TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
: °C Sunday 26 May, 2013

Column: This campaign is offensive – and flies in the face of the facts

If the anti-abortion billboards were really about women’s welfare they would look very different, writes Stephanie Lord of Choice Ireland.

Stephanie Lord

ABORTION IS ILLEGAL in Ireland, except (theoretically) where a woman is going to die as a result of her pregnancy. Even where there is a substantial risk the life of a pregnant woman and she needs an abortion, she must travel overseas to have an abortion.

The very well-funded anti-choice lobby has made sure that any moves towards amending the law, even in the most harrowing of cases for pregnant women, have been met with hysteria about the murder of the innocent unborn. It’s no longer enough for them that women are forced to travel – now they are stepping up their sustained attack on women’s rights to increase the shame and stigma levelled at women who have had, or want the right to have, abortions.

Over the past few weeks in Dublin, over 100 anti-choice billboards have sprung up, alongside 200 Luas ads, and freestanding advertisements. We are told that there are 100 Dublin Bus ads on the way. Some of the ads display an image of a torn ultrasound scan, others display a photo of a woman’s face torn in half, with the slogan “Abortion tears her life apart.”

These billboards are offensive, they do not represent women, and they are incredibly disrespectful of decisions that women have taken, and that all women should have the right to take. The evidence consistently shows that the majority of women who have abortions believe they made the right decision in their individual circumstances.

But tactically, it’s something that’s absolutely necessary for Youth Defence and the pro-life campaign. The vast majority of the public now accept that a woman has a right to choose an abortion where there is a substantial risk to her life; a substantial number of people accept that a woman has a right to choose where there is a risk to her health, including her mental health; and a substantial number of people believe a woman has a right to choose what happens her body regardless of circumstance.

Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that Ireland had an obligation to legislate for abortion in cases where it was already legal, i.e. where there is a risk to the life of a pregnant woman. On the back of this, the Government convened an Expert Group to examine how the ECHR judgment should be implemented.

‘The writing is on the wall’

The writing is on the wall for the anti-choice groups. The argument that a woman, no matter how dire the circumstances, should never be afforded the right to choose has been lost. So a different argument must be used. In order to further their own agenda, the public must be manipulated in to believing the anti-choice and anti-woman rhetoric that abortion destroys women’s lives.

According to the recent Crisis Pregnancy Agency report, Irish Contraception and Crisis Pregnancy Survey, 87 per cent of women with crisis pregnancies who opted for abortion retrospectively assessed this as the ‘right outcome’. The billboards are simply an attempt by anti-abortion groups to impose their own view about that decision. To assert categorically that if a woman has an abortion her life will be “torn apart” is quite simply a lie.

What these billboards demonstrate is the anti-choice brigade’s fundamental inability to recognise that women are people and that women have the right to make decisions over their own bodies, and this includes accessing abortion services, based on her own circumstances. Women’s lives are not torn apart by abortion and these billboards represent those who want to control women’s lives.

If their concern for women was genuine they would not spend the large costs of these billboards on trying to shame women about the choices they have made. Instead, they would channel this money in to campaigning for women to have access to not only contraception, but then this would mean tolerating a world where women are allowed to enjoy non-procreative sex.

If they cared about women, they would invest their energies and resources in to campaigning for women to have the means to provide for their families should they wish to carry their pregnancy to term. But for all their talk of helping women, the anti-choice lobby don’t have too much to say when it comes to how women are affected by budget cuts. Anti-choice activists are absent from any of the conversations that happen regarding the protection of actual children. The only people who have come out publicly against including children’s rights in to the Constitution are the anti-choice lobbyists.

But for them that’s irrelevant, because the point of these billboards is not about what happens to children, it’s about controlling women.

Stephanie Lord is a spokesperson for Choice Ireland and blogs at Feminist Ire, and occasionally Irish Left Review and RH Reality Check.

Column: These billboards simply bring the reality of abortion into focus>

Read next:

Comments (145 Comments)

  • Bryan 22/06/12 #

    Good woman Stephanie, backing up your argument with facts.

  • If the poster read “There is always a choice” rather than “a better answer” It would be more balanced for the woman struggling in the midst of a difficult situation.

    • Great article. The offense and hurt these posters seek to cause to women who made the choice to end their pregnancy is clear. The point about the anti choice lobby opposing childrens rights and not campaign for better conditions for children is damning and reveals their true intent. Control of women and their bodies.

