It just means that women have to desperately borrow money, return their children’s Christmas gifts and leave their electricity bill unpaid this month in order to afford to travel.

Not related, but why is it illegal to travel to get euthanasia for a terminally ill woman? If the state truly judged the lives of the unborn child and woman equally, shouldn’t she be allowed to go? If not they judge the womans’ higher.

There is a constitutional right to travel for all Irish citizens – including the terminally ill, so I have no idea what you’re on about.

@Amanda- it simply does. There’s a reason why 19% of UK pregnancies in the UK are terminated and that’s not the case here. Our law.

You have no idea how many Irish pregnancies are terminated, Vincent – between women ordering medical abortion pills, having abortions in the Netherlands and Belgium or giving a UK address.

Unlike you, Nick- I’m going on facts from the UK Dept. of Health. Are you suggesting the figure is even higher? Because that sort of proves my point about abortion on demand.

@nick- sorry, I misread you there. If you’re suggesting the exiting figure in Ireland is higher than I would think – well that hardly strengthens a case for making it even easier. My core point is that despite the focus of the pro-abortion lobby, most abortions are for reasons other than rape and the mothers life. If they want to defend that, that’s a legitimate argument to make- but at least be honest and don’t be hiding behind rape victims and tragedies like the one in Galway.

The UK Department of Health figures should be an accurate figure for UK women (as abortion access is available for them), but as I pointed out to you, they can’t actually measure Irish abortions – between women ordering medical abortion pills, having abortions in the Netherlands and Belgium or giving a UK address.

Your argument assumes that Ireland currently has a low abortion rate, but that’s impossible to measure.

And if this legislation is passed, women (including rape survivors) would still have to travel or obtain illegal abortion pills. There’s no alternative unless the 8th Amendment is repealed.

@nick- not if there’s a sympathetic psychologist available and the appropriate safeguards are not in place.

As psychologists aren’t consultant level doctors (who will be required to sign off on an abortion), that’s unlikely.

Didn’t realise you say at the cabinet table

I’ve just read the expert group report and Simon Mills’ draft submission – but let’s not let facts get in the way of vague scaremongering!

There is no pro abortion lobby. There is no group (that I’m aware of) that wants or campaigns for women to go and have abortions! In fact I think it would be great if they had the right to but rarely did.

Gearoid- sorry. It’s cowardice to say : it’s wrong, I wish it didn’t happen. But I won’t stop others doing it. That’s fine on issues like divorce, gay marriage etc- but not where a life is at stake.

@vincent
You misunderstood me. Firstly I don’t think it’s wrong. Secondly, the only reason I would prefer it rarely happened is because its a tough thing for any woman to go through. Especially for an irish woman. You would deny women the right to choose for themselves but I wonder how you would feel if you were denied a few rights yourself? I don’t know where you stand with regard to fairy tales but I think a of the people who are pro life only feel that way because what their imaginary omnipotent friend wants is more important then what real people want. You can make any assumptions you want about me and my morals but I know firmly where I stand.

@gearoid- I would deny an Irish woman the right to kill a baby. I’m not the one with moral issues to address.

You oppose laws which would allow doctors to perform medically necessary abortions without fear of prosecution – might be a moral issue or two in there!

2pac -Brenda had a baby… Tune

Brenda got* a baby

Spot on Daisy, it baffles me how woman can follow a church that makes them second class.
If men could have abortions it wouldn’t be illegal.
I will never ever have a crisis pregnancy, any woman that does needs support and caring and be allowed to choose what happens to her body.

Mark, it baffles me too how women can follow an organization that is against them. Brainwashing has far-reaching powers.

It’s about saving babies. No more, no less. Male and female, by the way.

Did you see Youth Defence are giving away iPads for the best photo sets and videos taken from the protest?
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151422781467363&set=a.420381137362.215715.70003452362&type=1&theater&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fd1kW8yOl&_rdr

Vincent, how does spending thousands on posters and buses and jumbo video screens help women in crisis pregnancies? It doesn’t. It’s there to pressurise and denigrate them further. The stupid slut couldn’t keep her legs together now she either has to live with the consequences and raise the little bastard as a drain on the State or go to England and murder it. f

What do Youth Defense or the Iona institute offer women in crisis pregnancies, other than scorn and slutshaming?

@daisy- I’m not defending Youth Defence. They do more harm than good.

‘…. it baffles me too how women can follow an organization that makes them second class….’

Yea I know, but they’ve given us a day out on the bus, and paid for the props, And there is a chance we’ll get our picture in the paper… AND they are giving away prizes!

