@ Deborah. I think your comment makes a good point about perceptions of how difficult a decision/choice was made by the birth mother. When I first read your comment I actually read “abortion” instead of adoption. As in “abortion must the hardest decision any woman can make”.
The main thrust of the debate on abortion is one of fear and stigma. Fear of the future , fear of a change in lifestyle, fear of responsibility , fear of the strain on the mental health of the potential mother, fear of being trapped by impulsive decisions . But what ever the reason fear is the common thread on both sides of the debate.
The extremes of both sides really do cloud the debate and whip up the fears.
I’ve seen the arguments over the years change from the pro-choice side to become more extreme in that it used to wrap itself around the narrative of choice and progressive thought and focus on the extreme cases where the pregnant woman had a serious medical risk to her own life or that the child if born would be unable to live independently.
I was to that extent pro-choice, but in recent times, (and I think a lot of “liberal” minded folks like myself have come to realise that choices need to have certain limits), I’ve seen arguments like Tokophobia used as a reason to be pro-choice, I’ve also have close friends who’ve both had abortions and didn’t yet they were from similar financial and family backgrounds and liberal philosophies. I know friends who’ve given up children for adoption.
I also have several friends who’ve been delighted to adopt a child and that they have offered the child a future and encourage birth mother relationships. But I also have a friend who has had 4 abortions for contraceptive purposes only, and says now regrets that she “had to have” the abortions. She suffers from depression as a result and has been suicidal. ( so the life of the woman had become more at risk now than it possibly was before her choice ). There’s more to the word choice than just a simple choice, every choice made has consequences to ourselves and others in our community.
There is a non-fearful side to childbirth regardless of the heavy and sometimes dark circumstances in which pregnancy occurs.
I’m still pro-choice for the main, but that “choice” is not a choice for the women who require abortions as an absolute necessity in the statistically low circumstances where the actual life of the mother (and not just the lifestyle) is at risk due to the pregnancy/labour conditions and not just psychological manifestations about what the future might hold if there was a child born. In that circumstance it’s not a choice but an absolute requirement that perhaps even the pregnant woman should not have a choice to protect her own life in a case like this.
The Catholic Church are lazy in their narrative in this debate and never condemn and (no doubt fund) the Youth Defence lobby for their extremist and scare-mongering ways. The extremes in this debate will always cloud the facts.

Having an abortion is whole lot less of a life change than having a child. Also I grew up where abortion was available and it really was not that big of a deal at least when you are young. I think it should be up to a persons own decision but the idea that abortion would not become more common if legally available is fantasy.

the scare mongering the “pro life” side produce about every woman of child bearing age getting abortions as often as possible in drive-thru abortion clinics is simply not true.

If politicians made it about the issue abortion would have been legal years ago.

It’s hard to believe the catholic church in this country would attempt to preach to anyone from any sort of moral high ground, but they will.

The obsession with the Catholic Church’s position on such matters really does show that so many people are listening. Why?

The only way is pro life. Pro choice is evil. End of story.

Here ya go Margaret, read this:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

“Piss off Catholic Church”
Classy

Hard cases make bad Law The common sense (not Catholic) argument that society will fail to control the widespread use of abortion once it is legalised is valid. Compulsory abortion to save Welfare expenditure and crime (Read Freakeconimics) would be amongst other predictable demands.

@Conor Ó Ruanaidh, the emotional irrationality and daft claims that the RC is a political party is an exemplar of this quotation, “Someone has said that it requires less mental effort to condemn than to think.” – Emma Goldman

@Paul Mallon, Excellent! It made me laugh on a Monday morning and have shared :-)

We’re all entitled to our view on legislation. The Catholic Church as an organisation is likewise entitled to a collective view for its members. It’d be contrary to freedom of speech for its view to be denied.

Now whether we actually take their views on board is a separate issue altogether.

@Charles Windsor – If the Muslin church wanted a say in political change here everyone would tell them to wise up yet the catholic church does it and no one bats an eyelid. Funnily enough, I do believe in God, a God, a higher power I don’t follow the ever changing always proven wrong doctrine of the catholic church. And even funnier, it’s the Irish catholic church.

also a very sad observation, let’s see how many dislikes I will receive for this…

Best translate those ‘likes’ into votes then, whenever the opportunity arises.

@Fergus You seem to think you can speak for ‘most women’ in saying that if faced with an ‘incompatible with life’ scenario or a premature foetal death in utero, that ‘most women’ would rather go through the pregnancy as opposed to not prolonging an untenable situation and beginning the natural grieving process. May I ask you as a priest, What POSSIBLY gives you the knowledge of this?? You are a man and so will never know what it is like to carry a child and lose it prematurely. You are a priest, By your church’s rather high moral principles, principles I will assume you actually adhere to, you yourself can not and will never know the love a parent holds for a child. And finally Father Ryan, You do not and never will speak for me as a woman. It is this crass and domineering ignorance shown by men of the cloth like yourself that has caused the abject dissolution of the Catholic church. We live in an age where right thinking individuals do not want or need to be dictated to by an outmoded institution with only one agenda. Control.
Believe me, should I lose a child, I’d ask the cleaners for spiritual guidance before asking a priest. It beggars belief that you would expect a woman to carry a dead or dying child to term. Shame on you for your lack of understanding and compassion.

Do I have the choice to engage in the debate? Or has Ireland become so intolerant that certain views must be vigorously denigrated, indeed, the person holding them must be denigrated?

I would say that there is, in fact, no debate happening. Just ranting. And false views being applied to groups like Catholics and false medical and historical information being thrown out there. That is no way to debate.

If you want an example of a lack of debate, see how many disapprove of my post (above) which points out that Cardinal Brady would never say what he was accused of saying in the article. The “debate” has descended into irrational ranting of falsities.

Fr Ryan has a point, it seems a lot of people want to use this issue as a chance to rant against the church’s influence on the state, that’s not the issue…. like it or not they have a right to enter the debate as much as anyone else.

Here’s another example for you. See Margaret Hayes dictating above.

It is good to see a priest engaging with people on this subject. While your views are valid, and should be respected, Father, you must recognise that the people have moved beyond church doctrine(with good cause, in my personal opinion) and they are seeking to create a state, where freedom of choice is at its core. Therefore, Catholics can CHOOSE not to have an abortion, if that is there wish, but others can avail of it if they need it, without having to go to Britain. We are also living in a pluralistic society now. Regardless of how you feel Father, the reality is that we are exporting young women to England on a daily basis, where they can have abortions. Irish women ARE having abortions Father, so why shouldn’t our state cater for their needs? Why must our young women undergo that kind of emotional ordeal in a foreign country, far from their loved ones? These women are citizens after all, and if they CHOOSE to have an abortion, who are you, or I, to say they have to leave to have one? A woman’s body is her own business Father, surely? If her faith doesn’t stop her from wanting an abortion, who are you to prevent her? The church can maintain its doctrinaire opposition to the practice, but why should society be dictated to by that doctrine? The logic of your doctrinal opposition is clear, but why must society be defined by the wishes of any one organisation, when the wishes of the people are changing? It is a flawed position Father, when viewed from a secular, modern and inclusive position.
There is a separation of church and state in Ireland Father. I respect your religious choice, but you in turn must respect others choices. It is unfair and ignorant for people to try and attack your religious beliefs. It highlights an intolerance and bigotry that I do not accept. I do, however, feel that a woman’s choice is her own business and nobody has the right to try and dictate to a free citizen how they should live their lives.