    • Yes, a poster stating that there *are* other options would be much less objectionable. It’s the idea that abortion is always the worst option – when for many women it quite patently isn’t – that riles me. “Thought you were making the right decision? Silly woman! You were wrong!”

  • These anti choice people are just bullies who don’t really care about womens’ welfare. They just want to shove their radical opinions down everyone’s throat. A lady I know has tried for years to get pregnant and was thrilled last January to discover she was due in August. Imagine her agony to be told a few weeks later that her pregnancy was in trouble and the baby in effect would not develop properly and would never survive outside the womb. She got a second and then a third opinion which all confirmed this. So herself and her husband made the heartbreaking decision to travel to UK for a termination. Can u imagine how hurtful these ads are for her. As bad as things were if she could have been treated in an Irish hospital and shown care and respect at home it would have helped a small bit. The last thing she needs is to be stigmatized as a murderer by these people.

    • Alison that sounds so tragic and that they are turned away by their own country at the time of their greatest is need is the greatest tragedy of all! I remember the Late Late had three women on a few months back who had endured the exact same situation! These ads can only serve to ad to or create the stigma that is associated with abortion!

    • Pro-Choice is simply the Politics of the Strong.

      This is why I never let anybody who is ProChoice lecture me on Human Rights. Aside from claims made about Human Rights it is clear from the Universal Declaration that their focus is not one of maximising our choices. Indeed that would be contrary to the very concept since it was the maximisation of choices that lead to some of the worst abuses against the person. Pro Choice is a very liberal argument and it is well-understood in political phsiliosopht – our Right come from the fact that we CAN. It is the argument made by the VICIOUS over the WEAK for hundreds of generations.

      Indeed most of those who are Pro Choice implicitly, although perhaps unknowlingly, advocate the immoral nature of the deed by stating it is a private matter. It is, after all, a principle also well-understood in politics and especially in international law, namely the sovereignty of the state. Until recent years governments have been able to surpress their people assured that there will be no intervention based on two principles; respect for borders and non-interference in internal affairs. The murder of the WEAK has always been a PRIVATE matter when politics has concerned, and quite simply it is no external party’s business.

      When the focus is on the needs of one party over the other it cannot lay claim to Human Rights. Indeed the demands placed upon State to protect the Human Rights of the person specifically require that violations are not permitted. So let those who advocate abortion not do so on the basis that it is a Human Right – it is not – it is merely the same old poltics of RIGHT IS MIGHT – and if it should come that such policies are adopted in this country then let us also consign the project of Human Rights to a bygone time – lest we find ourselves living as hypocrites, proclaim rights in order to deny them.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      Jon, you’re talking rubbish. If you want to get into the human rights debate, then have a think about the legality of forcing a person to use their body in order to facilitate the life of another person – and when there are large risks involved. In no other circumstances is this legal – you’re not even required by law to donate blood even when it means the person needing it will die.

      Women are human beings and deserve to have bodily autonomy in every situation – including pregnancy. And don’t give me the “they’re killing babies” spiel because that’s a matter of opinion. When most abortions happen during the first 7 weeks there won’t be many people out there who agree with you that it is a baby – certainly not science. So in those cases it’s up to the individual to decide what they believe and they’ll act accordingly.

      Also, funnily enough, pro-life people get abortions too. They don’t want to maybe and plenty of them seem to convince themselves that it was a good choice for THEM but it shouldn’t be available to anybody else. In reality, they just needed an abortion. Women need abortions it’s a fact of life and to deny them access IS a human rights violation whatever way you want to cut it.

    • @Jon West
      There is absolutely nothing vicious about being pro-choice. It is in fact, the humane view to take. It’s surprising that you’d come up with that though, when clearly it is a woman who has no say in her reproductive choices who is in the weaker position.
      There is nothing “immoral” about being pro-choice. There is nothing “immoral” about women who have had abortions. If anything is immoral it is the idea that it is perfectly acceptable to shame those women for having had the sheer audacity of making a decision that was right for them according to their circumstances.

    • @ Jon West

      Stick to the salmon mate.

    • I don’t suppose there is anything there that Bashar al-Assasd would have any difficulty with. He’s Pro Choice himself and thinks that people should butt out of what is after-all a “private matter”.

      The analogies are apt to anybody who understand political phiosophy. The relationship between the Body and the State is very clear. Indeed one has historically been synonymous with the other. The Body of the King/Queen/Prince was analogous to that of the State. That is why the overt appearance was all-important.

      There is then considerable hypocrisy, when one truly understand the context, of being opposed to Al-Assad (an interventionist ethos) and yet being Pro-Choice (a matter of “internal affairs”). Think about it.

