getting their way.

Connor I share your view. I am not pro abortion & I have known women that had to travel to the UK to avail of services there. Its a terrible sad situation made all the worse by having to leave the country.

So do I. I have a friend that went to the UK and she does not regret what she had to do but she felt like she was a second class citizen of this country and someone to be brushed under the carpet and ignored by her own government.

“A woman’s choice should be her own.” I’d like my future nieces, granddaughters and great- granddaughters to survive long enough to have the option of making choices. I want my sisters and daughters and female friends to celebrate their fertility and contribution to life instead of being bullied and brainwashed into seeing their unborn babies as some sort of freeloading pests who are sucking their life’s blood and invading their bodily space. The descriptions of pregnancy here are like something out of ‘Alien’ and are not descriptions that most women would identify with. I think women should be careful about those, who clearly want abortion on demand, pushing their own version of reality and engaging in scaremongering about women being denied medical treatment. This is not the reality of the situation.

Yes, Maria. I think women should be careful of medical scaremongering that abortion causes breast cancer as well. Tell me, do you have any connection with Youth Defence, an organisation which spreads this blatant medical untruth?

Yep, i just spoke to the Garda Press Office and they’ve updated their figures and said it was around 2,500 people. The article has been updated now.

Thanks Christine! Appreciate it!

In total agreement!

The best way to empower women is to provide the means to enable children to be welcomed without fear of discrimination, fear or poverty; to provide proper nutrition, education and healthcare; to end the discrimination which means that children with Down Syndrome are lucky to survive- the vast majority will be aborted……and we think we welcome people with disability? The double standards have to end where we talk of improving children’s rights, but see no rights for those who are not yet born. We want to give a voice to children, but deny one group the right to even take their first breath. We want to support women, but export them instead of offering proper, kinder options in their own country. Yes, let’s raise the standard and show the world how things should and could be done.

Hi, Maria, as someone who is disabled, I’d really rather you didn’t try to speak for us. Please let us speak for ourselves as to how we view abortion and the society it creates.

I am pro-choice but anti-abortion. It has nothing to do with religion and I am neither strange nor wierd.

We heard all that before, but the fact is that most of the anti choice crowd will deny they are motivated by religious convictions but are just pathetic proxies for the church.

Not wanting to kill unborn humans is not weird

Great attitude Joe, it saves you from the inconvenience of debating the issues

You are wrong Joe. I am against abortion because I feel it is the killing/ending (whatever term you want to use) of an innocent life, simple as that, no religious bias. I love biology, I have a degree in it, including genetics and bio-ethics, and I watched a medical video of how to preform an abortion (given to me by a medical student with no religious involvement). My choice is based on science.
The main point I want to make: it is true that many people who are anti-abortion are NOT influenced by religion.

Mick that type of comment wont go down well with the antilife people because they easily say youre a religious nut.

What was on the video?

Both the girls I know who travelled to the UK took medication which induced a miscarriage. They had an EPC afterwards, but they do that when you’ve had a miscarriage in Holles St too.
This is how approximately 80% of abortions are done.

Curious to know what was so terrible on this video, unless you’re talking about later term abortions which are most frequently carried out in the case of fatal foetal abnormality, and would be a different matter completely, which is worse – the abortion or forcing a woman to carry her baby to term only to watch it die?

I find myself stuck between two parties in this debate. Why are both sides so polarised. I can’t speak for everyone in this country but I sort of feel that there are many people in the same position as me. I support a woman’s right to an abortion in a case of rape, incest or if the child has no chance at surviving outside of the womb. To some extent I would consider myself pro-choice but I just don’t feel comfortable with abortion on demand when a perfectly good child is involved.

You know what, Gavin? I’m going to be honest, I’m totally pro choice, but most Irish people would agree with you. Every reliable study shows the Irish people support it in limited circumstances. Which is why it seems like legislating for X and fatal foetal abnormalities should be a no brainer, because that’s where most people are.

Don’t let either side convince you you’re in the minority and have to choose between us. Because you’re not and you don’t.

Shanti, it did include demonstrations of late term abortion, which are obviously less common, but still exist. Mostly it discussed the drugs involved and the complete removal of the baby to prevent or reduce complications after the procedure.

So Mick, by that logic, would I be right in assuming you support legislating for X but not extending a right to an abortion? It would seem concerns for life would be particularly prevalent in abortions where women need to access life saving abortions.

I suspected as much, a lot of anti choice campaigners (not directing this at you btw) like to trot out the worst case scenario which is a late term abortion.
They like to use misleading vividness to describe the horrors of abortion and they describe a late term abortion, which certainly is not pleasant (mind you, neither is the side effects if the drugs) but its a deliberate attempt to manipulate, because 80% of abortions happen before week 10, 90% happen before week 13.
That remaining 10% is made up of a large proportion of cases where the baby is either going to die in utero or more or less at birth. The cases where someone chooses to have an abortion at this late stage are extremely rare and to highlight them would be to use a biased sample or attempt to create a spotlight fallacy.

The vast majority of abortions happen before the foetus is capable of surviving delivery, when its got an almost 50% chance of being miscarried, before it has the neural pathways to feel pain. I do not deny that later term abortions happen, just that to insinuate that this is the normal medical procedure is disingenuous.

Just noticed the typo in my first message, so here are the statistics for our nearest neighbour that provides abortion services.
http://mediacentre.dh.gov.uk/2012/05/29/abortion-statistics-england-wales-2011/

90% before week 13, not 80%.

I support separation of church and state. I support the right to life. I am an atheist.

Why is it that pro-choice people always seem to be the ones obsessed with religion? Most atheists pride themselves on critical thinking and understanding of science; disappointing that you cannot accept that there are secular arguments in favour of the right to life.