Kenneth, first of all, they’re not just my views. They also happen to be my views! But they’re the Catholic position that has, reliably through the centuries, has not changed and won’t change.

Living in a pluralistic society doesn’t just mean changing laws to allow people do everything they now decide they should be allowed to do. There are limits to “live and let live” or “live and let die”, if you will.

The basis for the Church’s position is based on science. What is at stake in each decision to have an abortion is the life of a very young human being, which the scientific method has shown to be so. There is also the question of the damage an abortion does to a woman. The first is clear and objective and the primary concern with respect to civil law. Killing very young human beings also has a long term effect on society – on relationships between people, on safety for women, and so on.

It is never a question of “my body”. From fertilisation, there are two human beings. One has the responsibility to nourish and care (at least till birth) for the new vulnerable life. The “my body” and private morality arguments are extremely weak. You could even say irrational when, for example, one takes into account the damage done by the “pill” to the body is compared to the freedom from the worry of pregnancy (I don’t wish to raise contraception here; it’s just an example of disadvantages being ignored because “solutions” give quick fixes).

Catholicism, like other religions, has a role even in pluralist societies to contribute to public debate on issues such as abortion and to, hopefully (woefully might be an appropriate word given recent happenings) give good example – most especially from ordinary signed up members of the Church.

Unfortunately, there are few other pro-life groups being sufficiently vocal to be heard in Ireland so the Catholics have the best possibility to offer an alternative to the landslide ranting about pro-choice, supposed medically necessary abortions, and so on.

Father, you have given a Catholic doctrinaire answer, which fails to address my points. The church’s unchanging position does not make it any more credible, as my point was that the needs of society have changed, not the religious position of the church. I am not questioning church doctrine, but simply pointing out the realities of modern Irish society and the needs of modern Irish women. The principle of choice, which should be at the heart of any modern western society, means that our state should cater for women’s health needs. I am not saying the church should evolve, but that society should move to cater for its citizens, as it has done in many other European nations. The church is a 2000 year old institution, run by single unmarried men, so I do not expect it to understand the wishes of the female population. How could it? Perhaps, if women held more real power in the church, it would be more in sync with the needs of society, and less backward looking. My point is that women ARE going to Britain Father and are having abortions, regardless of whether you or I agree with it, so we should be mature enough as a society to cater for their needs. This is not a decision taken lightly, so why should we ship them overseas to deal with it alone in Britain? It is already happening, all around us, so adopting a religious position is fine, but society is not dictated by any religious body and should cater for the needs of all it’s citizens. I do not expect you to agree with my position Father. I am merely articulating the realities of modern Ireland and highlighting the way people increasingly view this issue.
The church’s reluctance to modernise, as countless inquiries have shown, has not made its opposition to change any more credible in a modern society. We only have to look at its views on contraceptives and homosexuality to realise that it has no business interfering in an increasingly secular state, where religious positions are respected, but not more than the wishes of a modernising population.

“Unfortunately, there are few other pro-life groups being sufficiently vocal to be heard in Ireland “..seriously? Youth defence are VERY vocal (too vocal IMHO) and there have been billboard ads with a vociferous pro-life view very recently.

Father, you are being very disingenuous claiming that the Catholic Church’s views are based on science. If they were you should recognise that self-consciousness does not begin from fertilisation. The zygote is basically a bunch of unthinking, unfeeling cells.

The fact of the matter is that if your view was based on science the prevention of further development of this bunch of cells would not pose a problem. Instead though it is as wrong as the murder of a developed human in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This is only supportable by the belief in a “soul” or some other such construct (Deus Ex Machina if you will).

Be honest about it. Those views are not based in science and they are in fact based on your religious beliefs. The attempt to hijack the name of science for the purposes of religion is a blight in a lot of places, but let’s try and keep it out of this debate.

Kenneth, very well said. Thank you!

Dennis, thank you for your comment.

The Church doesn’t deny that “self-consciousness does not begin from fertilisation”. Self-awareness begins after birth, it would seem. But what is the relevance of self-awareness here? We are often unaware while sleeping yet nobody would suggest that we lose our right to life as adults simply because we are asleep or otherwise unconscious.

Your second point is way off the mark and a mere statement of opinion.

If the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion was not based on science, at least with respect to the development of human life, then why is it not stated somewhere?

Fr Ryan: “The basis for the Church’s position is based on science”. Wow. Seriously. Just wow.

To add to that Father, no one is arguing the position of the church. We know what their stance is on the matter but what angers us most is the interference in law and liberal rights. Why can’t the Catholic church tell it’s members that it doesn’t agree with abortion and believes in pro life but the choice is ultimately theirs.

And, although many here are defending the pro choice movement, that is not to say that all will favour that if a situation arose in their own life. They are appealing for the choice to do it.

Since when were the church’s views ever based on science? I mean isn’t it ironic that the church will turn to claim scientific backing in the case of abortion and yet completely disregard the scientific community when it comes to, oh I dunno…. God? You know, the old non existent being argument! The big bang theory and all that nonsense!

I’d like to ask the church’s view on why it will only adopt a science backed view when it suits it? Doesn’t the fact that you’re looking to science as opposed to God’s will, in fact show that the church is attempting to stay relevant in a country where the church’s influence is dwindling? It seems to me that the arguments are less openly about the will of God and more about science, which is the famous rival of religion.

The country needs a proper debate on the issue. It’s my belief that there are simply too many wild “facts” being thrown around that people are believing without better knowledge. The country needs informed and proven information about the facts on the issue and not facts that are twisted to suit either sides arguments.

I also want to point out that human society has, with the help of both science and religion, developed terminology in order to build a functioning structure – the societies we live in today. When we throw out terms such as “Personhood”, we’ve simply attached a label to something to help explain something else. So it’s not really a natural thing, it’s man made. Using terms like this won’t get either side anywhere. It’s my belief that we need to actually look past these labels and look at the hard evidence. It’s when you include these man made terms to try and describe something, we make the waters murky.

Ultimately, I’d like to see the catholic church place more faith in its followers and the existence of God rather than fight with science and argue in politics. After all, we know the stance of the church and as a male dominated society, it doesn’t really concern the church. If the church had faith in its people, we wouldn’t hear attempts to control politics.

I don’t know how this sounds and I’m not proof reading it – I’m going to bed! Just wanted to clarify that I am pro choice and not religious, but confused as to the churches position. It’s just funny hearing the church use science when science is the very thing that contradicts the church’s beliefs.

Fergus – “Do I have the choice to engage in the debate? Or has Ireland become so intolerant that certain views must be vigorously denigrated, indeed, the person holding them must be denigrated?”

But your views are the ones currently being enforced. Why do you think you have a right to play the victim card here?

It’s very easy, in the absence of a good argument, to take a supposed crackdown on your viewpoint and turn it into your entire argument. This is something the far right in particular loves to do – painting fascism as a somehow more tolerant option.

Nice to know Eilish that these poor women are just a “number” !!

Ronan, it is a statement of fact and expression of the interests of those who use it: they are pro-the child living and not being killed (medical terminology used quite a lot, especially in delicate cases of late term abortion where the child must be dead before being removed and the medical personel must ask “is it dead yet?”)

Fergus, please dismount off your high horse as you lot have zero right to preach about any moral code or beliefs. Pro life is also pro choice, some of us care about mum too!

pro life is indeed an oxy moron,these people are against stem cell research also which has the potential to save millions of lives in the future…they are anti-life if anything!