Sure why would ye not support Youth Defence… er I mean Unite for Life. Or was that The Life Insitiute? Oh I don’t remember… but here look at my glossy poster!! Baa baa baa.

Daisy – don’t waster your evening – Ignore the Troll.

@redstar- do you know how you can identify those with no compelling argument to make on here? They think anyone who disagrees with them is a troll.

Whatever you say, Vinnie.

Vinnie, do you know how to identify a troll? Somebody who argues in every article, no matter the topic.

Interesting, yet the same people like you make no bones of how much immigration policy costs this country which each cent being lost to Irish people already here in care. Millions spent and the typical liberal answer is …oh that is nothing compared to the bankers, yet now all of a sudden you want to take note of the pennies, when it suits you

hypocrit

I agree. But the likes of Clare Daly and other zealots on the pro-abortion side are no less objectionable.

There is no pro abortion side! I don’t care, nor is it my business, if a woman wants an abortion or not. What I do care about is the fact that women can’t choose for themselves!

Vincent,

Clare Daly never made a video explaining that gay people can’t get married, or that people who can’t have babies together shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

She didn’t picket a hospital in 1999 causing a riot by refusing to quieten down and have respect for a dying woman inside. ( http://www.independent.ie/national-news/youth-defence-unrepentant-as-eight-convicted-411765.html )

She doesn’t, to my knowledge, allow fascist members like Michael Quinn to participate in staged rallies (the fascist who told the Sunday World that he would “he would have “no problem” with an Anders Breivik style-massacre” in Ireland.)

She may not be a saint, but she sure as hell is better than this crowd. And it’s not pro-abortion, it’s pro-choice.

Gearoid- if you vote to legalise abortion you are by definition pro-abortion. It’s not a state of mind. Have the courage of your convictions.

Eleen- if you’re not comfortable referring to yourself as pro-abortion you patently think theres something wrong with it. Which makes you a hypocrite. There are plenty on the pro-abortion side who dismiss pro-life supporters as anti-women, women killers- even rapist sympathisers. Neither argument should be assessed on the basis of the extremists who support it on either side.

Extremists exist everywhere, and with such a sensitive and heated topic, people are going to yell abuses and generally be offensive.

But it’s glaringly obvious which side is the most extreme, the most offensive and the most reactionary. It’s glaringly obvious which side has to continuously resort to lies, twisting of facts, shaming tactics and taking large sums of money from overseas in order to scare people into silence or agreeing with them. And I’m not targeting ordinary people who see themselves as anti-choice here, I’m targeting the anti-choice movement as a whole.

On the whole, the pro-choice movement, while definately not perfect, have conducted themselves in a much more respectful and decent manner.

And it’s pro-choice because we’re fighting for women to be given the right to choose whether they wish to have an abortion or not. nothing more, nothing less. Incidentally, it’s the pro-choice side who are most vocal in pushing for free contraception and better sex education in order to lessen the amount of abortions that take place.

@Eleen- says you. With respect, it’s hard to characterise a group that shamelessly manipulates the death of a woman for their own ends as respectful or even human. Or a group that uses rape victims for the same purpose. That moral high ground you inexplicably think you’re standing on is wafer thin.

Vincent please, Savitas friends approached Pro Choice Galway, they put Praveen in touch with them, and at all stages Praveen was aware that he could say stop at any time. He wanted to make it public, he was angry because he had lost his wife for what he could see as no good reason.

There was no manipulation, except from those in the company of Youth Defence.

Shanti- answer yes or no: has it been proven that Savita would be alive today had she been given an abortion? Yes or no. No paragraph answer. Yes or no?

Vincent. You’ve lost this battle, and no one’s going to lower themselves to your level on this one. The facts are clear.

And you’re proving my point about who’s being extreme in this debate.

Don’t waste time arguing with Vincent. His anti women views will never be changed. Just take solace in the fact he has lost.

Eleen

Wooaa, you have just defamed someone there. Michael Quinn the Democratic Right Movement guy, NEVER said he would have no problem with an Anders Breveik style massacre in Ireland.

He made a radio internet pod broadcast where it was not yet news what had fully happened, he initially thought it was muslim terrorism, and that if some red politicians had been victims he would not feel sorry for them one bit.

What he did say 3 TIMES, was that he hoped no innocents and children had been hurt, killed or caught up in it. HE REPEATED THAT 3 TIMES.