Can I ask a question..
This right to life malarkey.. How do you grant a human man made right to something that is not guaranteed to survive delivery?
How do we, as humans, grant rights to a potentiality?

30-50% of pregnancies miscarry, so nature doesn’t even guarantee you the right to life. Once you have survived delivery you are an actuality and you have man made human rights.

Most abortions take place at a time when you are talking about this potential only, later term abortions are most frequently when there is a problem with the baby and these are babies that were wanted. They weren’t given their right to life by nature so how can we as humans grant it?
No one offers legal abortion services in the last trimester as at this point the foetus is capable of surviving delivery – labour would be induced if there were a problem.

Whatever about how an individual feels about whether this potential is considered life or not, until they are delivered they are still very much potential, with increasingly favourable odds as time goes along. The woman’s rights already exist, she was given her life by nature, not by man.

For this reason I take issue with the “right to life” part of the argument. I do not feel that we, as humans, are really in a position to grant such a thing.

Surely you acknowledge that human beings have a right not to have their lives intentionally ended violently by another?

Human life is a continuum which begins at fertilisation.

There is a difference between miscarriage and abortion; miscarriage is spontaneous fetal death, abortion is the intentional destruction of the fetus’ life.

You seem to imply that during delivery the child changes from ‘potential’ to ‘human’ — what process in the birth canal causes this great change? Enlighten me!

Do you believe that all human beings have the right to force another human being to grant them a life sustaining blood transfusion, Evelyn?

Pregnancy is such a unique circumstance that is is incomparable. While I appreciate that there is often a conflict of rights, no right supersedes the right to life. Abortion is the deliberate ending of a fetus’ life, and is not comparable to not donating blood.

I’m sure you can appreciate that pregnancy is a little more heavy duty than a blood transfusion. If that pregnancy is not wanted, granting rights to the potentiality in her womb interferes with her right to not be pregnant.
And if she really cares about that right she should use contraception.

As for deliberately ending life, I did say that my point was irrelevant to whether you consider it to be life or not. It was about the point of trying to grant rights to a potentiality. Rights are granted to individuals. Rights are granted post birth, going on about the “right to life” shows very little respect for the already living.

But how do you stop religion having an impact on people short of asking them on their way to vote.
Religion is one of a vast number of influencing factors and to try to seperate it out from the others to disqualify it would be impossible

Dr. S. Makhorn’s study of pregnant rape survivors is one of the only studies in this area.

Contrary to the belief that most rape victims want abortions, between 75% and 85% of pregnant rape survivors continued with their pregnancies.

The study also found that women who continued with their pregnancies had better mental health outcomes than women who had abortions.

Negative attitudes towards the child consistently changed to positive ones as the pregnancy progressed; the overwhelming majority of the women had a positive view towards the child by the time of delivery.

I remember that study only evaluate 30 women. And while women are welcome to choose to continue a pregnancy, you would force a rape survivor who doesn’t want one to carry a pregnancy against her will.

Do you have a citation for where in the study the mental health outcomes were? Please provide a link.

Evelyn
You didn’t read my post properly, I said I was on the fence with regard to abortion, certain circumstances etc., I don’t go with the anti brigade or the pro brigade…all I was saying was that religion doesn’t ways influence a persons opinion, i.e I’m not against/for abortion, and I’m definitely not a member of any organised religion.

I have met victims of rape who seriously regret aborting their babies, are you going to ignore them? I also personally know a person conceived by rape should he be euthanized because he was conceived thru violence.

The problem is the public is generally not in possession of all the facts. I don’t see what’s with people campaigning one way or the other, though I take serious issue with the dishonest and malicious tactics employed by Youth Defense.

In fact sometimes you have to protest public opinion in the first place. The general public doesn’t think very highly of feminists these days.

That what the pro choice lobby must do then. Educate & persuade.
Free speech & democracy are the way things have to be done otherwise we really are on a bad path

The people can think what they want but at the end of the day, abortion should be made legal even if the people don’t like it. If they left African-Americans civil rights to the people they would still be second class citizens in the United States.

How would you go about doing that?
There is no mechanism in Ireland for allowing abortion on demand without a referendum

There should not be a referendum on civil rights ever. Ireland would be violating international/EU law. It’s unlikely anything will change with the current government until a centre-left party takes power.

The European Court of Human Rights found no right to an abortion. No such right exists. This is an important human rights issue and as a woman and a feminist, I abhor the attitude that a woman’s rights would be dependent on suppressing the rights of another vulnerable group. We’ve had other instances in history where certain groups were seen as less than human or non persons.We must strongly resist this trend.

The history argument is ridiculous and completely irrelevant. There is no situation comparable to that of a pregnant woman. This is one human living inside another. Nothing is comparable to that!

Dr. S. Makhorn’s study of pregnant rape survivors is one of the only studies in this area.

Contrary to the belief that most rape victims want abortions, between 75% and 85% of pregnant rape survivors continued with their pregnancies.

The study also found that women who continued with their pregnancies had better mental health outcomes than women who had abortions.

Negative attitudes towards the child consistently changed to positive ones as the pregnancy progressed; the overwhelming majority of the women had a positive view towards the child by the time of delivery.

Again Evelyn – the person you are replying to spoke about forcing. We are not talking about women who chose to keep their baby, we are talking about women who do not wish to keep the baby being forced to because she is denied the CHOICE.

That’s all a pro choice campaigner asks for, to have the choice. No one has to have an abortion if they want to keep their baby – but their choice has already been catered for, the person who doesn’t want to be pregnant is being FORCED to be, in every single way in the case of rape.