I’m with you Ronan, I’ve given up on the term pro life and use the term anti-choice instead

@ Fergus Ryan
Thanks for taking the time to give the pro-life (oops) view on this one. Your clarity is refreshing. You get the usual 5/1 against here, hope you know that’s a badge of honour, St Peter uses a different yardstick.
Labour Youth’s policy statement embedded in a “compassionate” frame, is a new approach. I’m alive, but I wouldn’t mind if you killed me! Perhaps the success of recent Late Late Show outings has encouraged them.

@ Cian O Donnell
Your science and theology are both out of date. The church is not against stem cell research, it is against embryonic stem cell research. All of the breakthroughs have been with non-embryonic stem cells, none of the cures from embryonic sources. The research scientists have now abandoned embryonic sources, to the churches delight. But I’m sure it will be stated again as a perceived slam-dunk against the church. So how therefore is pro-life an oxymoron ?

@ Kate Quinn
I’m all in favour of a woman’s choice to have her appendix out or not, to cut her hair or not, to pull a tooth or not, but none of these are sentient, non have the unique DNA of a new life, non are human in their own right. I’m pro-choice, I’m just not pro-murder.

@ EMD
Glad to see you recognise her as a “mom”. It is of course the new life inside her that qualifies her as a mom.

A zygote is not sentient. Are you against the morning after pill? Or medical termination before nine weeks?

@ Stephanie Fleming
Hi Stephanie, it depends on what you define as sentient, . For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. That, in my view, includes a zygote. What is definite is that the zygote is unique, with the full DNA of the individual it will grow into. It won’t become anything else. Of course I’m not in favour of destroying a life, including the morning after pill.

Could you explain to me what you mean by “For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care”? Like you say it is a “metaphysical quality of all things”, does that include a chair? A spider? A lump of coal?

Every cell in your body contains the full DNA of an individual actually. Are you also against the removal of a spleen? Or cord stem cells? What about the growing of organs from stem cells? I mean if we gave each of those cells the right conditions, just as the right conditions required for a zygote is that of a womb, then they would grow into an individual. Should we be wringing our hands over that?

What if it were to turn out that the right environment for these cells is also a womb? Should women be forced to carry them?

Also the morning after pill does not prevent implantation, it prevents fertilisation, so you can support that since there’s no destruction of life involved. How do you feel about other methods of contraception?

@ Stephanie Fleming
Well Stephanie i am not at all confused by my understanding of what life is for a human, and when it begins. To me it’s very simple. I don’t need a degree in philosophy to apply that most scarse of senses, common sense. You are busily looking for reason to back up a view of life that I cannot accept.
Removing a spleen is not terminal to the life from which it is taken. I think I was clear about stem cells above. We have not yet reached the Frankenstein science where we can actually make life from a few bits, other than the bits God gave us for this purpose.
With respect to the morning after pill, I’m afraid your are swallowing the lie. Remember the manufacturers are recomending using the pill up to five days after the fact. I can’t see the sperm and egg sitting down for five days before they get together, just in case a pill is on the way.
As for contraceptives well that’s for another day. Do you think it gains more respect for womanhood. Do you think it decreases abortions. Does it improve the possibility of finding the right mate for life. Since the widespread use of contraceptives, post 1930, all of the above have worsened. Not to mention the explosion of STD’s. I wonder are the issues related?

Hi Paddy,

I don’t think you need a degree in philosophy to understand your view point, but I suspect I would. I have absolutely no idea about metaphysics or Eastern philosophy so I was hoping you could explain your understanding of sentience to me a little better. Seriously, I genuinely have no idea of what you mean by sentience.

You say I’m swallowing a lie. From who do you think I am hearing lies? Why are they telling these lies? Can you prove that they are lies?

Also the fact that you “can’t see the sperm and egg sitting down for five days” is sadly not based in fact in any way whatsoever. Healthy sperm can survive in the female reproductive system for up to 7 days. This varies depending on the point it is at in the woman’s reproductive system. You’ll note that the effectiveness of the morning after pill plummets as each day passes, in other words as the sperm gets closer to the egg. The reason they say the pill is effective up to day five is because it usually only lasts past that if it has passed beyond the cervix and at that point fertilisation is much more likely to have already happened. Given the rates of effectiveness in preventing pregnancy after day four or five, if it is an abortifacient, it’s a highly ineffective one. There isn’t a single study that shows that the morning after pill does anything other than prevent fertilisation.

As for your questions:

Do you think it gains more respect for womanhood? I’m not sure what you by womanhood but if you’re talking about respect for women, yes, definitely. You need only look at the quality of life of women before and after the legalisation of contraception. In Ireland women are living longer, have better levels of education, have better quality of health. In Iran after contraception was legalised women became far more involved in society, mortality rates dropped, standards of education rose etc. Compare that to the Philippines where contraception is illegal and poverty is devastating to men, women and children alike.

Do you think it decreases abortions? Yes. Preventing pregnancy equals preventing abortion since there is no pregnancy to terminate.

Does it improve the possibility of finding the right mate for life? Yes. Since you’re not tied to a person you don’t love through a child. Since there are no shotgun weddings. Since there are no unpleasant surprises on the wedding night a la the barefoot contessa.

“”Since the widespread use of contraceptives, post 1930, all of the above have worsened. Really? Would you care to prove that? Especially given the massive number of hugely dramatic changes the world has undergone since 1930.

“Not to mention the explosion of STD’s.” I’d also like you to prove this please. Especially since condoms actually prevent the spread of STDs.

Well said Stephanie

@ Stephanie Fleming
Well Stephanie I’m just pointing out that “sentient” means different things to different cultures. In our culture for instance is a person in a coma sentient? If sentient is the test for “life”, can we therefore freely kill anyone in a coma? Is sentient capable of remembering feelings, if so you could have killed me up to the age of three. Am I at risk when I’m asleep, because I may not be sentient. So even though I’m not a follower of eastern views, I like and feel safer with their understanding of sentient. As we advance in science we are being more amazed by our growing understanding of the child in the womb. For years it was believed the child had no feelings, when the child was filmed recoiling from the tools of destruction, fighting for its life, that view was shattered. So to me it is a sentient being from conception, and those who argue otherwise are merely looking for a cloak of ignorance behind which they can hide from the truth of abortion.
I agree there is no published study. We cannot video a 150 cell human today. But you are asking me to prove, your side of the argument is the one doing the destruction, the onus of proof is on you. Prove to me that the morning after pill does not just prevent implantation. I’m sure the suppliers will say whatever is necessary, but show me.
I have always understood that conception took place in the fallopian tubes.
With regards to respect for women, I wouldn’t mix up quality of life with affluence, or wealth with happiness. Affluence and wealth grew as a result of the industrial revolution, not contraception. The fact that the contraceptive mentality has taken hold in society, has led to the widespread breakdown of family life. Divorce is the rule rather than the exception. Multiple premarital partners is common. Are people happier? I don’t think so. Contraception has fed into out ability to be selfish. We have separated sex and procreation, this will have huge repercussions for society. Have a look online at “the demographic winter”.
The pill does not increase a mans respect for a woman. Get real. Men will say whatever the need to say to get their hands on some consequence free sex. The pill has not empowered women, it has given more of women’s power to men. Even most of the feminists recognise today that they have been conned. I assure you that from this mans perspective, if there were two women presented to me, one on the pill and one not, I might lay with the one on the pill, but I’d prefer to marry the other. Go figure.
We have clear differences of opinion and as we are just talking to each other at this stage, with your permission this is my last submission here. Wishing you every success in this life and the next

Hi Paddy,

I appreciate that you’re highlighting what sentience means in different cultures but I’m asking what you think sentience means. I’m afraid I still don’t understand what the Eastern understanding of sentience is. As for a person in a coma, that depends, it depends on how they ended up in the coma. Was it chemically induced? Was it following a head injury? Are they in a coma due to a diabetic crisis or an incident of hypoxaemia? As for “freely killing anyone in a coma”, the two situations are not comparable. A person in a coma is living of mechanical, not biological life support. They are not living inside another human being having a massive effect on that persons entire body. There’s also the fact that we do withdraw life support in cases when it is highly unlikely that the person will regain consciousness.