He did say if labour or neo-marxist politicians died then he did not care about them in much the same way as if the ordinary man on the street heard that a bunch of our politicians had gone down with a sinking ship, they would say, good riddance.

Keep your neo-marxist propaganda lies, as usual the ULA leftists like yourself trying to make gains by trading on lies and making use of the word fascist. If they are the fascists then you MUST be the good guys right? So how come your marxists cronies across the world slaughtered, butchered and raped 120million people? Do you even know what fascism is coz you certainly do not know what stasi and chekist terror and slaughter is. Fool.

So he is not pro life then? Only pro life if that life shared his political views.
You are embarrassing yourself. Go to bed man. Fool.

Eleen- I’ll take that as a no. Which is a vindication. Thank you. Point proven

Yes he is pro-life, so what? The point is he did not say that about having a massacre here, get your facts straight, moron.

Actually, if you read what you posted, he isn’t pro life after birth, unless that person holds his political view. The fact you defend a man like this shows you in a very bad light. Warrants everything you say null and void. Enjoy mass.

The funny thing is, when the child is born, it’s your problem.
These pro-lifers are likely the first people to complain when single mothers (sorry single mothers)
can’t afford to provide for the child, and becomes a cost to the state.
More education, introduce abortion, less of the churchs influence on people and women’s wombs.

19% of healthy pregnancies in the UK are terminated. Banning abortion saves lives.

@Vincent: Apples & oranges.

@Vincent, I”ve never heard this supposed link between medically required abortion (which is what this is actually about) and, abortion on demand explained in any logical way. Can you oblige, given the intent of your comment?
Tone honest it just sounds like scare mongering to me.

Colm, that statistic is from the UK Dept. of Health. It’s 100% accurate. I suppose you have to decide for yourself whether a 19% figure can be accounted for by women whose lives are in danger and/ or rape victims. I believe it suggests that in the UK abortion is very often a contraception of last resort.

@continent- not at all.

Vincent. The percentage of abortions carried out for the reasons that will be permitted for by this legislation accounts for 1-2% of that statistic.

In the UK they have several grounds (A – F) under which a woman can seek abortion, most of which will not be permitted under Irish law so long as the 8th amendment remains in the constitution.. And I really hope we get a vote on whether or not it should.

@Shanti- that’s for now. Your statistics do prove how rare the rape and risk to the mother is. The law proposed might restrict it to this 1-2%, but that depends on the safeguards put in place to stop abuse. But lets face it, it’s the jinking open of the door that pro-abortionists will hope to kick wide open in the years ahead. Be honest, now. It’s a first step. As Clare Daly said: ” the X case isn’t enough. But it’s a start.”

Yes, because the X case will only apply to a tiny percentage of women whose lives are at risk. Repealing the 8th Amendment is required for widespread abortion access. If Clare Daly agreed with your view on legislation, she would say “legislating for X is enough.”

@Nick- I think my point is that we have to do everything we can to prevent abortion on demand. I thought that was obvious.

Are you seriously using the thin end of the wedge argument here? Is that what the pro-life arguement
is? In terms of a debate that’s just a broad get out of jail free card. There has to be more to this than that, or else theres some serious mob-mentality going on here.

“I think my point is that we have to do everything we can to prevent abortion on demand.” And I guess if you’ll never suffer serious pregnancy complications like Savita Halapannar, Sheila Hodgers or Michelle Harte or any other woman in Ireland, legislation which will only provide abortions to women with an immediate and substantial risk of death seems a lot less important.

There should be abortion available for any woman who chooses it. And her reasons should be nobodies business except hers (and her doctors).

@colm- in English?

Good man Gearoid. Good job you weren’t running the show 30-40 years ago or 1 in 5 of us wouldn’t be here now.

And? A certain amount of us wouldn’t be here if our parents had rolled over and gone to sleep the night we were conceived. I love my mother and I would hate for her to have been forced to carry me against her will – but I guess not everyone feels that kind of love for their mammy.

@nick- make up your mind. Are you advocating Abortion on demand, or not. Because you come across like you’re hiding behind the proposed legislation as an interim measure. Have the courage of your convictions.

I’m advocating for the Oireachtas to comply with two referendum and a Supreme Court judgement. Some of us respect democracy – I’m sorry you do not.

Nick- I’m happy enough to put Abortion on demand to the people. Are you?

Sure. But abortion when a woman’s life is at risk has already been put to the people and needs to be implemented – if you’re going to be so reluctant to listen to democracy in these circumstances, then it’s clear you don’t have much respect for the views of the Irish people.