Whatever you may feel about the status of that potential life, not everyone sees it the same way. At least those on the pro choice side are willing to allow you refuse abortion, you are denying them the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

There are many times in this life that I wish abortion had been available a long time ago. I would have liked to have been aborted.
I’m alive now, and I’ve made the most of what I’ve been given, but while I was living with my abusive parent – I wanted to be dead.
If I’d been taken into care I probably would be.

If we are gonna have people so keen on forced pregnancies, then perhaps we should have them a bit more keen on child protection too. Any old yahoo can have a baby, whether they are going to abuse it or care for it or pass it off to someone else. These sanctimonious people arguing for the right to life don’t seem to realise that ultimately none of us gets our “right” to live, we fight for survival. THAT is life.

Jess – what about the heartbeat that a foetus has?

‘entirely’

Well, I personally, have met VERY few anti-choice atheists (and of note – I have NEVER met a female anti-choice atheists. The few I do know are all men.) And when specific anti-choicers come on the Journal, they almost always claim to be speaking from a secular point of view and yet have a Twitter feed full of religious speech.

There’s nothing wrong with being religious (I’m religious myself), but since there is no philosophical or scientific concensus on when personhood begins and human rights are enshrined, the view that a person is “ensouled” from conception often comes from, if not active religion, a religious background.

Nick, you just refuse to accept what you hear when we tell you our reasons

Again, chuck, even if you are an atheist, you’re not really disproving my point that I’ve never met a female anti choice atheist!

So the quality of a persons input is determined by their gender? Nice

The applicability of their life experience is. While men can input on this debate, it is essential for men to admit where their life experience on this ends. I feel similarly about LGBT issues. While I can be supportive, I need to acknowledge where my life experience on that ends and listen to the LGBT community about their needs.

Nick that’s absolute nonsense

Can women who’ve never been pregnant comment? Can people who’ve never been to war talk about the invasion of Iraq? Can women talk about being falsely accused of rape?

Taking away people’s voices because you don’t like the way they were born is a slippery slope. (Can I mention slopes, since Im not a skier?)

As I’ve said, all of these people can have opinions on things that don’t direct concern them: but I would be VERY concerned if a discussion of LGBT issues was happening if it was led by those who identify as straight.

No one has said men can’t comment (well, you keep saying that’s my point, but I’ve specifically denied it), but I do think men’s lack of experience of pregnancy is important and it should be kept in mind in these discussions.

Well, you aren’t a foetus, so maybe we should keep that in mind when reading your opinions?

And should we place less value on the opinions of everyone who doesn’t have first hand experience of every issue. Really?? On the performance of Ministers? On policing? On paedophilia? War?

Sorry, but I prefer the one-vote-per-person way of doing things

Again, no one said they can’t vote. They said to have a bit of consideration of life experience. Which, unfortunately, it seems people who will never experience a pregnancy don’t seem to do. Unfortunately, this discussion seems to be dominated by those who will never be forced to remain pregnant against their will nor experience the unique feeling of pregnancy.

And while I can comment on, for example, policing, I’d make sure that views of young black men were being heard more than mine. Because I’m aware of my privilege in some aspects of society.

Young black men? And not policemen?

Speaking as a young black man; get off the stage. Your prejudices are showing

What, that there are racial profiling issues? And sure, I’m happy to let young black men lead that discussion. Unfortunately, you’re not willing to give women the same respect over our own rights to bodily integrity.

Nick, FYI I’ve met plenty of female anti-choice atheists. There are many of them.

Again, this assertion is often made. But all the professed female anti choice atheists on the Journal have twitter feeds full of religious language.

It’s interesting that you, a man, have to claim you know some because none are here on the Journal… Interesting.

Nick, I get the point you are making but I don’t agree with it.
Let my ask you this: do you have a child/children? I ask that because there is a referendum coming on children’s rights. Should only parents vote in this, or can people with no children vote too?

Again, Mick, I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t think we should deny voting on this basis. But to use the children’s referendum as an example, I’ve been very disappointed that in the child referendum debate, we haven’t heard enough of the opinions of young people who were abused and taken into care or those who as children who were the basis of a custody battle. I want to hear more from them and I think their voices of life experience would be an important contribution. Similarly, I think women who have been pregnant have the most valuable voice in public discussion about pregnancy.

@Joan check out http://www.facebook.com/secularprolife if you’re interested.

@Nick Meet meeeeee :)

Nick – allow me to introduce myself – a female pro-life atheist.

Please understand if I don’t take your word for it on one exchange – posters on the Journal who are religious frequently claim not to be.

Yeah, that blatantly goes against what the Pearse St garda station told organisers. I have no idea what’s going on (I counted a bit under 3 thousand personally), but there is video evidence, so people can see for themselves….

Why thumbs down for Nick? Guards have confirmed the figures as between 1,500 and 3,000. Ring ‘em yourselves if you want to make sure.

According to that Irish Times article: “… gardai at the Store St station said that closer to 500 people had showed up for the event.”

Store Street were not the garda station overseeing the march – Pearse St were. The march started in Shop Street and I can see where this is coming from, as the march picked up a lot of momentum from bystanders as we moved along, and by the time it reached Merrion Square, it was about 2,500.

Hope that’s helpful, Saint Ruth!

Yes, yes, I see now that Store Street say “to “up to 2,500″…so the Irish Times is not up to date…
So Christine Bohan is right and the Irish Times is wrong!

It’s not a competition!

Yes it is! (And TheJournal.ie won.)

Irish times article has been removed and rewritten. Obviously the editor wasn’t happy.

“Several thousand people joined the ‘March for Choice’ in Dublin this afternoon in what was billed as the first major mobilisation of pro-choice activists ahead of the publication of a major report examining how the Government should deal with the abortion issue.”

@Joan The real winner was the news-reading public, right? RIGHT?