As for the lies I am swallowing, I find that one about a foetus recoiling from the “tools of destruction” to be an absolue whopper. Perhaps you can provide me with a link to this footage and then explain to me why a newborn baby doesn’t do any such thing?

Since it’s not possible to prove a negative I’m afraid that lack of evidence will have to suffice for you, that lack having already been highlighted in my previous comment. As for the onus of proof being on me, traditionally the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. You claim that the morning after pill prevents implantation, prove it. To try and claim that I must prove disprove your point when you have provided no proof for it is nonsense. It is simply another way for you to avoid admitting that you have no proof. Conception does take place in the fallopian tubes, up to seven days after sex, hence why the morning after pill is far less effective once the sperm has reached the fallopian tube, because it prevents fertilisation, not implantation. I notice you omitted an admittance of how incorrect you were on your claims that sperm “don’t sit around for five days”. Just thought I’d point that out.

As for mixing up quality of life with affluence or wealth with happiness, I don’t. What measure would you like me to use to prove that women are happier, healthier and better off than those I have already used? Perhaps the human development index? Perhaps a basic comparison between countries with widespread access to contraception versus countries where contraception is illegal? What is your measure of happiness? Marriage? Religion? You claim that the industrial revolution has made women better off, not contraception, again I’d like you to explain the difference in quality of life for women in Iran before the legalisation of contraception in the 1980’s. Can you claim a difference that occurred after the 1980’s was because of the industrial revolution? I suspect you can and will claim that, but you’d be wrong.

Now, the “widespread breakdown of family life”. Can you come up with an analysis of that besides conjecture or opinion? I mean lets take the 19th century, before contraception was available. Widespread child abuse, child labour, domestic violence, intramarital rape, still plenty of extramarital affairs, still plenty of divorce where it was legal, men had rights over women, women had no right to own property once married, lets take the 1960s in Ireland when a woman who got married was expected to resign from her post, including midwives (midwives! Surely a midwife who has had a child has a better understanding and is a more reassuring presence for a woman in labour?!). The level of education in rural Ireland that a woman was expected to achieve was abysmal. My own mum, who was born in the 50s, has a junior cert level education. One of her subjects was laundry. Laundry.

I’m not mixing up quality of life with affluence or wealth with happiness. Would you care to explain how I am? Do you think women were happier before contraception? Perhaps you can highlight when or why and how you have come to that conclusion. Would you like me to use a different measure? The HDI maybe? Or a simple comparison between countries where contraception is illegal (Philippines) and legal (Ireland). Hmmm, are women better off in the Philippines or Ireland…

There is no such thing as consequence free anything. Pregnancy is the only consequence the pill avoids and I think you are seriously undervaluing many men’s attitudes towards women. But I will admit that since you seem to be projecting your own views onto all men that I can see how you made that mistake. How has the pill “given more of women’s power to men”? I mean can you explain that at all or is just some random thought that made its way to your keyboard? Any chance of any proof of any kind of logical argument to continue that thought? No? You seem to think that all women want to get married (lets just tiptoe around the pile of sludge that is the sentence “if two women were presented to me”). Many don’t want to get married at all, do you see this as a flaw? Many did before because it was their only way to survive, because they were dependent on men. Funny how that’s changed so much since the advent of contraception…I do think that the pill has forced me to respect women more. Mostly because women no longer need men to respect them. It’s nice and it’s a plus but we don’t need to be wrapped in tissue paper and given a home and pretty clothes lest our wombs fall out.

Finally, you don’t need my permission for anything let alone ceasing to comment on a message board after you’ve been roundly defeated. Must be nice to be able to make choices for yourself.

@ Stephanie Fleming
Well Stephanie, conception takes place, based on the best info I can get, between 4 and 72 hours. 72 being the latest.
I have no interest in winning anything, I don’t expect to change your mind, and I know you won’t convince me. It’s just a matter of shedding a little light in a culture that is loosing the plot.
You do win the typing and spelling contest however.

Hi Paddy,

I’ve asked you repeatedly to shed a little light on some of the claims you’ve made but can’t seem to get you to do so. What info are you getting that suggest conception takes place at 72 hours after sex at the latest? Where are you getting it from?

As for changing my mind, when it comes to things like this I think scientifically and logically. All of the questions I have asked you have been asked in an effort to expand on the one sentence claims you have made that argue against my points. The second you’re able to come up with any substantial support for your position then you’ll be able to change my mind.

Why people can’t simply admit that they just think it’s wrong (whether it’s religion or just gut instinct) and have no explanation for it I’ll never understand. I’d respect you a lot more if you did.

@ Stephanie Fleming
Here is the link on the timing. The three day fertile period is known for years, even by old codgers like myself.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/whpu/qa/06,13,98.html

@ Stephanie Fleming
Here is the link on the timing. The three day fertile period is known for years, even by old codgers like myself.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/whpu/qa/06,13,98.html

Regards

The original site no longer exists. It’s an answer from some kind of Q&A session. The answer is fourteen years old, we know a great deal more about microbiology now. There’s nothing whatsoever available on the link to lend credence to that as a source of proof. Give me a text book on reproduction, a peer reviewed article published in a respectable journal.

I also notice you haven’t provided anything for the rest of your array of baseless assertions?

@ Stephanie Fleming
Well Stephanie it’s the old story, for those who believe no proof is necessary, and for those who don’t believe, no proof will suffice.
The item is written by:
Wm. LeRoy Heinrichs, MD, PhD.
He has 32 years of experience at Stanford University serving in roles of Professor and Chair of Ob/Gyn. That sounds like sufficient authority. I don’t believe evolution has changed us that much in 14 years.
As for the other issues I mentioned, they are not just my own opinions but result from many of the research papers I have read over the years. I have no intention of producing a phd to flesh out all of the issues mentioned, but I have read research in support of both sides of these arguments, and I am pleased with my conclusions.

” it’s the old story, for those who believe no proof is necessary, and for those who don’t believe, no proof will suffice”.

Actually Paddy, it’s science. For those who would know something does exist, proof is necessary, for those who would know something does not exist, repeated attempts and failures to find proof is necessary. I’ve made repeated attempts to find proof of your assertions and thus far you have failed to find any.

Have I said evolution has changed? Lets do a quick review, no, no I haven’t. I’ve said that our understanding of our microbiology has changed. Here’s a reference from the Mayo Clinic (from this year with actual references to respectable scientific texts) that disputes your claim that sperm doesn’t “sit around for five days”. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pregnancy/AN00281

You claim that these are not just your opinions but are the ” result from many of the research papers I have read over the years”. But you have yet to produce even a single reference to a research paper despite numerous requests. I’m not asking for a PhD. I’m asking for a URL. If you use bit.ly you need only use about 100 characters. Far less than you’ve used for any of the above comments. Can you, please, provide proof for any of the statements I have asked you to provide proof for? Respect for women? Widespread destruction of family life? Unhappiness? More STDs?

It’s a simple request Paddy, either produce proof or admit you have none.