    • Yeah, where’s your source for that information about Assad?

      Even if it’s true, the “extremist agree with you on something!” argument is ridiculous. Stalin was adamantly pro life, but I’m going to judge you by your own arguement and not his views.

      And I’m not even going to start on your total misunderstanding of “private matter”, a doctrine which has been used to oppress women for years.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      No Jon. Just…no. >_<

    • @ Jon West

      A woman’s womb isn’t a democracy, but states really should be.

      Simple.

    • @Jon:

      You’re essentially using a strange “ad hominem” fallacy and implying that because al-Assad is pro-choice, all others who are pro-choice must espouse the same ideals as he, thus they are all just as “bad” as he is. It is quite telling that you would stoop to such levels in order to frame a convincing argument; as though you like to decorate your arguments with poorly spelled philosophical language, you inevitably portray yourself as a pseudo-intellectual who attempts to hide behind what he may regard as “superior” language skills in order to create the false assumption that you speak from a position of authority.

    • Jon nWhat it comes down to is this. nPro life only care about their own feelings and try to foist them onto others. n

    • @Jon

      Assad is pro life and (at the risk of Godwins) Hitler loved animals. Do you like animals?

    • I just don’t know. I was pro choice before I read Jon West’s rambling…An extremist is pro choice? Wow it must be the devil’s work. Also, using capitals to EMPHASISE your point makes me think you’re some sort of scholar…..well played Jon, well played

    • ROFL!! Jon you are something else.. I hope you are competing in the mental gymnastics arena of the Olympics, that was rather impressive..

  • well done about time. someone lead a fight against the bullies in youth defence as they are single handedly stoping any chance of logical and balanced debate. the pictures they are putting up are offensive unfair and as a group have connections to and are sympathizer neo-nazi? they block sny chance of dealing with the x case which meens ireland on a daily basis are fined millions by the EU on human rights grounds and ireland just pay it instead of dealing with it. i am sure that money could be put to a better use like funding the healthcare system.

  • Well put Lisa. My point exactly. By the way Bryan, I am in full agreement with the principle “my body my right” but it is the offensiveness of the poster being discussed here and while we may disagree with the “other side”, freedom of expression must prevail. This poster is offensive and badly worded.

    • what about the babies body and the babies rites?? i don’t think these posters are aimed at those who have already had an abortion they are to help prevent abortion, if a woman made the choice to terminate her child and then feels guilty after seeing the posters don’t you think she would have been better off seeing it before the fact???

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      No, Sinead. And it doesn’t matter who these posters are aimed at, they’re in everybody’s face so they’re clearly aimed at everybody – including women who’ve had abortions. It’s not going to change a damn thing – women are going to have abortions either way except that now, thanks to this campaign, they are going to be made to feel even worse.

    • Not if it guilts her into a decision which isn’t right for her and will make her unhappy. Pro choice means letting women come to their own decision for their own reasons.

  • Sad really,in such a case, we have to export our problems,then once its all done,board flight/boat home. Pro life groups in such a case say have the baby, then try comfort baby before it dies. Is that not inhumane? Does the baby not suffer anyways?

    • Life is suffering. Deal with it.

      There is no suffering for the dead. So is death the solution to suffering? Can killing people be considered an act of kindness? Have we misjudged dictators? Were they merely kind people putting everybody out of their suffering?

    • Is a fetus a sentient lifeform capable of understanding you for example Jon? Capable of depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts? No. But a pregnant women is and you want to torture one independent, viable human so that another bundle of cells with only the potential for life can live for a few moments. You make me sick.

    • Have you noticed, Martin, that in his discussion of murder, Jon never mentions women. At all.

    • But a woman is just a vessel for procreation. A carrier of the unborn child for 9 months. I didn’t even realise they were considered human….UNBBORN BABIES blah blah MURDERERS blah blah WORSE THAN STALIN.

      Ugh.

    • Yes, some of us never got the memo about women just being incubators. Silly us.

    • @ Martin. As soon as you go to sleep you’re an unconscious bundle of cells, so I presume you won’t be complaining if someone offs you in your sleep?

      As for babies that won’t be viable outside of the womb, certainly the only compassionate course is to allow the parents choose how to proceed.

    • @ Andrew

      As for babies that won’t be viable outside of the womb, certainly the only compassionate course is to allow the parents choose how to proceed

      How benevolent of you, Andrew!