Lets do it all together, Nick. Abortion on demand or no abortion, full stop. Yeah? Didn’t think so. Pro abortionists know bit by bit is their best chance. They’re striking while the iron is hot, here. Reprehensible stuff.

@Colm
This might help, came across it this evening.
http://www.abort67.co.uk/node/1

Nope. We’re respecting the current wishes of the Irish people. The fact that you want to ignore the results of two referendum gives me no hope that you’d respect it if the 8th Amendment was repealed – you don’t seem to believe in democracy.

Like it or not, that’s an opinion. Legally, it is an unborn child from conception here and as such has the same rights conferred upon it as the vessel it dwells in. The only solution is a proper yes or no referendum.

@John – It is not an opinion, until it is born, it is not a child or do you have proof to suggest otherwise?

@John Duggan…. the vessel it dwells in??? It. is a woman! a person… not a vessel or incubator.

@John Duggan- women are people not vessels.

John Dugan, you are a vessel without any brain because it has been retracting or never given to you. So if a woman is a full vessel, you are an empty one. A disgusting comment reflecting the man making it.

Liam- it’s funny. Of all the girls I know who announced a pregnancy not one said to me: I have an embryo inside me that offers the potential of life should I decide not to intervene. They tend to say- I’m having a baby!

Yes Vincent – having future tense. They are pregnant, not mothers. They are expecting a baby but there is no guarantee that they will have one.

Until its outside the womb, it’s still a foetus.

No. Having is present tense.

“I can feel the baby kick”

So you think it’s a baby if the women believes it is, science has nothing to do with it? So it’s up to the woman then? Interesting.

Really, Vincent? When are you due? Can I feel your belly?

Nick- the pro-abortion side seem to think women alone can decide whether its life or not.

And judging by your argument that it’s a baby because women you know say it is, you agree…

Vincent, people use the wrong terms for things all the time. That isn’t an argument one way or the other

Copperguy- society’s perception of what is or is not a life has everything to do with this debate.

But you didn’t quote society (or science’s) view, Vincent. You cited pregnant women you know. And if that’s the determining factor, I think that I (as a woman who has been pregnant) have just as valid an opinion as the women you know who believe it’s a baby 2 hours after implantation.

Liam, OK so when does the baby/foetus/zygote acquire its human rights? If you think that a baby/foetus/zygote taken from its mother prior to delivery at maturity has no rights then anyone that came out by Caesarian does not have human rights……Brutus was innocent – he only performed a termination…..

Oh, Pat – you do know Brutus wasn’t the one who nailed Jesus to that cross, right?

And saying a foetus prior to viability doesn’t have human rights does not automatically lead to the view that a foetus post-viability has no human rights once it’s delivered early. A lot of people see a distinction between a day old foetus and 28 week one.

Brutus was one of the 60 Senators that “terminated” Caesar.
The nub of the issue is whether any one human has the right to deprive another of it’s life. That is the question whose answer will be qualified by any new legislation on abortion. Perhaps the criteria of that qualification are mostly scientific once the main moral question is answered.

Yep – the new legislation will clarify that a foetus is never allowed to kill a woman – and will preserve life.

That would be welcome but is that not already the case, at least in practice?

No, actually. As C from the ABC Case, Sheila Hodgers, Michelle Harte and Savita Halapannar have shown, not all women receive necessary medical treatment in Ireland.

Unless you’re planning on helping raise all these babies I suggest you stay out of an individuals private. Usually difficult decision!

Sharon- I don’t think anyone on either side would argue that Savita didn’t get the help she needed.

Reading these comments and others, Vincent, your BS comment doesn’t hold up.

Correctly noted Vincent. Try showing how Vincent’s comment does not hold up instead of merely saying it doesn’t ManOutOFHisTree.

Well noted Vincent.

Vincent she wanted a termination …abortion …call it what you like…the hospital didn’t give her one…because of the law… So i don’t think she got what she wanted…doubt she wanted to be dead…

She’s DEAD DEAD,,,,! A young woman what if that was your sister friend! She should be alive and well and moving on with her life! The foetus was being miscarried keeping it in there killed her fact! Doctor was too afraid to act for legal reasons. When I have my first child I know won’t have to worry should the same thing happen to me. Thank god! As I said are you planning on raising these children?

And if you are wrong, what then?

sorry thats ‘have’ not haven, am typing in the dark sorry

What choice does the baby have?

So a man and a woman decide to have a baby, she gets pregnant, then she decides for whatever reason to have an abortion, are you saying the father, has no rights, the man has no say in being a father or in the life of the child?