@ Stephanie Fleming
Eureka! Thanks Stephanie.
In much the same way as you taught I was being silly, I taught you were being just a little stubborn. Let’s wind the clock back a little. This whole discussion has to do with “Is the morning after pill abortifacient, or not?” I’m saying after fertilisation, could have occurred, it prevents implanting by altering the womb lining, and thus causing an abortion (or as the manufacturers call it, a deliberate miscarriage). It can also have the effect of just preventing ovulation like a standard pill, and in that case not be abortifacient.
The manufacturers will claim it is not abortifacient, because they will not recognise it as human until after implantation (at least). Tell that to a woman who has survived a Fallopian (ectopic) pregnancy!
The link I provided spelled out when ovulation takes place and how soon afterwards fertilisation occurs. Your link discusses how long sperm can be viable. Both are correct except, in my view, mine is relevant.
If you were a true exponent of the scientific method, you would have a better understanding of relevance. I would conclude from your use of scientific facts, that you are not a scientist but like to use science to make your opinion look weighty. Can you imagine having this amount of debate on the many other items we mentioned.
The science is very clear and undisputed by real scientists at both sides of the debate. But the theology or metaphysics is disputed. When does life commence? I say at fertilisation, the rest is just growing up. Those who want abortion will say after birth. An Italian philosopher is now arguing that life occurs some time after birth and that it is not murder to kill a newborn child. Slippery slope how are you!
As someone who wished to pull out of this discussion some time ago, we have gone on,and on.

Hi Paddy,

Actually no, this discussion is not solely about whether the morning after pill is about an abortifacient or not. It’s about your baseless assertions. Let’s wind the clock back a little and take a look at the things you have said but have utterly failed to support.

“For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care”

“Since the widespread use of contraceptives, post 1930, all of the above [respect for womanhood. Do you think it decreases abortions. Does it improve the possibility of finding the right mate for life] have worsened. Not to mention the explosion of STD’s.”

“the [foetus] was filmed recoiling from the tools of destruction“

“Affluence and wealth [of women] grew as a result of the industrial revolution, not contraception.“

“The fact that the contraceptive mentality has taken hold in society, has led to the widespread breakdown of family life. Divorce is the rule rather than the exception. Multiple premarital partners is common. Are people happier? I don’t think so“

“The pill has not empowered women, it has given more of women’s power to men.“

“Even most of the feminists recognise today that they have been conned. “

“As for the other issues I mentioned, they are not just my own opinions but result from many of the research papers I have read over the years.“

So you claim that both our links are correct, despite saying two different things, but that yours is relevant. Again, you make that statement without providing any argument or evidence to support it.

And I see we are getting into the ol’ ad hom arguments here. You claim I’m not a scientist, therefore couldn’t possibly be capable of understanding or arguing about science. Well, I disagree with that for a start, but alas for you it happens that I am indeed a scientist. Would you like me to e-mail you a pdf of my Bachelor of Science? Are you a scientist for that matter? If you aren’t by your own logic you must immediately bow out of the debate and admit you have absolutely no qualification to continue this argument and declare defeat.

I can well imagine having this amount of debate on the other items mentioned. Hence why I keep asking you to provide support for all the other nonsense you’ve mentioned. But still you fail and still you avoid.

You say we’ve gone on and on. Paddy, we have. Because you make a random statement then move rapidly on without providing any support for it. Again, I challenge you to either provide proof for the above listed statements, or admit you have none.

And as I’ve said before, you’re welcome to pull out of the debate any time you like, must be nice to have a choice.

“Pro-life” isn’t some new term that popped up recently in Ireland’s abortion debate Ronan!! “Pro-choice” = pro giving the woman the “choice” to have an abortion, “pro-life” = pro giving the baby it’s right to life, and helping the mother in whatever crisis she finds herself in! :)

“Choice” isn’t a new term either, Kathryn, which is why you don’t put it in inverted commas when using it in a sentence. And your definitions are a little off there. “Pro-choice” means giving the woman the right to decide all the things that the pro-life side have already decided for her. You claim that you’ll help her in any crisis she finds herself in. What if that crisis is that her life is at risk and she can’t afford to travel to the UK for an abortion? Would you help her then? You also seem imply that only pro-life people would help pregnant women in any difficult situation they find themselves in. Slipping in to the pro-life lobby’s favourite implication that pro-choicers think that abortion is always the solution to any difficulty a woman finds herself in and that no pro-choice person would lobby for peri-natal hospice or better financial support for mothers and children.

“Pro-life” equals demanding that the pregnancy reaches a natural end, regardless of the effect that has on the mother. And denying her the choice to sacrifice of her right to bodily integrity voluntarily is anti-choice.

Do you really think anyone actually cares about what you think? Try to come up with something more constructive next time and stop using this as your personal diary for your daily ramblings.

I’m in agreement Conor. It’s a failed institution slowly dying out desperately trying to hang on to the last bit of support in the modern age. Under no circumstance would I ever listen or even believe a member of the catholic church. Infact I take pleasure ripping up the ‘dues’ envelope which my local church insist on putting through my letter box.

For god’s sake Margret would you cop on to yourself. Where do you get all this hatred from?

Margaret is just a homophobic and arrogant Dub who thinks you must be gay (she assumes everyone in Ireland knows that The George is a gay pub in Dublin) because you want to see the demise of the Catholic sect.

Margaret, you showed your “evil” side in that snide comment about The George. Embarrassing really, how ignorant.

Margaret, you are a hateful woman, who will live long enough to see your
Narrow minded and bigoted world evolve around you. You are the
Minority now. It must be getting lonely in the gutter…

Margaret; that’s very rich coming from someone who just uses this site to troll others. You’re comment regarding suicide on a recent article was digusting and vile – so much so that it was removed.

LOL! Don’t make me laugh, the only people politicians are scared of upsetting, are the ones in their jurisdiction at election time!

It is incredibly naïve to think that the Roman Catholic Church “bears no more power over modern Irish lives”.

Today’s empty parish halls are a far cry from the crowds that would drive towards church on a Sunday when I was growing up. Yeah sure we will make our communion, have our wedding day and probably our funeral in a church, but that’s about as invested the average Irish citizen will get. If you don’t think the church is on a steep downward decline, maybe you are the one who is naive…?

Maybe “the thought of having never been born is perfectly acceptable” not so that he can be a martyr but because had he not been born, he wouldn’t be around to worry about it.

I think it’s easy and lazy, not to mention insulting, to say that ‘my mother should have had the choice to abort me’ when one is many years removed from the event and in possession of a full and healthy life. If it were possible to ask any kid what their choice would be before being aborted, the answer would most certainly be life. Could the author, instead of saying such a thing, say instead how grateful he is to have his life! That he wasnt aborted! No he can’t, because that would muddy the pro-choice waters. It’s as bad as the posters from the pro-lifers the author complained about in his article, sensationalising an incredibly hard and often tragic decision some women find themselves faced with.

I am also adopted and I am also pro-choice for exactly the same reason as the author. Maybe you can’t appreciate what it is to spend your whole life aware (not necessarily dwelling on it mind you) that your situation could have been wildly different. To contemplate not being conceived is easy, and yes perfectly acceptable, as adoptees we are probably more conscious of the chance of birth than anyone else, and also more conscious of the situations and choices of our parents (biological and adopted).

You are completely incorrect in making that assumption about me and i really didn’t want to say this but it is because of a similar background to the author and now it turns out, yourself, that I find myself opposed to the way this article is written. I have contemplated how scarily different life might have been and I know one thing for certain is that I’m really glad I wasn’t aborted. I never think my mother should have had that choice.
It is because of my experience that I doubt the idea that abortion should be a freely available ‘choice’ for every woman. I could only support it if the life of the woman was in danger and she in fact, had no choice at all- and of course she should not be made to travel to England to do so.