    • He also ignores the key distinction between an asleep Martin and a foetus. Martin doesn’t have to receive blood transfusions/nutrients/a place to sleep from an unwilling woman.

      (I assume, Martin!) ;-)

  • Good point, but what about the circumstances.you’ve just been told that the baby will not survive outside the womb, so you would agree with carrying the baby for 9months, then watch your baby struggle for air and essentially die?? would you be for this?

  • I’ve always believed in the right to choose. That also includes the right to choose to go through with the pregnancy. The likes of Youth Defence don’t give a toss about the welfare of women, pregnant or otherwise. They certainly don’t give a toss about the welfare of children. If they did, they wouldn’t be spending thousands on an utterly offensive ad campaign. They’d be channelling it into supporting women in difficulty during their pregnancy, on helping women with their newborns. A group like Youth Defence has the potential to be a force for real good by offering help and support, but instead they simply promote hate and stigmatising of women.

    How anyone can support a group that out and out hates women is beyond me.

  • Well said Stephanie, these bill boards are a disgrace and are just an attack on women

  • Bryan 22/06/12 #

    Are you for real? My body my rights. Simple.

  • Might be of interest to someone from the journal to investigate how these poster are funded. In an objective manner of course ;)

  • M Dunne 22/06/12 #

    This entire campaign only serve to prolong the situation where abortion in any circumstances is seen as shameful, thus fuelling the circular logic that women are thereby shamed to have done it because of the artificially exaggerated media and social frenzy.

    A hypothetical question for the anti-choice lobby: If Abortion was left within the private domain and there was no stigma attached to it, do you think perhaps that women who made that choice might be much less psychologically affected by it? Or is that too radical a notion to consider?

  • Excellent article. The battleground is forming and only pressure from below, mass popular demonstrations and the like, well help defeat this Youth Defence lot. Seriously, how the hell are they able to afford this? Are the Vatican paying for this?

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      Yes, I think we have to start speaking out on a massive scale to fight back because as far as I can see, they’re trying to drown out everybody else’s voices.

    • We can’t compete with that sort of money but there are numerous groups active on this issue, Action on X, Choice Ireland, etc,. I’d encourage anyone who is interested in the issue to contact one of those groups. This whole issue just makes me so angry and so sad too, they just don’t care do they? :(

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      I’ve kind of been wandering around in a daze, trying to figure out who in their right mind would want to spend so much time, money and effort on this crazy anti-woman campaign. I mean…life is too short to be so horrible all the time. They’re really creepy.

    • But you have to see it as a battle for ideology. Look at what’s happening in the US at the moment, a huge battle is taking place to destroy 30 or 40 years of liberal reforms. And closer to home the Catholic Church knows that it is dying and it’s kicking out, trying to exert influence over groups like Youth Defence, the Life Institute, groups that support it’s code of morals. It knows the Church can’t preach any more to normal people so it does it by proxy.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      Yeah, seeing the bigger picture, you’re right. Makes it even more terrifying really!

  • Eleen 22/06/12 #

    “One nurse I knew worked on such a procedure and the baby took 20 minutes to die on a table.” cool story, bro.

    Seriously you are a woman-hating bigot. “Get their uterus in a twist” “vent your outrage at these posters while you have your tea and cake” ???

    How dare you.

  • Hear Hear!! Fantastic article Stephanie.. these ads make me feel incensed whenever I see them… and part of me wonders if there is any public funding behind them. They are offensive to Women, and represent a barrier to Human Rights

  • Brilliant article Stephanie. I really enjoyed reading this well researched piece. Keep up the great work!

  • Very well said Stephanie, those ads are so offensive and misleading.

  • People should be allowed to choose… For the right reason only though!

  • When there is a referendum again on this issue all the old dears will go out and vote against while the young generations are on social media sites like this wondering what happened.

  • I assume all those posting on here that are pro-life would also be pro-enforced organ donation. I mean there are thousand of people dying right now that need organs. Why is there a moral obligation for a womb to give up her right to use her womb as and when she sees fit but for other organs we don’t apply that “logic”?

    Also, although we all have a right to debate this, and I am a guy myself, that fact is that if you have less than 1 womb this isn’t a decision that should be made by you anyway.

    • Enforced organ donation is only comparable if;

      1. The actions of the donor are the reason the donee exists in the first place
      2. There is no-one else who could act as a donor
      3. The donor will get their organ back afterwards

      I know of no such circumstance

  • And the majority of them are just like miscarriages. I’m not sure if you’ve ever had one, but I cannot reconcile the remains of it with the “cracking of a baby’s head.”