Brian, I didn’t realise that you supported abortion in circumstances where the man and woman agree! If not, then you’re a hypocrite, as you would deny men any choice in the matter.

Hang on.. You think people get pregnant so that they can have abortions?
You think they choose to get pregnant, just so they can make that trip to England, go through a traumatic and quite expensive procedure – for the sake of it?

Surely contraception would be easier?

Nick and Shanti.

What in Gods name are you talking about. I asked a question bringing up the issue of the man’s rights where the original poster is saying the man has no say in the life of his own child. What planet are you on?

Sorry, “Vincent Nolan” should read ” Vincent Dolan”.

This is an important correction because anyone named “Vincent Nolan” would have a good defamation claim against me for confusing them with the other fella.

Peter- you think that 1 in 5 in the UK were raped? Yes or no?

The Religious anti choice are not interested in the human rights of anyone man woman or child, they are only interested in shoving their superstitious dogma down peoples throats. The Vatican is very well aware that if it loses this battle it will lose its grip on power in Ireland.

Joe- like so many of your ilk, you’re the one quoting the Church, not me. I don’t give a toss what the parish priest has to say about it- nor more than I do about contraception, or divorce or gay marriage. It’s patently very important to you, though. And it’s obvious the reason why is that so insecure are you in your argument you feel it necessary to piggyback off anti-church sentiment to secure support for it. Frankly, that’s a bit pathetic.

Joe as a Roman Catholic I will be glad to see the Vatican relieved of the power it has, Freemasonry and satanism reside in the centre of the church.

You can blaspheme my God all you like, I do not have to like it, but I do uphold your right to say what is on your mind. The law against blasphemy is a travesty which does nothing for spirituality, but does quite a lot for islam.

I would also like to see atheists grow a pair and come out and criticise other religions. If you are going to criticise mine, then be an equal opportunity criticiser.

Brian all religions are to me stupid and in a lot of cases dangerous (my personal opinion) I repeat all including Islam. I believe in freedom of expression and the total separation of church and state. Everybody should have the right to practise their religion within the constraints of the law and be obliged to pay tax like everybody else.
No special treatment for any group…

Vincent …do you have kids…if not…you should just stop arguing ….your comments are very one sided…if you do have kids… Please let them have a say in life… Decisions about your own life should be made by you…not anyone else…troll…

RTE too, of course..

*Rosaries……:p

If the mantra people told you to jump in a lake would you do it? So this issue is solely to do with the Catholic religion and people in the Catholic church and none other?

What about atheists or muslims who are against abortion, what must they keep off in relation to the poem of the ovaries there?

You are a doctor, your opinion doesn’t matter. Only the priests opinions matters.

Typical Iona Institute and its cohort.

Of all the reasons this is the most ridiculous and spineless.

Just a repitition of guff that you read and heard elsewhere. To start with if we were a mature nation, we would not give a hoot what others thought about us, and we would keep our culture and nation secure not aping to be like other countries in demographics or culture, yet the fact we trip over ourselves to try to copy other countries and their secular policies is the antithesis of maturity, it is a regression into adolescent image crisis.

2ndly if proof were needed of the above, then if we were mature we would not have bailed out the banks and bowed to EUSSR and Goldman Sachs pressure to pay a debt that is not ours. Your teenage rant is simply that. Premature, immature and nonsenical. It confirms my belief people younger then 25 should not be allowed vote – they have not got a clue about the world or what they are talking about.

Perhaps what he meant by we must legislate is that the Irish people voted on this, we voted for abortion under the circumstances which the government has committed to legislate for.

As a “mature democracy” our legislators should not be intimidated by lobby groups into ignoring the democratic will of the people.

shanti

As a mature society we must not be intimidated into throwing out culture and customs that are good and healthy, or denying our nationhood and unique identity in order to simply look like New York or London, simply because of an immature knee jerk reaction to copy the neighbours, or the trend in other countries in order to be ‘trendy’. Such a fashion victim usually voices the irrational and irresponsible mantra of:

we must become mature, or it is the 21st century.

Yeah, Stalins Russia said it was the 20th century while they introduced eugenics in their regime and had the people living like robots in grey boxes. New policies does not equate to better policies.

How about we make informed decisions based upon facts?
Because the appeal to novelty you complain of is indeed a logical fallacy, but so is the appeal to tradition you’re peddling..

Agreed, Susan. There is something perverse about people wishing to control other people’s bodies. Very creepy indeed.