Seems to be a problem with the app, mine keeps telling me there was an error posting my comment but then it shows up later. Or it shows up where I left it as well as down the bottom of he page, it’s very odd but most likely down to a line of code somewhere that’s been fiendishly difficult for the developer to find!

Hmm, that’s strange. Sometimes there can be a delay of a couple of minutes before a comment appears on the site and people post the comment again because they think it didn’t appear the first time. However if it’s actually saying there’s an error then that’s different. I’ll say it to our tech team. Sorry about the hassle.

You don’t need to apologise to me Christine!
(It’s far more likely the developers fault ;) )
Recently Im getting “error posting comment” quite frequently, but more often than not the comment shows up if I refresh the article – I think it tends to happen more on articles with a lot of comments so that may be part of it.

As for the duplicate post showing up at the end of the page – that usually disappears pretty quick so it might just be a phantom.. I’m inclined to report my double posts just because I hate leaving them there!!

Cheers Shanti, that’s useful, I’ll pass that on. Hopefully get it sorted soon.

What if your baby is given 0% survival chance should that little baby be born to suffer for a few minutes or should their pain be taken away by termination?

Interesting to read this report about children who would be commonly termed “incompatible with life” -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120723094847.htm
Many parents aren’t happy with this label being put on children and the fact they they have to fight for interventions for children that are more than just a diagnosis.

Maria, to be honest, I find you speaking for parents who have had a child incompatible with life insulting. You seem to want to speak for a lot of groups which can represent ourselves and to tell a woman who has gone through that that SHE shouldn’t label a pregnancy that? Frankly, horrible.

Hear hear Nick. I found Maria’s choice to post that article there when Arlette is well known for voicing her experience on the TFMR campaign rather callous. Shame on you Maria.

Maria — Children are not termed “incompatible with life” and are not labelled as such.

Some children, unfortunately, have a condition that is incompatible with life, and maybe that’s where you became confused. Or to put it another way, these children have a condition that will prevent their survival outside the womb.

Have you, as a parent, had such a heartbreaking experience?

I spoke to the Gardaí earlier and they estimated that around 100 people had gathered on O’Connell Street for the march. The photographs and video show that there were clearly more people at it, but it’s notoriously difficult to put an accurate figure on crowd size.

The best attempt at doing a proper estimate of the numbers that I’ve seen so far – and I’ve been checking a lot over the course of the evening – has come from @RónánBurtenshaw on Twitter. He measured the length of the street that you see in the video in the article and estimated how long it would take protesters to walk that length given that there were around 3 people per square metre, as per a BBC suggestion for how to measure the size of crowds. Given all that, he came up with a figure of 2,970 people.

Now I don’t know if that figure is accurate but that’s the best example I’ve seen of someone actually trying to properly work out attendance instead of just taking a guesstimate, which is what many people on Twitter are trying to do.

Hi, Christine, did you speak to the Garda at Shop Street or Pearse? Pearse Street have repeatedly confirmed to us that their estimate is 2.5k. Alison Spillane and Sinead Redmond have both spoke to them since 7pm.

I disagree with abortion on demand, but I dont care how many people were/weren’t there. All I care about is whether their argument is persuasive.

About a trillion people watch the X Factor, that doesn’t make them right!

Cheers Nick – I just spoke to them again there and they said that they’ve updated the figure to around 2,500 (with the caveat that it’s notoriously difficult to count crowds, etc). I’ll update the piece now.

Thanks, Christine. Appreciate you being so willing to do legwork on a Saturday night. :-)

And Chuck, it’s absolutely fine to not find it relevant. But I’m sure you would prefer that the Journal had accurate reporting if possible so we can all debate with all the facts.

An estimation isn’t a fact, Nick. Unless they bought tickets we won’t get an accurate measurement. Why does it matter how many people were there?

That estimate you gave is based on 3 people per square metre is ridiculous, but it does come from a biased contributor. It’s very odd that a march beginning with a Garda estimate of 100 could rise to 2,500 or 3,000. Whatever the real figure it’s clear that this march did not capture the public imagination. We know that pro-choice activists aligned to far left groups want abortion legalised, this march just shows must of them gathered in the same place.

Because the claim is made my some fringe pro life groups that their policy of no abortion except for maternal life (rather than health reasons) represent the majority of the Irish public. Obviously you can decide it’s irrelevant to you, Chuck, which is fine. But if the article is going to report numbers, it’s not unfair to want accurate ones.

You seem quite fixated on this!

Nick, I commented on it after several comments from you and a few others. It’s not me that’s fixated

The difference between 1,500 & 3,000 is miniscule when you take the population of the Dublin area as a whole, and can be explained by lack of publicity, weather, traffic, or any other number of reasons. If it was the difference between 1,000 & 100,000 thousand it might be important, but this is just splitting hairs

LarBren1 pro-choice activists come from all sorts of political backgrounds, pro-choice supporters even more so. You’re trying hard to make this seem like a small group of lefty activists. They were there, but so were everyone else. The numbers in attendance were great – it’s clearly obvious from the pictures, the video and the gardai’s estimation.

We’ll have to agree to disagree, Chuck. I don’t think facts are emphasised enough in the abortion debate. I admit that I think it’s essential to make sure there’s truthfulness and accuracy, so I’m sorry if I’m a bit too zealous about making sure details are accurate. I wish a group like Youth Defence would act similarly with regards to their claim that abortion causes breast cancer!

Heh, it’s fine Nick, think it needed a bit of light shed on it given how heated it was getting on Twitter. Cheers for the heads up about it.

@LarBren1: Part of the problem with the estimate is that two different Garda stations were involved in monitoring part of the march and that, coupled with the fact that a lot of people seemed to have joined the march after it moved off from O’Connell Street, meant that the initial figures were guesstimates that now appear to have been on the low side.