    Abortion wrecks lives of a small minority of women. Put that on the billboard.

  • Mahouts every woman not have a scan to insure a healthy baby is in the womb? I am sure women would want to know that their child would not be born to suffer in life? I feel that to have a child who will be sick and infirm possibly disabled and unable to communicate is irresponsible and very unfair to the child.

  • I posted on the other column so for balance I’ll post here as well. While people may find these posters offensive, the pro-life lobby have every right to express their views even though they may be repugnant and distressing to people. I asked the question on the other column,

    ” would Niamh and the Life Institute support a pro-abortion poster campaign’s right to their free speech or would they put in objections to it to the ASA? Would they also allow pro-abortionists to disseminate their material without pickets or harassment?”

    Both sides find each others views offensive and distressing but I believe that both sides should be allowed to do so without harassment or intimidation.

    • This is not a subject that should be advertised like a dress or a car or cornflakes. This for the individual that has to make a very important decision for herself with or without the help of family and friends.

      It should be a discreet and meaningful service run by people who understand the trauma and difficulty that the individual whose body and mental well being is on the line.

      Pro life want to help go feed the children round the world that have no food or medical support. & as for the church you certainly do not have the right to have an opinion here as you have done nothing from the top down that is meaningful to address the abuse your people have heaped on those unable to stand up to you.

    • You’re completely missing the point, which is that these ads are factually incorrect, thus constituting false advertising. The ASAI should be dealing with them but aren’t.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      They’re false advertising firstly and they are distressing – not just to people who are pro choice – but to everyone. Imagine how people will feel if they’ve been through an abortion and they have to see these every day? They’re on every dart stop, they’re going to be on the buses. It will most definitely distress people.

      We’re having this debate already there was no need to come out with this ridiculous campaign. They’re just flexing their muscles and effectively trying to shut out the pro-choice campaign with their amazing funds. I don’t know where the money comes from but I highly doubt any pro-choice group would waste it all on bullying tactics like this.

      Complaining about the billboards is not harassment or intimidation – it’s a right.

    • The ASAI have said they cant make a ruling on the billboards, as they’re a self-regluatory body and the billboards are not intended to be commercial. I don’t support the pro-life, but thats what the ASAI are saying.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      I know, they’re not helping and it seems there’s nowhere to go to complain about them, but we’re doing our best and complaining anyway!

    • Right Brian, has to be done and goes dangerously close to Godwin’s Law. Say a group of far-right activists sprung up here and done some fundraising and started a poster campaign saying, “Blame the immigrants for our economic troubles”. Not only is it offensive and racist, it would be factual incorrect. That is what the point of this article is, they are not offering an alternative with these posters but stating a fact that is untrue in an attempt to shame and torture women who have had abortions.

      I know a few people who have gone down that road and while I haven’t discussed these posters with them I can only imagine the feelings of disgust and self-loathing they must invoke.

    • People are offended by these posters because the truth hurts!

    • What about the hurt to a woman who has had an abortion? Do you care about that fully grown human at all Robbie? Or do you sit in moral judgement?

    • No, people are offended because it’s lying and because it’s insensitive.

    • I’m trying to answer everybody in one go because I am caught for time and I’ve also posted on the other column which should have addressed some of the points here. If the pro-choice lobby stopped for a moment, took a deep breath and thought about it they could also use the same wording against the pro-life lobby. Look at the options that the pro-life lobby put forward and tell me if there is a better answer to them. Ask them what the better answers are and then challenge their answers don’t just try to silence them. By trying to suppress someone’s opinion you only encourage others to ask what was being said in the first place. I know that it is an emotive issue but the pro-life campaign wanted to stir up a hornets nest and that’s what they have succeed in doing.

      On the point of the insensitivity towards woman who have had abortions I agree it must be hurtful, as hurtful as being encouraged to give a child up for adoption or put into care. Why doesn’t the pro-choice lobby respond with a media campaign of their own rather than trying to silence the other side? I for one would certainly support it if the pro-life lobby tried to stop it in what ever form it took if they found it offensive.

    • Do you not understand that a lot of people on both sides feel a billboard campaign (which reduces the issue to a sentence) is insensitive for both sides to do?

    • Nick I agree that billboards on a topic like this are insensitive, the thing is how else does either side get their point across? A letter to the Irish times, a full page ad in the Indo? It is a harsh reality that, to gain peoples attention nowadays, your message has to be short, and to the point. In an ideal world everyone would sit down and discuss and debate the issues of they day but I’m afraid that we don’t live in an ideal world.