I also agree with the idiocy of the ‘pro-abortion’ label – it really is not the same as being pro-choice. To have a choice is to have the option to either have an abortion or not. It’s having the choice in the first place that is important. Pro-abortion doesn’t actually mean anything.

Yes they would. Savita was a member of a minority too, remember.

And it was her husband who started the whole media campaign. Stop twisting facts in your campaign to control women.

How does that show that if it was an Irish person or traveller, that they would have made such a fuss?

Savita is an immigrant, of course they are in the minority, it does not make them an Irish minority. And yes her husband started they campaign, he used his wifes death just as any other person accused of this has. He got on quick time to the pro-choice people here. Not the state, not the state media, no, he got on to the NGO pro choice people, who knew about all this before the media and who then organised and gain-campaign. Just because the man was her husband does not mean he did not take advantage.

Paul …shocking comment … !!!
Lifes not all black and white…there’s grey in between …!!!

Fail to see how stating what is reality is shocking Sharon.

Same as me, I’m pro life and pro choice.
I can’t stand them anti life, anti choice people!!

Agree lenore. Neither side seems interested in debate, only to denounce the opposition and claim the moral high ground. IMHO reasonable people tend not to voice their opinions or get involved.

It’s hard not to shout back when one side is constantly lying and using emotional manipulation, as well as legally dodgy means in order to advance their debate. But considering what they’re up against I think the pro-choice side is doing a damn good job of keeping civil.

I’m impartial on this because there’s no proper debate happening to help me make up my mind. I don’t need to listen to a roaring match. In terms of tactics each side is as bad at the other. Manipulation of facts, hyperbole and pure BS abounds from each camp.

Women’s lives are not out there to debate. If you want a debate, debate your wife’s and daughter’s lives, and our lives are our business so keep to your own business too.

^
THIS is why I run a mile from this topic. The health scenario is obvious. There are other ethical and philosophical questions around a wider proliferation of abortion though. It’s a discussion which needs to be had.

How can you not make up your own mind? A debate is not needed here and there is no moral issue other than that perpetuated by the pro-life fantasists. The government simply need to provide safe means for all women to have access to abortion when they request it. This is not complicated stuff.

Well one of the points for discussion is at what point in the pregnancy it’s allowed. That’s a matter for some expert opinion. Things have become totally polariesed in this and as his excellency points out above, most reasonable people don’t want to get involved in the shouting match.

Eleen- if you want to talk about emotional manipulation I would point you to how pro-abortionists leverage tragedies like the Savita case and rape to further their broader cause of abortion on demand.

Ciara- unborn babies lives aren’t up for debate either.

Spencer- if it’s not complicated its amazing you still managed to come out in the wrong side.

I thought concentration camps and fascism was everything that you people despised. So it’s slaughter the masses and let’s be done with this talking mularkey? How quickly people tire of what comes so easy.

I invoke Godwin’s Law.. This has absolutely nothing to do with the holocaust.
(And how come you people never reference the Holodomor or the Armenian Genocide??)

Blimey Vincent, it sounds like there is something fundamentally askew with your mind. Do you ever rock back and forth clutching a replica relic and muttering invocations under your breath? Hopefully there aren’t too many like you left in what is otherwise a fine country.

Shanti

I was referring to TheLostIenores comment about not wanting debate, with all the different voices however unpalatable it sounds – the same types who are now saying stuff all this talking, are the same ones who repeatedly label people as holocaust deniers, whatever that means.

Well said.

Is two not enough?
The Irish people were asked in 1992 if we wanted to remove the suicide clause. We said no.

In 2002, just in case you voted wrong the last time, we were asked again. And again we said no, keep it in there, and get on with legislation while you’re at it.
While we were at it, we voted to give women the right to travel and the right to information.

Are you seriously asking for a third referendum on the same issue? Who cares about the Supreme Court ruling? The PEOPLE have made their feelings clear.

If we are going to have a referendum it should be on whether the 8th amendment should be repealed. We only voted on that once and it was in 1983. Two referenda since have proven that the Irish public is becoming more pro choice, so perhaps this would be more relevant?

Popularity should never be a factor in deciding things that are this important.

Without doubt the most utter rubbish and stupid content I’ve ever seen in a post. How old are you? 10

Just to mention, as a pro-life marcher today, i agree with the so called pro choice poster above. She did deserve better. When her life was seen to be endangered, the child should have been removed, if this process in turn would not have killed her earlier.

@Liam I tend to agree with that. But it *is* essentially an argument against democracy, right?

@Paddy As we discovered this week, Savita requested a termination and was refused. So stating she deserved better is a pro choice, not an anti choice argument.