Ok my last thoughts on these numbers. I looked at the video and my unscientific estimate was up to 1,000. Sure, it might have been more but I doubt it could have been much more. Maybe someone with experience estimating crowds will look at it and give their considered opinion, not just some unfortunate Garda who’s been badgered by people on the phone looking for higher numbers. I also notice that ‘up to 2,500 with a caveat’ became the more confident ‘around 2,500′.

Just to clarify that – the caveat is noted in the article because the Gardaí aren’t crazy about being the go-to source for these figures. However right now they’re the only official source for these figures – aside from organisers – that there is, so they’re the ones that are used. Obviously it’s impossible to count every single person but it’s the best estimate that there is.

Also, that was my mistake in the comment because I wrote it too quickly but the Gardaí did indeed say that there were approximately 2,500 people.

May I ask, what is morally ugly about it if you aren’t religious?

Most abortions are carried out at a stage in pregnancy where spontaneous abortion is very common (30-50% chance). So if you’re pregnant and do not wish to be, you can either hope you miscarry naturally, or you can make sure you do.

Women try all sorts of things to try to make themselves miscarry and really the only safe one is to have a medical abortion. By denying access to safe legal abortion we don’t just endanger the unborn – we endanger women too.

Later term abortions are most frequently in the case of fatal foetal abnormality – those women really wanted their babies, but life decided to deal them a terrible hand – and then this country sends them away in secret under a shroud of shame and denies them the right to bury their babies at home. I call that morally ugly.

All any pro choice campaigner wants is for all options to be available to a woman so that she may make the choice that is right for her at that point in time. Ultimately the only thing you own in this life is you. You deny women all their options and you are essentially denying her ownership of her own self.

We have no control over miscarriage, but, without a direct attack on a healthy foetus, it would continue to develop until, at full term, he or she is delivered. I might be struck down with some unexpected illness, but I don’t expect that my life would be cut short by another human being who felt that they had the right to terminate me.

Difference is Maria, your life is not dependent upon another for its survival.

Hypothetically – as there really is no comparable instance, if you were to develop a condition that required you to use another person as life support, we could not legally compel them to be your life support.
We shouldn’t be forcing women to provide life support to others unless they choose to.

As for termination for medical reasons, by all means poison the well with a spotlight fallacy. What about anencephaly? Would you permit a woman the right to terminate if her babies brain didn’t develop?

It’s not black and white, it’s not suddenly going to replace contraception. It’s just going to show a bit more consideration for separate, individual circumstances that are frankly none of anyone else’s business and are difficult enough without the scorn and judgement of others.

What things exactly are people prevented from doing to themselves that harm others? Like if I shoot myself in the foot that’s bad right but does it harm other people? No. If I tattoo VAGINA on my forehead I probably won’t get a job anywhere but again does it hurt anyone else? No. An abortion is a person making a choice about their body and it’s a choice that they themselves should make and it hurts no one else.

Shanti FFS how can u compare pregnancy to forced life support? Having been pregnant four times, only once successfully, I consider it a wonderful privilege. If women don’t want it, they should use adequate protection – combining contraception methods if necessary and using the morning after pill if needs be. Otherwise, yes, having made their bed, they should lie in it. Adoption is a choice too and a braver and more honourable one at that.

Maria, if you felt it was a privilege then more power to you. You obviously wanted to be a mother and the very best to you.

If I found out I was pregnant I would be rather worried. I have conditions which are adversely affected by oestrogen, I also have a really high chance of an ectopic pregnancy which could kill me.
I use contraception, but even the contraception causes problems. And condoms can and do split.

If I found out I was pregnant I would be really scared. So it’s not a privilege for every woman. If I found myself pregnant and couldn’t end it I would be forced to put my health at risk, for a baby that I do not want to have.

Adoption is a great option, I agree, but it’s not the nice neat little answer you would like to think it is. There’s already too many kids in orphanages around the world, do they not deserve to find homes first?

Chuck do you seriously think its an ‘on-demand’ kind of service?! You are trying to compartmentalise situations where each one is unique. None of us can know what goes through the mind of what each woman is thinking in her own case. But surely she has the right to decide for herself what to do. It is her body afterall. And no one should be telling her what she can and cannot do to her own body.

1) Life is a continuous process. It never really begins or ends and so this is a philosophical question. I, personally, believe implantation is an important milestone as a personhood, but I understand that other people view it as being conception, viability or birth. All of those can have valid arguements made, so I have no problem with anyone else viewing it as a different point.

2) My own experience of pregnancy along with foetal embryology

3) No, because as I said in (1), it’s a person when she believes it’s a person. I too was sad when I suffered a miscarriage, but I considered my pain nowhere near the devastation of a parent who has lost their born child. Your sister might disagree. I support a legal system that allows both of us to have our opinions respected.

4) I believe a woman has a right to remove the foetus from her body at any point, as to me, abortion is the respect of a woman’s right to not be forced to give life support to another human being against her will. I would support at 8 1/2 months, a woman’s right to have labour induced and all necessary medical treatment given outside the womb. Do you consider that abortion?

5) She shouldn’t be. She should be given induced labour upon request.

6) Again, in this situation, I would support induced labour being offered earlier as an alternative to abortion. And in fact, this would be the best scenario for those opposed to abortion, who would then be offered the opportunity to take in an unwanted foetus.

Thanks Nick, I knew you’d have the decency to answer!

But your answer to Q1 is a total cop-out! Of course it has a beginning & since you’re an atheist I assume u agree that it has an end! I’ll rephrase though; When does the right to life begin?