    • I would recommend by actually speaking to people you know. It’s a bit creepy for people to intrude in something like this, that’s so personal, with strangers.

  • I’d really, REALLY love to know how WOMEN, the ones affected here, are armchair commentators, while you and your ridiculous, offensive, totally unfounded and unprovable anecdotal stories are valid input on this issue.

  • Is there a reason my comment was deleted? I would like to know why.

  • First of all well done to the Journal for putting two counter point articles on this topic even if some jumped the gun on the other article and posted about it being one side without checking that this one was here. Both viewpoints well put. the only critcism I would have of this article Stephanie is that towards the end it wandered off into other areas that occured in the News this week. For all the heat being generated by this current debate to me the body examining this at the moment has only a few options which are (1) recommend that a new referendum be held (2) Legislate for what is there. Both approaches have inherent difficulties. If its a referendum then what is the question going to be? If its legislation I can see real difficulties in trying to define what constitutes a real and substantive treat to the life of the mother as this is currently the only grounds available as set out by the Supreme Court and I would venture that what is considered a treat now may due to medical advances not be considered a treat in 5 years time. that committee is earning its keep at present!

  • Well said Alanna.

  • a fine list of emotions:
    very well-funded
    anti-choice lobby
    harrowing
    hysteria
    the murder
    sustained attack
    shame and stigma
    anti-choice
    tears her life apart
    offensive,
    incredibly disrespectful
    evidence consistently
    shows that the majority of women
    vast majority
    mental health
    obligation to legislate for abortion
    the public must be manipulated in
    anti-woman rhetoric
    impose their own view
    fundamental inability
    If their concern for women was genuine
    If they cared about women

    Now I am not saying I disagree with every instance of these phrases, but given their preponderance, it’s no wonder the debate goes downhill all the time. It’s impossible to be coolheaded in this atmosphere.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      It’s true, but when it comes to Youth Defence there’s no other way to say it, really. She really is just stating facts here, even if there’s an anger behind it.

    • @John Moriarty

      The “tears her life apart” is an anti-choice slogan, not mine.
      The terms that you include that are mine are really just stating the obvious.

    • I dont see whats not anti woman and anti choice about not allowing women to make a choice and telling them how wrong they are no matter what the circumstance. I recognise your point but if you are wasting your time trying to convince members of Youth Defence then their is no help for you. The majority are coming more and more round to the fact that women should have a choice because they need it and they should be distrusted and treated like people who need to be protected form themselves.

  • they are just expressing their view on abortion same as pro choice can, so I don’t see it as offensive

    • Expressing their views on abortion is having a chat in the pub about why it bothers them. Lying to a woman that the only reaction they could possibly have to an abortion will be a broken heart and ruined life is offensive to objective facts.

      The billboard bit is just tone deaf.

  • AlMar 22/06/12 #

    The argument against abortion is far from being lost. On the contrary, in the most recently published Irish opinion poll, conducted by Millward Brown Lansdowne, 80% of people supported the current medical practice whereby women receive all necessary medical treatment in pregnancy, while maintaining the current practical legal restrictions on abortion.

    • I’d be interested to see an age breakdown. Was the question support for abortion itself or legalisation? Actually, do you have a link?

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      Yeah because last study I read, it was around 70% of doctors in Ireland who supported abortion – in certain circumstances.

      I don’t believe you for a second, AlMar.

    • @Almar

      Firstly, women do not receive all “necessary medical treatment in pregnancy.” During the hearings in the European Court of Human Rights on the ABC case, the Attorney General was asked the number of times when women had terminations performed on them where there was a risk to the life of the pregnant woman. The then AG didn’t know. It is well documented that women in those scenarios are forced to travel (see reports from Human Rights Watch on that subject).

      Regarding the 80% Millward Brown figure, that is a misrepresentation of the survey. That poll asked 984 adults, “Are you in favour or opposed to constitutional protection for the unborn that prohibits abortion but allows the continuation of the existing practice of intervention to save a mother’s life, in accordance with Irish medical ethics?”
      There was no other option, it was a straight ‘yes’ or ‘know’. If I was asked, of course I’d say yes. To try and interpret this as going against other research such is completely disingenuous.

  • @Chloe,wheither you like it or not,my opinion is as valid as yours.
    You cannot tell me that the feminist movement isnt a part of the pro-abortion camp, or deny me my right to call it out.
    That doesnt make me anti-woman either.
    If I impregnate a woman and am held responsible(rightly)for that action,then a woman has no right to deny me that because she simply feels like it.
    For me,either of the parents rights are secondary to the rights of the child.
    My love for my own children didnt start when they were born.