@Paddy “She deserved better” Savita’s treatment was a direct result of Ireland’s ban on abortion. You’re marching to protect that ban. So I’m don’t know what you mean when you say “She deserved better “.

Paddy, as I have said to you before and this article points out.

Perhaps Enda should listen to the official result of the TWO referendums we have had on whether we should remove suicide from the legislation. The people had their say. They said NO. Suicide must stay in as THAT is the will of the people

The anti choice side just don’t like the results of the democratic process. But then again, they aren’t known for respecting people’s decisions.

“Perhaps Enda should compare the turnout for both sides and adjust his decisions accordingly?”

Get back to us when the pro-choice side have mega funding from bible thumpers in the states and coaches paid for to get to the protest like the anti-choice side have.

@Jim Bliss – If it were the case that 99% of the population wanted every dog in the country to be killed because they bark, should that be something that should be enacted because the majority of people want it?

I see the Robocaller gave Enda a ring on stage. Did the money for the jumbotrons come from the same shady sources?

What a great political statement, 30,000+ according to the Garda. Where were pro-choice? I can only hope that FG under Emda will not sign the death wish of the pro choices. Being a politician, is no excuse for being irresponsible, listen to the real voice of the people.

Where are you seeing those figures, Paddy? All I’m seeing is “organisers expect 20,000″ from RTE. Also, it doesn’t matter how many turn up on Merrion Square to shout: it has been agreed that this will be legislated for, regardless.

Yes, how dare they yield to a democratic referendum? Travesty of justice!

Excuse me, we have voted twice on this issue, so the government has an obligation to legislate accordingly. The government should proceed with allowing abortion where the mothers life is at risk or if there are other severe health risks. I find many arguments from the pro-life camp seriously flawed.

@Paddy, what about the millions who stayed home? The Silent Majority that anti-choice groups normally cling so tightly to when those that they disagree with protest. Do you just negate the millions who didn’t support you today because it doesn’t suit the propaganda?

The greatest enemy of any religion is reason,science and logic. Religion deserves nothing but ridicule it is the human being that deserves respect.

Religion has nothing to do with morals

Sophie

Well actually religion is supposed to have a lot to do with morals, it is supposed to inform a non-relativistic society about what is moral and what is not.

Joe

Actually Joe reason, science and logic are one of the greatest gifts and strengths of a religion. It is because the greatest enemy of a religion is hysteria and moral relativism, or chaos, this is so, because then the laws governing what is right and wrong can be changed according to the whims of those in power, e’g. the cultural marxists, bolshevists and the USSR etc. Thus logic and rationale provide a stable platform on which religion can expound the timeless lessons it teaches. That is, that the lessons it teaches about the nature of man, God and the universe and their relationship are timeless. This works best in a stable society, science and reason provide a stable society. Lies and chaos do not.

Brian why is it that science has debunked so many religious claims and many scientists were persecuted by various churches? Why is it that not once did religion prove science wrong? Why in all our scientific knowledge is there not one shred of evidence to support the existence of a god or gods?

Joe

Firstly you forget that without a stable society there would have been no reformation or progression. Do you think all power structures happen in a vacuum? Imagine no christianity in medieval Europe, firstly the amount of wars would have even been greater then what it was, secondly outside forces namely islam would have conquered Europe and you would now either be dead if you do not submit to it, a 2nd class citizen or bowing down to Mecca. remember it was islam that pushed the UN for the blasphemy law.

3rdly it was islam that destroyed the library at Alexandria, the buddha statues in Afghan and so on. Without Christinaity in Europe there would be no unifying force to unite Europeans to defend themselves against the invading Turks, or previously when they invaded into France and were defeated by Charlemagne at Tours/Poitiers.

Also you will note that evolution of information takes time, there is nothing in the teachings of Christ that is based on or needs fear. Scholars affirm that modern science arose among the theologians, monks, and professors of Medieval and Renaissance Catholic universities and monasteries. You know, information seeps through eventually, but just because you do not see the bigger picture, does not mean you are right. It does not mean that Christianity fostered and provided the backdrop through which people like Galileo were able to bring up the questions etc.

also you will note Christianity did provide and was a source of great knowledge and learning – Thomas Aquinas was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology, and the father of Thomism. His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy was conceived in development or refutation of his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory. These were the early scientists.

Ireland was known as the island of saints and scholars and would not have re-educated Europe with christian missionaries learned in classical knowledge had Christianity not taught it to them.