Interesting as it seems your only comparison of his experiences is something which you yourself didn’t even personally experience. Your comparison of an adoption at the turn of the 21st century to an early 20th century industrial school is pathetic.

Ok ms rude, the point is any of us could have been aborted, and how old we know. It’s a stupid point like wondering what it would be like to be a man. I am not and never will.

Now go and find your manners, your obnoxious nature must make you a bundle of laughs. NOT.

Have you Any instructions on how to undo an abortion if there are feelings to do so in the future. It is the argument against the death penalty for adults

Hi Orela. This means of leaving the Catholic faith was removed in 2009. A record of your desire to leave will be kept by some dioceses, bit no alteration will be made to the babtisimal register. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_act_of_defection_from_the_Catholic_Church#section_2

Orela, why don’t you have a serious think about it and then tell us the truth as to why you are a Catholic?

Oops, missed “not”.

There are those who do wish to leave the Catholic Church. If anybody would be interested in becoming a Catholic, or reconnecting, or just finding out more, feel free to message me on my Facebook account. Fergus.

Can you not help me leave the Catholic Church then Fergus?

A lot of us are Catholics because we were indoctrinated as infants and forced to be Catholics. Some of us even had it beaten into us.
Oh and we’re still Catholics now because the provision for leaving the faith was removed lately

what post is this a response to Marie?

Even in the case of rape, incest or danger to the mother?

So what’s your argument then to give yourself and others the right to imprison a women and her doctor for refusing to carry a pregnancy to term?

Why?

It’s an interesting question, Frank, and it is disappointing how no pro life group in Ireland seems to be actively campaigning for resources for women or for sex education and access to contraception.

It should be a choice fullstop. It may be a final choice for some or a first choice for others what does it matter when the choice is made?

This is a platform where many pro lifers would work with pro choicers but there is no incentive. Pro choicers refuse to acknowledge that there might be some common ground and there are many pro lifers who would be willing to work on this.
PLC non partisan as it is has to pay lip service to a conservative middle class and Youth Defense more so.
The minority who would lean towards this tactic are alienated by both sides.
but for an american version
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/05/preventing-teen-pregnancy.html

Personally I dont see how knowledge of contraception helped. We got a pretty explicit sex education and told all about safe sex and condoms etc (and this was a semi private 180 pupil Catholic school) and I can think of a handful of girls who got pregnant and guys who apparently got girls pregnant. But thats just my experience…

It doesn’t prevent all pregnancies, but all academic studies show that comprehensive sex education reduces unwanted pregnancies. And while some pro lifers might be willing to work on this, unfortunately, pro life organisations like Youth Defence are dominated by people who would be opposed to access to contraception.

but at the same time there are also women who have had positive consequences to abortion too.
Also what I took from the Pat Rabitte comment was not that he was saying “you’re not entitled to have a voice” more that he was saying “you’re not entitled to TELL us what to think”

It’s disappointing how many organisation like Women Hurt only want to hear one side of the story. It’d be nice if women with all kind of experiences had a say. Of course, I know you’re not interested in facilitating that, Cora.

the term unborn is a meaningless invented word. Do you go around calling your undead? Or talking about your undeadedness as opposed to your life.

The tiresome juvenility of the anti choice control freaks is what will ultimately finish them off.

Ah here is Cora, saccharine sweet as ever with her pretence at empathy and her fight for human rights which excludes mothers who are unwell or women who decide to have abortions for medical reasons or because they have too many kids to feed or any of that silly everyday stuff the rest of us deal with. Oh no Cora will tell you she hears you but really unless you believe the same thing as her she has pretty much no interest in your human rights. Cora would condemn me to depression and suicidal thoughts despite my living children who need me all for the sake of HER beliefs and HER definition of human rights. Sorry Cora but you lack any empathy for women if you can seriously tell a mother that she should put herself at risk for the sake of a foetus over that of her other children. Oh and as that person I can tell you to shove your peri-natal hospices where the sun don’t shine, depressed and suicidal and shoved in there, yeah that’ll sort the problem.

I despise your attitude Cora more than any of the extremists because you are a fake and a damn hypocrite.

@Gavin –

I sincerely hope that all women recover from their abortions. Unfortunately, the experiences of those women who speak about their abortions would suggest that it can take many years for them to have enough courage to do so. That said, I take your point. I suppose the other factor in every abortion is the unborn child. Their life is always lost.

Pat Rabbitte’s comments were unhelpful. No-one was talking about the Church dictating to the government – in fact, this was something that he brought up himself. The Church is like any other group in society – the IFA or the INTO for example – and is perfectly entitled to lobby the government on the basis of a position that it holds to be important. To suggest otherwise is to try and stifle debate which is hardly the role of the Minister for Communications.

@Nick –

On the contrary, I have consistently said that I welcome everyone’s contribution to this debate. It is a vital issue which affects us all, so no voice should be silenced.

Women Hurt is a group which specifically seeks to reach out to those women who may be suffering from extreme post-abortion trauma. It was set up by women in that situation who felt there was nowhere that they could turn to. Their experience of abortion was not positive but extremely negative so it would hardly be fitting for them to include “positive experiences” as part of their remit.

Their place in society is very necessary, but unfortunately not very welcome. This was evident when the National Women’s Council of Ireland chose to describe their initial outreach program as “harsh” and “cruel”, something I find difficult to understand given the fact that they were reaching out to other women who may be in pain.

@Mary,

With respect, this is a serious debate. Name-calling is inappropriate and unhelpful. If you wish to discuss the issue at hand with me, then I will gladly do so.

@EMD –

I would like to deal with the comments you make.

I don’t condemn anyone to depression or suicidal thoughts. I simply don’t believe that an abortion in those situations is the best we can offer to women. Abortion is a medical procedure – how can it treat a psychiatric illness? Given the number of women I have spoken to who express feelings of suicide after having had an abortion, I do not think it is the kindest means of supporting any woman.

I don’t believe a woman’s life should be put at risk so that we can retain our ban on abortion. On the contrary, Ireland ranks among the safest places in the world in which to have a baby. I can’t see how abortion would improve the health care given to women when they already receive the best care in the world.

I don’t quite understand your point regarding perinatal hospices. These are not hospices for women to be “shoved in there”. They are specialist maternity units where mothers carrying very sick babies can receive the care and support they need.

The only thing I can say about the rest of your comment is that we clearly differ on this subject but I believe you hold your beliefs genuinely and have your reasons for doing so. Maybe you should afford me the same courtesy.

Some women lack the courage to speak up about their abortion due to the demonizing that certain groups in Irish society do to women who have abortions.
Those women on Ray D’Arcy last week were amazing and said that they stand by their decisions to have one 100%
Not buying the emotional manipulation either, but nice try!
As I say again he wasn’t saying they shouldn’t get into the debate. He was saying that they no longer have any special position to dictate their views like they did not so long ago over the Mother and Child scheme or even over condoms. They have to fall in line like many other groups but to also have the ability to be argued against like the rest of us. He was suggesting a level playing field in our lovely modern secular society

I am a woman who has experienced sustained and severe depression over several years. Cases like mine are often used to justify the legalisation of abortion. In virtually every instance, those who claim to be defending my interests by proposing abortion access as a ‘compassionate solution’ have never taken the time to solicit my input or get to know my concerns or needs.