    • “For me,either of the parents rights are secondary to the rights of the child.”

      As a guy that must have been a really tough decision for you to come to. I’m so proud of you.

  • from the other article:

    ABORTION CAMPAIGNERS
    in a tizzy
    orchestrating complaints
    So far, so predictable
    self-styled liberals and left-wing activists
    many other women who feel the same
    usually dismissed
    Medieval solution
    to abortion on demand

  • Abortion is murder-please stop with the nonsensical feminist claptrap about a woman’s body.It is a child and it deserves the human right to have its life protected.It is also absurd to suggest because I value life I am a bully-what does it make someone who doesnt value life?

    • How long were you pregnant for Robbie?

    • No one is saying you’re a bully because you’re pro life. We’re saying Youth Defence is a bully because they need to broadcast it on a billboard.

    • Shall we arrest the several thousand women who go abroad to have one? Shall we charge women who have miscarriages with manslaughter?

      How about we demonise every man who has a wank because by disposing of his sperm, he’s destroying a potential life. How many potential babies have you denied life to by your actions?

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      “nonsensical feminist claptrap about a woman’s body” …it’s not claptrap. You get pregnant and see how you like people making decisions for you. Oh wait…

    • @Robbie, you claim not to hate women, yet your comment “non sensical feminist claptrap about a woman’s body” says otherwise. If the best argument you have involves making derogatory comments aimed at women then maybe you just shouldn’t bother- this is an issue that primarily affects women, you may think otherwise but as youve proven yourself, your opinion isn’t particularly helpful to the discussion.

    • hi Robbie, we’ve never met. me having an abortion affects you how, exactly…?

  • do you even know what organ donation is??
    and the most important question can you read??

  • sorry but if the government were going into orphanages and putting down children because no one wanted them, similar to a dog pound there would be war over the genocide!! no matter what way you look at it, murder is murder, when is it ok to kill someone? just because they have not been born yet doesn’t make them any less human, there are even abortion doctors pushing to allow “post delivery termination” they already allow termination up to the day before the due date in America!! its killing and it’s not rite any way you try to sugar coat it, there are very few cases where abortion is arguable on medical grounds and that’s another side that is not on the same par as making a choice if you want to kill a child or not, as Ronald Regan said, i notice all those in favour of abortion have already been born!

    • How is this relevant to the issue of misleading advertising?

    • ” there are even abortion doctors pushing to allow “post delivery termination” ”

      Um, no. No there are not. Stop being daft.

    • Lisa. You might read this:
      Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

    • Paddy, that’s an ethics journal article. A “what if”, exploring the ethical/philosophical consequences of a fairly extreme hypothetical proposal. Not a proposal by doctors of something they actually want to do.

    • Hi Sinead,

      Abortion is a very personal issue, but it is about respecting, trusting and allowing women to decide what is best for them in their personal circumstances. A foetus should not be afforded rights above that of a pregnant woman. Abortion is not murder.
      However, I’d be interested to know if you believe that abortion is murder, do you also believe that the thousands of Irish women who have had abortions should stand trial.

      Also, there are no doctors pushing for “post delivery termination.” There really aren’t.

    • It is, nonetheless, a proposal, and one step on from partial birth abortion which has been practised in the United States for many years.

    • Partial birth abortions are incredibly rare and only used in desperate situations regarding the mother’s life.

      Ethicists don’t make legal proposals, they explore the what ifs. I’ve yet to see a single person on this page advocating this, so maybe cool it with the strawman.

    • Ronald Reagan was a mass murderer. Google Nicaragua. What was your point again? Is wanking murder?

    • More self righteous ranting from the journal

      Ms Lord, please refrain from use of the term anti choice as no one is stopping anyone from using contraception.

      How about I call your side pro murder.

      Surely it is reasonable to say that no one has the choice to kill another living human being with exceptional reasons

    • Yeah, sure, but you know what I do have the right to do? Deny anyone the use of my organs, including my blood/womb. I don’t have to give my kidney to someone who will die without it and I don’t have to offer up my womb to someone who will die without it.

      I think we can all agree on that.

    • ” but you know what I do have the right to do? Deny anyone the use of my organs, including my blood/womb. I don’t have to give my kidney to someone who will die without it and I don’t have to offer up my womb to someone who will die without it.”