Your contention does not hold.

Islam wouldn’t exist without the Judeo Christian religions..
And I find it ironic that you want equal criticism of all religions – except Christianity.. You do realise that Islam is based on them trying to show up Christians and Jews by upholding the laws of Abraham right? They’re merely behaving the way YOUR holy book says you are supposed to.

And your god isn’t pro life either, look at how many abortions are carried out in the bible, not to mention the amount of Infanticide..

Shanti

Oh dear shanti, another illogical argument starting of with your incorrect statement:

“And I find it ironic that you want equal criticism of all religions – except Christianity..”

Now Shanti seeing as you presume to understand logic and prescribe that others like myself undergo logic lessons. Where oh where do I “want equal criticism of all religions – except Christianity” Where is this in my comment? I would like an answer to that.

To answer your incorrect assertion and illogical contention, I also want criticism of Christianity.

To put islam down to a mere upholding of abrahamic law, is simplifying it too far. For example where does Abraham mention that Mohammad is Allahs prophet and that Christ is not the Son of God as is blasphemy in Judaism and Islam. I think your form of logic is nicely personalised, or in other words, subjective. A lot of errors, inaccuracies and just plain wrong assertions there Shanti, nice one, but I would not be too quick if I were you to pontificate to others about logic, look at the glaring stone in your own eye/ illogic arguments first. Btw, I give examples to back up my statement, you ought to try that too. ;¬ )

Ok – one of your comments seems to have been removed, the one where you were launching into Islam.. This was my reason for responding to you, without it being here everything is now out of context.

If we are to be critical of all religions then why single one out for attack? I didn’t see you criticising Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs etc.. Just the “Islam are the bad guys” type rant – alongside a comment about how great Christianity is – have you any criticism for Christianity? Like perhaps their treatment of the people’s they “converted”? Because hey – no religion is perfect right?

Just think, if Christianity had never existed then neither would Islam, so would we be in danger from them? We don’t know and we can’t know.. Hey – for all we know the celts or the Vikings may have fought them off, the Shamen may have spiked them with entheogens and scared the crap out of them.. We will never know – its foolish to speculate.

Also – what exactly did any of it have to do with the comment they were a response to?

Brian almost all religions are based upon fear. If you look at modern society and the world we live in the best countries with the highest standards of living best healthcare are secular ie the Scandinavian countries. The most oppressive and inequitable are the ones where religion still has a large influence in government……this is a fact.

Joe

Actually communist soviet union murdered 60million people and marxist regimes worldwide have killed off 120million people, there systems reduced people to robots living in grey boxes. They collapsed because their systems were not able to sustain themselves or their people in all spheres of life. I think you will find that places of religion held up far better then those communist soviet places.

Or how about china today? Or how about the secular UK where people are dropping like flies in the NHS system?

I will research how great the Scandinavian system is, apparently this is due to high tax rate and not because of them being secular states. Do not get me wrong, I do not think a religious state is good, there should be separation, it is good for religion that it is separate, or rather good for spirituality, often religion can be bad as it simply becomes a man made thing and nothing to do with God.

while the Magadalene laundries and the paedophile scandals were horrific, it was not all the clergy by a long shot nor was it Irish religious and society in general.

However while on the subject of healthcare, it was Catholic Ireland that had one of the best healthcare systems in the world and education systems too, very easy to forget all that in the light of current scandals, which do not involve the whole church or religious people by a long shot.

It was Catholic Ireland that eradicated TB, while today TB is now making a comeback due to immigration policies.

May I suggest you actually study logic Brian.. You tend to rely rather heavily on logical fallacies to make your arguments.. I believe if you understood logic properly you might be able to put forth a coherent argument rather than knocking the stuffing out of a load of straw men..

shanti

So show where the logical fallacy is. Instead of just saying it….prove it, show where I have stated a logical fallacy.

I think the fact you think there is a logical fallacy in my argument, actually proves or shows it is in fact yourself who has little or no grasp of the concept of logic. ;¬ )

Seriously? I did say which fallacy it was, perhaps you’re not familiar with what a straw man is.. It’s a logical fallacy..

Joe speaks of how religions operate on fear and the Scandinavian countries which are secular are the best examples for quality of life of its citizens, and you hit back with a load of irrelevant twaddle about communism which is a completely separate issue.
This is what’s known as a STRAW MAN. The straw man fallacy is where you present an argument which has a very tenuous link to what your opponent said and argue that rather than what was actually being discussed, you knock the stuffing out of the straw man because you can’t argue against the real one – get it?