Those advocating abortion for women with conditions like mine do not have my permission to use my condition or my experiences to advance a campaign for legalising abortion. I feel offended every time my difficult experiences are exploited by another to promote a political agenda that I completely oppose.

I feel especially dismayed in the context of Prof. Mika Gissler’s study in Finland conducted over the course of 20 years which found that the suicide rate for women who experienced abortion was 6 times higher than the suicide rate for women who brought their pregnancies to term. This goes completely against the idea that access to abortion would ease the distress of some of the women who experience mental illness during pregnancy.

Not all women who experience depression are pro-choice. Not all women who become pregnant unexpectedly – or intentionally – while in a depressive episode (or enter a depressive episode while pregnant) want to have abortions.

I speak for MYSELF only when I say:
- I do not want to experience abortion.
- I do not want those using mental illness as a justification for abortion to pre-suppose or imply that all women who have experienced/are experiencing mental illness want abortion made available as an option.
- I do not want abortion presented to me as a solution while pregnant, depressed and in an extremely vulnerable state.
- I want to advocate for my own needs. I do not want to be made feel even more powerless by hearing people who don’t even know me use my condition to advance a political agenda that I completely oppose.

Depression during pregnancy is difficult and complex. I would ask, at the very least, that people acknowledge that there is diversity of opinion with regard to abortion legalisation in women who experience depression.

Secondly, with regard to perinatal hospices: perinatal hospices are not internment camps; they’re not even residential facilities!
I agree that the name ‘perinatal hospice’ is not very explanatory – and there seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding the term – but perinatal hospices play a very important role and should not be dismissed out of hand.

Briefly, a perinatal hospice is a dedicated unit in a hospital that gives specialised treatment to women and their families who’ve received poor pre-natal diagnoses for their babies. These units contain multi-disciplinary healthcare teams including obstetricians, midwives, nurses, counsellors etc.

Importantly, all the women being treated at the perinatal hospice unit are in similar circumstances (it can be very hard sitting in a waiting room knowing that most of the other pregnant women around you are going to deliver healthy babies).

Some of the babies born at the unit will be brought to the NICU for special care, some will be brought to surgery; other families will choose what’s called compassionate care, where the baby will have minimal intervention and the parents and/or siblings spend the time getting to know their child before he/she passes away.

Although there are pro-life groups lobbying for the establishment of a perinatal hospice in Ireland, I think it is something that everyone should be able to support – if you genuinely believe in the concept of choice with regards to abortion, surely you should advocate for the highest level of care for the women with poor prenatal diagnoses who bring their babies to term.

Perinatal hospices are considered to be the best model for caring for women who bring babies with poor pre-natal diagnoses to term – shoving perinatal hospices “where the sun don’t shine” isn’t respectful to these women and makes ‘choice’ seem like a total fallacy.

—> TL;DR: This is what a perinatal hospice does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY7mq1g9pGk We should have at least one in Ireland, regardless of the legal status of abortion in this jurisdiction.

@Evelyn nobody is advocating abortion for ‘women like you’, it’s simply advocating a choice. If abortion was made legal here you would still have the choice not to use it for you.

While you may say you welcome women’s contributions who have had positive experiences, it’s interesting how you rarely acknowledge their existence and have made no effort to facilitate them to share it. Disappointing.

and when I tried to raise the point of those women who HAVE had positive experiences she just resorted to emotional blackmail by saying of the child “their life is always lost”. Not exactly welcoming positive experiences when you throw THAT in someone’s face!!

There have been many Pro Life articles published on the Journal.ie.

If you often read thejournal.ie, you would see that they are always very careful to keep themselves free from political bias. I think there will be a sister article covering the opposite argument in the next few days.

@ James, @ Eimile

I actually had a look back in curiosity. Since April there have been 5 pro choice opinion pieces and 1 pro life. Although the one pro life article did get the most comments.

Just saying.

@Emile Sheehy,
That is very hard to believe based on the Journal’s output.

and where is your evidence to suggest this?

You are free to your view of course and many of us are free to label it as wrong for the following reasons:

1: There seems to be a bit of confusion about what happens when an abortion is performed. The vast majority of abortions are carried out within the the first eight weeks. At this point what is inside a woman’s womb is not a person, it is a growing collection of cells which is incapable of cognitive thought or the perception of pain that cannot survive outside of the womb. This is not just my opinion. “Personhood” is defined partly by as an “autonomous being”. Therefore because a cluster of woman cells at week eight of development is clearly not autonomous, it cannot be regarded as a person.

Leading on from this, since murder (in the majority of western legal traditions) is defined as the wilful killing of another person, the termination of a pregnancy cannot be accurately be described as murder, despite your personal opinion.

2: Studies which claim that abortion is detrimental to a woman’s physical health (the most infamous being the abortion-breast cancer claim) have been largely disregarded by the medical and scientific community. For example, with regards to the breast cancer theory, the thesis has been panned by organisations such as the WHO, the American Cancer Society and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists who all conclude that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.

With regards to the issue of mental health, the most recent extensive investigation was undertaken by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2011. Its findings echoed those of countless other surveys in concluding that abortion does not increase mental health risks. Interestingly enough, a number of reports have determined while abortion in itself does not lead to an increased risk of mental health problems, women who undergo abortions can suffer from mental health issue for the following reasons: lack of social support following their choice, conservative views on abortion and pre-existing mental health problems. Given Ireland’s dismal record in providing services for both those in need of abortion services and mental health services, these findings are of the utmost importance.

The pro-choice campaign prefers to deal in facts and scientific findings, such as those listed above, while the anti-choice side simply attaches incorrect claims to abortion and refuses to provide a shred of evidence.

John, the question of “personhood” is a smokescreen from civil law. “Personhood” is a psycho-anthropological-philosophical construct dealing with children, teenagers and adults and consciousness and so on. In the debate are talking about human beings, not “persons” or “personalities” or the like, and killing them. The usual term in ordinary parlance for intentional and direct killing of a human being is “murder”.

I’ve heard anti-abortion folks ask me “would you like it if YOU were aborted?”, so it’s a relevant philosophical point!

if you were aborted you would never know because despite the propoganda of the anti choice brigade, the fetus is not a sentient being. It makes absolutely no sense. And there is nothing philosophical about it at all. It is just idiocy.

And FATHER Ryan, please identify yourself as a priest. Whilst I find the term ‘father’ creepy for a celibate man who will never father anyone, and who will never have to take responsibility for a life for 18 years, it is disengenuous to present yourself simply as ‘Fergus Ryan’. Man up for gods sake.

I don’t QUITE think he’s saying “what would have happened if I was aborted”
I think he’s talking about a step before that particular one to ask would he have been aborted if it were legal in Ireland. That’s the point of the article I think.

However do you not find it interesting that people like Sean and myself (also a pro-choice adoptee) are both prepared to consider the “what if” and still feel that the choice should be available. Despite the fact that we were on ‘the front line’, as it were, of prospective abortions.

What about all the women who were forced to carry their unborn to full term despite the fact they would certainly not be viable outside the womb? These women did not want to have a termination yet without one they would suffer severe psychological trauma to continue with the degenerative pregnancy.
To tar all women who choose to have abortions as people who got drunk and pregnant on a night out is insensitive and ignorant. You do not have the right to determine how a victim of rape ought to act. She did not choose to be in such a situation. Preventing a rape victim from having a termination is absurd.

Liam, you are ignorant and quite honestly stupid posting crap like that. Go live life and stop making horrible judgements about others.