As for my sis’ miscarriage; On the one hand you say that her observation is what makes the baby alive (schroedinger’s foetus??). On the other you say that her pain couldn’t equate with than of a born child?

No, I don’t consider induced labour to be abortion – I’m all for that, and where the mother is a victim of rape I think it should be at tax-payers expense AND I think she should have the same natural rights vis-a-vis guardianship as if she had carried to term. I’m not sure if you clicked the link I provided but that woman killed the baby/foetus and is still refusing to reveal the whereabouts of the body. Do you think that should be a crime? (in case you can’t be bothered reading it, she was one week away from full term)

I agree with you on Q6. but I think u kinda fudged it! Would you reduce the time limit or not? I don’t see induced labour being legislated for.

I’m not an atheist, Chuck. I mention above that I actually am religious. So I think while the right to life probably begins at implantation, I think a woman’s right to not offer life support against her will is greater than a foetus’s right to survive off of her. We force no other human being to provide life sustaining medical treatment to another human being against their will – I think this should be extended to pregnant women.

Again, I didn’t say that your sister’s pain is necessarily less than a person who has a young infant die. I spoke about my own differing miscarriage experience and said women who have miscarriages have a variety of feelings and this is not a wise basis for whether or not it’s a person. I don’t have a problem with women considering it a clump of cells or think it’s a person with equal rights. I just believe that philosophical belief should be left to the woman rather than enforced by law.

As for that link, no, I don’t believe inducing labour should be a crime. There’s mixed opinion on whether she was trying to induce birth or abort and I see the two as very different. I don’t believe the crime is inducing labour but denying the infant medical treatment outside the womb should be.

And maybe it wouldn’t be legislated for, but I’m offering my personal opinion rather than how I think the law would react. I would support a woman always being offered the service of having the foetus removed from her body, but once it could live with medical treatment, I do not believe she has the right to deny the born infant medical treatment. Her rights only extend to her own body, so she can deny life support from her, but not treatment of the foetus.

Sorry, correction, this sentence should read, “I don’t have a problem with women considering it a clump of cells or with women thinking it’s a person with equal rights”

Nick, you say life never really begins or ends. I’m not being smart here or anything but what does the mean? I buried family members recently; because they were dead, their lives were over.

Dear Chuck,
Please present your medical qualifications, your full history as a parent, your personal experiences with abortion and a summary – with citations of course – of your years of thinking about this subject.
At that point, I’ll think about giving you a breakdown of my thinking on the matter.

Until that point, please stop wasting time and just skip to the vote, because there’s no debate on this issue anymore, nobody’s listening to emperical evidence, it’s all come down to religious dogma or entrenched moral beliefs. So you might as well just do a headcount and be done with it, because our system of governance allows no other means of settling a dispute such as this.

Chuck,
Apologies if I muck up the order on the questions, the app doesn’t let me refer back to your post.

1. Life begins when it’s capable of surviving delivery. The earliest this has happened is around 22 weeks if I recall correctly, this was an extremely rare thing – but at 24 weeks the chance of surviving delivery is 50/50, so I would consider that to be “alive”.
If a baby were delivered still born at this stage in pregnancy a birth and death cert would be issued – so it seems I agree with the law on that one.
That possibly takes care of 2 and 5. Although I would say that in the case of fatal foetal abnormality this should be left open in case it is only discovered at a late stage.

3. My sister’s had a lot of miscarriages, she’s had more miscarriages than she has had children and she has a few of those as well. While she was devastated at the loss of potential life with each of those miscarriages, if she lost one of her kids she would completely fall apart. She was able to appreciate the difference between potential and actual. But grief is grief – it can’t be quantified, nor can it be lessened by semantics. If the baby is wanted it will be grieved, if the baby is not wanted a miscarriage would be a relief (it was for me).

4. No, as I believe that life begins when it’s capable of supporting itself at that stage if the baby is healthy I would also advocate induced labour and adoption.

Hope I didn’t leave anything out.

According to Science and Embryology, life in utero is alive. We’re not talking about an entity that’s potentially alive. As regards a woman deciding whether a foetus is just a clump of cells or not- that is just not logical. I could say black is white or reconstruct the universe in my own mind, but some facts are indisputable. Let’s not make out that women are fools who delude themselves by denying the realities of Science. I think we’ve moved beyond the era when women were treated like children who were incapable of understanding anything more complicated than how to brush the scullery floor.

By the same token – sperm and ovum are alive. It all depends on your interpretation of “alive”.
Perhaps I should clarify, I meant it as an independent, actual person.

Interesting, Maria, that you cite the ECHR judgement above, but ignore its proclamation that there’s no philosophical or scientific concensus as to when personhood begins.

Cora – I couldn’t have said it better myself.

You can hear from Women Hurt, but you don’t really want to hear about all the women who really wanted their babies but were told that their babies were going to die before birth. The women who travelled to the UK and couldn’t even bring the bodies of their very much wanted babies home and had to have their ashes mailed to them in the post.

These women were sent away under a cloud of shame because people like you and your lobby group refuse to start letting this country grow up and start taking responsibility for our own reproductive choices. You don’t want people to have a choice, you have what you want. And that’s all that matters.

“A separate human being” – no, not at all separate,

As for the fact that some women regret having an abortion. Perhaps that is true, I personally have my reservations as to the credibility of any organisation so heavily touted by extreme anti-choice groups. But aside from my own reservations – what about all the women who regret being made to have an unwanted baby? What about the regrets of children who are resented/abused/hungry/neglected, brought into a life where they are not loved as a child should be?

The ‘humanity’ (do you mean ‘person-hood’?) of a foetus is the main issue, isn’t it? I personally believe that a foetus is a potential person. It is a living organism, but not a ‘person’. I think the ‘humanity’ ascribed by people to foetuses and embryos is extremely subjective and is essentially anthropomorphism, depending on whether or not someone has been trying for a baby, is excited and prepared and well enough to see that potential life through to birth.