To Eilish below, what do you mean by viable! I know we live in a throw away society, but COMEON, and to the other comment I do not consider myself to be stupid, I have recently returned to college to study this area in a social work degree, so yes I have done my homework and I am living my life, cheers for your thoughts though!

you certainly responded to Eilish’s fair point with an EXCELLENT and, not to mention, witty retort….I mean COMEON!!
If you care to read the harrowing stories of the women in THIS group TFMR (Terminate for Medical Reasons) you’ll perhaps see what Eilish means by not viable
https://www.facebook.com/MakeTerminationForMedicalReasonsAvailableInIreland

Thank you Gavin

Liam, going to college and getting a social work degree does not preclude you from stupidity as evidenced by your comments. I can just see you as a social worker more concerned about morals and beliefs than actually doing anything concrete to help children and families. Living life may give you a bit more compassion and empathy towards others, try volunteering in the rape crisis centre and you may learn some humility in the face of such pain and suffering.

Liam, all your badly written points are illogical.

The issue IS the Catholic Church and other religions. No Humanist organisation I am aware of demands that raped women carry their pregnancy to term.

You cannot MURDER a foetus only someone who has been born.

We don’t care if you think it’s selfish, that’s not your choice. In other words just because you think a woman is selfish doesn’t give you the right to force her to carry to term a pregnancy she didn’t want.

Indeed people have the choice to put their baby up for adoption, but that’s not your choice, it’s theirs.

Genocide means, destruction of an ethnic group. Foetuses are not an ethnic group.

A raped woman doesn’t get pregnant through carelessness, that’s an obnoxious and ignorant comment.

I hope you fail to get your degree as I hate the idea that you would end up working with poor and vulnerable people.

Eilish, why is it necessary to abort a dying in-utero child in order to avoid psychological damage to the mother? While such cases are heart breaking, there are plenty of examples of those who have been able to work through the grief while the child is still alive. The unfortunate “incompatible with life” expression, which is also scientifically and medically incorrect as the the child is still living, is most unhelpful. In these difficult cases, surely it is important to assist the parents of the child to appreciate the life they have brought about and to help them get as much out of their child’s life as possible? For Christian believers, it is also important and comforting for a sick baby born alive to be baptised and to share in the divine gift that that is for their child. Ending the child’s life early by lethal injection is too violent.

this is what I don’t get about the people who argue against terminating for medical reasons.
Fergus, you say that there are a number of women who got through the pregnancy by giving birth even though the child’s life was tragically short. That’s fine but what about those mothers who feel they can’t cope and wish to start the grieving process of their lost child straight away?
Those that argue always say “well they should be helped to appreciate the child’s life even if for a short while”. What if the pregnant women doesn’t WANT to do that? What if she wants to avoid the heartache she may feel when friends and passers-by pat her bump and ask when is the baby due?
Also you’ll need a study to back-up your accusation that the phrase “incompatible with life” is medically and scientifically incorrect. This is the internet, where one must back-up their arguments with facts!!

Fergus, I appreciate your point but I feel it is not humane for either parties to submit a mother through the full pregnancy term and then labour for the child to live a painful existence for a couple of minutes or hours.

What are your views on rape victims, or those who risk their life( including suicide) by continuing with the pregnancy?

Do you at least agree that this is not a clear cut issue when considering the interests of both parties? That in some cases it can be justified? I feel in certain circumstances women ought to have the right to choose. Such legislation implemented would require strict requirements however to prevent such being exploited.

Where the mother’s life is at risk, or where the foetus suffers severe complications making living outside the womb impossible, I do not feel a termination would be unchristian. Such would not take away from the fact the mother loves her child very much, yet she had to choose the lesser of two evils.

Liam, when you are raped and find yourself pregnant then you can preach from your pulpit. It must be easy to take the proverbial moral high ground on an issue that will never concern you. The Irish state will authorise termination, and the CC likewise, in the event that the pregnancy poses a risk to the mothers life yet they fail to acknowledge the woman’s mental health as a threat to her life.

I have to applaud the author of this article and I agree 100% with him. I can’t ever see a day where I’d make the decision myself but I can appreciate that another woman may not be able to carry a child to term and she should have a choice. It’s as black and white as that.

@Fergus This idea of baptising babies so that they share in the ‘divine gift’ doesn’t stand up. Didn’t the pope and a group of theologians decide that unbaptised babies go to heaven anyway? http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=21542

If this is the case women who carry babies who are ‘not compatible with life’ (I agree, its a terrible phrase), should have the choice of carrying to term or not.

Correction: there were no babies aborted. Abortions involve zygotes or foetuses.

Lovely Fergus, spoken like a man who has absolutely no idea how traumatic it can be to give birth to a still born child. I wouldn’t put any woman through that who didn’t want to. Why would you?

It does Deirdre? Do tell…..

Presumably you’ll be saying the same thing Deirdre when they publish a pro-life orientated story?

Err what is with the caps? Maybe you have had a crap life but surely that should give you more understanding of others rather than try to dictate how they should act? The young in our society need to be supported in making the choices they need, hand on heart if my beautiful little girl ended up pregnant for any reason during her teen years or even older then I would support her decision no matter how distasteful it may be for me personally. No matter what choices my children make I will always love them and in the case of something like an abortion I will support them emotionally and in whatever way I can.

You really need to consider how you approach this social work thing because you may find some of the abuses suffered by living children is far worse than if their mother had access to safe abortion. You have a right to be pro life but then I would consider myself pro life just older, less judgemental, more sympathetic to humanity and I don’t assume everything to be as simple as right and wrong.

Stop shouting

I couldn’t give a fiddler’s where you came from but the fact that you dismissed out of hand the fact that women might want to terminate their pregnancies if their child isn’t viable worries me a great deal if you’re supposed to be compassionate!

“While many of the organisers have been involved in anti-abortion events in the past, a spokesman for the group, Dr Eoghan de Faoite, told The Irish Times the event was not linked in any way to the Pro-Life Campaign or any other organisation.”

Enough said..

As an ex cancer patient, I’d like to use this opportunity to tell you and other militant pro lifers like you to mind your own business. Should I ever be in the position of being re diagnosed while pregnant, I don’t need you or anyone else telling me what I can or can not do with my own uterus. As a self proclaimed law student you of all people should defend freedom of choice even if you do not agree with a choice made. What will you do in practice, (especially in family law) when confronted with a scenario you do not agree with because of your stringent ‘morals’ ?? Disgusted by you to be honest.

you wanna come up with a peer-reviewed scientific study that backs your argument that abortion is never necessary to save a mother’s life?

NEVER necessary, ever heard of stats? There is ALWAYS a statistical chance that something may happen so same goes for abortion. Oh and pro abortionists, yes of course everyone who is pro-choice wants abortion coupons given out at McDonalds drive thru

yes but surely these stats are written down somewhere right?
Not even gonna touch that second comment cos it’s idiotic. You want something to attack, you gotta come up with something a lot better than THAT?!!?

oh wait, you weren’t responding to MY comment. My apologies for the mistake!!

My comment obviously lacked clarity Gavin lol

I reckon I read it too fast!!

Dr. Eoghan de Faoite is not linked to any of those groups eh? That would be Eoghan de Faoite chairman of Youth Defense?

Also is he a medical doctor?

As in this Eoghan de Faoite? The guy in the rally for life t-shirt?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hazteoir/3694009340/

El Presidente?!!? VAMANOS!!!

Organ donation? Its hardly the same John!

I see your point, but making women go through the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth would be so much worse in a lot of cases. Apart from anything else, you’d be taking away their right to privacy on the issue (people would know after 5-6months).