I know that when I am pregnant with a child that has been conceived with love and not rape, and when I am mentally well and able to leave my house and not on medication – I will want it, and I will think of it as a life, a person, because that is what it will be. And I will be capable of giving that person the life it deserves.

Please understand that it’s not a decision that the majority of women take lightly. Of course the struggle is that we must battle between the idea that the foetus could one day be a person, and the reality that we feel unable (for whatever reason) to care adequately for a child.

If an anti-abortion campaigner offered financial, mental and emotional support to me AND the child, maybe I’d have reconsidered. But for some reason, the anti-abortion crowd don’t shout so loudly for the rights of children that are actually independently alive outside of their mothers womb.

They just want to get ‘em here – after that, they’re on they’re own.

As usual, Cora trots out the same old expamples of women hurt etc. COMPLETELY ignoring the evidence that has been presented to her on here AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. It’s quite embarrassing really. And in relation to religion, it is common knowledge that the majority of pro-life groups are steeped in religion. go look at youth defence for 5 seconds and try not to come by a biblical quote. Cora, high up in the pro-life campaign, also extremely religious and a practicsing catholic. Whoever these atheist pro-life majority are, I’d really LOVE to meet them.

The only consistent predictor of mental disorders after abortion remains pre-existing disorders, which, in turn, are strongly associated with exposure to sexual abuse and intimate violence. (Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 2009;17(4):268-90)
Although some women experienced adverse psychological after effects after abortion, the great majority did not. In contrast, refused abortion often resulted in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
(APA – Handy, J. A. (1982). Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion. British Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 21(1), 29-41.)

Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood.
(APA – Dagg, P. K. (1991). The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion—denied and completed. The American Journal Of Psychiatry, 148(5), 578-585)

@Shanti –

I don’t believe any woman should be “sent away under a cloud of shame”. I have consistently said that I think this country should provide better support systems so that women don’t feel the need to have an abortion, regardless of where it takes place. Abortion is not a choice in the true sense of the word because it results in the loss of the life of the unborn child, and in many cases, trauma for the woman. For these reasons, I oppose it.

@Dee –

Thank you for your calm comments, and your honesty in contributing to the debate. I think you make some really good points. We do need to do far more in this country to support families who are facing unplanned pregnancies and this is something which must go hand in hand with any belief in a pro-life ethos. I would never presume to think that any woman who has had an abortion makes that decision lightly – I know this to be far from true. Equally, I would never judge any woman for her actions. Why should anyone judge another human being for anything they have done? All we can do is decide on the type of society that we want to live in, and act accordingly. I don’t believe anyone should be left to sort out their circumstances on their own at any stage of their lives – that goes for those who are born and may be in need as well as the unborn.

What is best with a child not ‘compatible’ with life? Option 1. Have a toxic injection of feticide through the heart or live out the short period of life with a name an acknowledgement & photo’s to remembered by others?

Two very different issues Chuck.

What are you talking about? I only mentioned one issue; Ivana Bacik has hypocritical views on abortion (and plenty more besides, by that’s for another day)

Abortion is not freely available in China, it is available to women provided it advocates public policy, otherwise, go swing.
Bacik is Reid Professor of Criminal Law in TCD, she has a clue or two more of the two situations than you apparently do.

I know what I’m talking about Chuck, you obviously don’t. If you accuse someone of hypocrisy then please be kind enough to give an example.

Michael, you have no idea what qualifications I have. And tell me, what level of qualification is it that puts you above questioning? I think I’d like to join this protected, unqestionable elite. (BTW, Mengele was a Doctor.)

If a woman wants an abortion then by Ivana Bacik’s own logic, her reasons are irrelevant. So why is it wrong to choose to abort girls simply because they are girls? Either all reasons are equally valid or they are not

See above, Joe. I gave you an example.

In China it is not up to the woman to have abortion, it is forced upon her by public policy, and her health is not taken into account. Abortion by a woman’s choice is not accessible in China. That is Bacik’s point. You are comparing 2 situations which are extremely different in the same way.

Not true. She can have one baby. If she wishes to abort them until she gets a boy then why is that not her choice?

In any case, it’s not just China. It happens all over the world; I simply said it was a problem “especially in China”.

So I say again; if a woman chooses to abort all her babies until she gets a boy, why is that not a valid choice?

And how can the foetuses being aborted be “girls” if a foestus isn’t a person?

If she wishes to abort until she gets a boy she is doing so as a result if public policy. She is not doing it of her own free will and accord.
If the public policy in China were to allow freely accessible abortion to its women, and it’s women decided to abort until they had boys or girls or whatever, then that is ultimately their choice. The fact is that in countries where abortions are carried out in the cases of girls being expected instead of boys, (China, some African countries), they are being imposed by public policy. They are not allowing free and accessible abortion, they are allowing it in accordance with their public policy, which is also wrong.
As for your foetus question – all foetus’ start out female, and either remain so until birth, or develop male features. That’s physiologically, genetically – you can tell from conception.

“If she wishes to abort until she gets a boy she is doing so as a result if public policy. She is not doing it of her own free will and accord.”

Can you teach me this mind reading trick of yours?

This;

“As for your foetus question – all foetus’ start out female, and either remain so until birth, or develop male features. That’s physiologically, genetically – you can tell from conception.”

is NOT an aswer to this;

“And how can the foetuses being aborted be “girls” if a foetus isn’t a person?”

Obviously they are being aborted after gender is determined.

Chuck, if I am allowed have only one child (as a result of public policy) and it is more socially acceptable for me to have a boy than a girl (as a result of public policy) and abortion is available for me to abort if I am expecting a girl (as a result if public policy), there is no mind reading involved – its a simple, predetermined decision, (as a result of public policy). Your argument does not stand, because abortion is not freely available in China. If abortion were freely available in China, then you have a point, but my guess is that Bacik would not be talking about it.
And RE foetus question – I didn’t spell it out, but perhaps I should – it’s China, not some cracked poor country in Africa, they can assign genders the same way we can.

Sigh. I, on the other hand, DID spell it out. It’s not just China.

No, you don’t know the reason why every woman in China has had an abortion

You still haven’t told me why it’s wrong to abort girls just for being girls. Surely the reason isn’t relevant?

I’m referring to China because that’s what Bacik referred to in her piece, but you can apply it to any country that limits abortion to further it’s social agenda.
There is nothing wrong with aborting if it is a girl – provided that she could abort if it was a boy – which, in China, and countries like China, she cannot. However, in a country where abortion is freely available, should the mother wish to abort due to the sex of the unborn, that’s her choice. That’s not Bacik’s point though.

The problem there is its not a womans choice. It is a dictatorial State interfering in a womans reproductive choices.

Chuck, that’s probably because you engage in whataboutery, make irrelevant analogies, split hairs and waste everyone’s time. A dignified statement of your discomfort with abortion would suffice. I might not agree with it but I would not confront you on it.

Personally I am pro-choice and I haven’t the time, energy or interest to have further discussions with you about it. I am not seeking your opinion, nor am I going to take your feelings into account, nor am I going to ask your permission. You will never be in that situation – and I am never going to allow people like you to control my body, my actions or suppress me so please for the love of god would you give it up. We all know what you think, we’re exhausted, tired and fed up of hearing what you think.

Well, if my comments weren’t censored then you wouldn’t have to make such convenient assumptions

However, I’m never going to let people like you silence me or control my voice. Hooray for me.

Surely Chuck has the right to choose what to say? I thought choice was the ultimate good? I believe in everyone making their views known. How else can we engage in debate and discussion?

Hi Chuck, I checked this out because there haven’t actually been many comments removed from this article. It seems one of your comments was removed for being off-topic but your other 19 comments are all still there. Also, it looks like this was only the second time that one of your comments was deleted from the site (unless you’re using another username?).

There’s no agenda at play here – we’ll happily explain to people why their comment was removed if they either email us (our addresses are at the end of every article) or else if they just leave a comment asking. SPOILER ALERT: the only reason comments are ever removed is if they break the Comments Policy, which is basically our North Star in deciding whether something should stay or go.

I think it’s pretty clear to anyone who reads this thread that there’s a HUGE variety of opinions on whether commenters stand on the issue of abortion. If we are censoring one side of the debate* then we’re clearly doing a really bad job.

*Just to be clear: We’re really, really, really not.

That’s rather interesting Christine, because I’ve seen Chuck complaining of censorship on more than two occasions, but you say only two comments of his have ever been removed from the site.

By any chance Chuck – are you sure the comments went up in the first place? Many people come on here complaining that they were censored, insisting that theres a swear filter or something when its just that their comments didn’t go up – a common error on message boards..
Are you using a computer or a phone, the website or the app? As the app does have a few bugs as Christine and I were discussing, I’m not sure about the main site.

Of course there are some who I suspect like to say that they are being censored simply as an attempt to poison the well, to try and insinuate that the journal is promoting a bias, whether that is truth or lies can only ever be known when staff like Christine here are able to confirm one way or another..

I wonder how many of these supposed “censoring” are merely caused by a glitch? I’ve been unable to comment on certain stories where I was really debating with someone and when I contacted the journal about it they couldn’t figure out why – did I start screaming and shouting censorship? It happened to me yesterday, but I figured it was simply due to the amount of comments on the article and left it be. I would have liked to try and defend myself from the personal attack I was trying to respond to, but such is life. Technology f**ks up sometimes, well actually – a lot..

“enemies” It’s not a war? It’s a civil rights issue.

This is indeed about rights. We don’t want to fight – the very peaceful and very positive march today shows this. The video and pictures show a very good turnout and as was pointed out before, you can ad the thousands of Irish women who’ve had to travel to have abortions to the numbers. There’s no point in bickering about numbers anyway, there are enough people in this country who want the government to legislate for the X case and give women the medical treatment they need and the government better honour the two referendums in which the majority of Irish citizens voted to legislate for the X case.

Enemies is a bit far I guess haha, I apologize. Not actually strictly pro-life myself I just thought I’d point out from a neutral point of view the way’s in which the fact’s are twisted by both sides to their advantage. For example this site would be known to have a very forward thinking, very liberal readership. The journal post’s under the sub-heading as being several thousand people in attendance. However the piece are read earlier was directed towards a very conservative audience and reported a dismal turnout which as the video posted above shows is clearly not true. Food for thought, not “ammo” for a war.

Eleen – your Jazz Jackrabbit avatar just gave me a serious nostalgia trip! Great game!

Doesn’t matter either way. Even if the pro-lifers had a majority, they are the ones taking away rights. Pro-choicers are not trying to take away or keeps rights away from pro-lifers.

The Irish Times initially reported earlier today that the pro-choice march had a “low turnout”, but changed it later. Not sure what the official and final figures were, but I haven’t heard anything about a simultaneous pro-life march until this comment.

Eimear the official final figure according to the garda press office is an estimate of 2,500 people.

I think that’s referencing the Rally For Life as opposed to a counter-protest yesterday (if there was one).

Last year’s Rally For Life had 6,000 in attendance.

The organisers didn’t make the sign. If all you have to complain about is one sign one protestor made, you’re losing the arguement there, Cora!