      Surely the vast majority of people who consent to sexual intercourse know its excluisve biological function and should act responsibly in accordance with this knowledge. To compare organ donation to pregnancy is both intellectually lazy and stupid

    • “Surely the vast majority of people who consent to sexual intercourse know its excluisve biological function and should act responsibly in accordance with this knowledge. To compare organ donation to pregnancy is both intellectually lazy and stupid”

      Ah, right. Another one of these who has never had sex as part of a loving relationship. No, actually, to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy as a “punishment” for having sex is both intellectually lazy and stupid.

    • Yeah thats it get personal
      You seem like alovely chap
      please look up the meaning of punishment and consequence and note they are not the same

    • I think being forced to carry another human being made out of food and sex against your will for 9 months sounds a lot like a punishment.

      And I can assure you, I’m not a lovely chap. :-) (I don’t think you’ll get the joke, but others may)

    • thanks for the in joke
      Guess only the cool kids are pro choice

    • If by cool, you mean those who admit that unwanted pregnancies happen, we’re not ones to judge and no human being should be forced to carry any others against their will, then I guess so.

      But on the other hand, you have Youth Defence. Win?

    • yes unwanted pregnancies happen
      but if both mother and child are healthy and the sex was consensual
      then it is unacceptable to kill another human being due to bad luck

    • Bryan 22/06/12 #

      Sex is an animalistic act.nnIt can result in pregnancy among if between male and female when things align but that isn’t the only reason for sex, religion has blinded people. nnSex is fun go have some!

    • thanks for the advice Bryan .. I never thought of having sex as I am not a human male

      Maybe instead of being obsessed by religion you should look into evolutionary biology and psychology

    • Sinead, firstly the aricle is about the advertisements. Secondly, quoting Ronald Regan and saying you are “anti-murder” is like quoting Mark David Chapman about the advantages of John Lennon living to a ripe old age… You are obviously living a sheltered existance because there are really horrible circumstances in which women can become pregnant, rape etc. Denying a person that “rite” as you put it, to choose, just seems stupid to me. Get off your moral high horse and let people live how they choose to live.

    • Bryan 22/06/12 #

      You should try it Sean it’s good for the brain, it releases endorphins. I’m not the one obsessed with religion.

  • Bryan 22/06/12 #

    Minister Rabbittes department DCENR says its for the department of health.

  • This is the worst piece of writing I have ever come across.
    well done Journal.ie well done

    • You must have missed the blatant manipulation of statistics on the next page.

    • I can understand why people are upset with this ad
      But this article is full of so much hyperbole it creates more enemies than friends

    • “This is the worst piece of writing I have ever come across.”

      You criticise hyperbole and just before you said the above. Do you know what the word even means?

    • ”Is a fetus a sentient lifeform capable of understanding you for example Jon? Capable of depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts? No. But a pregnant women is and you want to torture one independent, viable human so that another bundle of cells with only the potential for life can live for a few moments. You make me sick.”

      criticism coming from the person who wrote the above.. I dont engage with angry imbecile
      Thank you

  • this whole webshite is a piece of shit. it’s so called ‘journalists’ are all over twitter spreading sectarian hatred against catholics. it’s not worth looking at. A bunch of SAD, SECTARIAN, Abortion-supporting Bigots who try to paint youth defence as the right wingers. Hitler was right wing and he loved to kill thousands of defenceless people too. SAD people who think a thumbs up means anything.

    • @Fleming,having a child living in your womb is not the same as being an organ donor-it’s a stupid analogy.
      It should be a parents first role to protect its child.
      Some of the wording on here de-humanizes unborn children.Disgusting stuff.

    • Stalin was pro life. The dumbest argument ever is to take extremist and to hold people who share some views responsible for them.

      No one hates Youth Defence because they’re Catholic. People dislike them because they’re trying to bully women and preach hate against gay people.

    • Ok, Robbie, how is it different from donating organs? As you said, it’s using your womb.

    • All it says in that article is there’s a conflict between the rights of the actual person and potential. I agree (Youth Defence does not). I just know which one wins.

      And in organ donation, it’s a conflict between two actual people. Same person still wins. That article makes my point more than yours!

    • You’re very fond of telling us all about your rights, Nick, and the way the article and comments here are framed with regard to rights is telling. Press ‘Ctrl + F’ and see how often the word “right” appears on this page.

      Now do the same thing with “responsibility”

      I remember when they went hand-in-hand

    • Er, @Eamon Reilly Art – that’s a pretty broad stroke of defamatory hatred you just daubed across every member of staff here at TheJournal.ie. Please cease and desist.
      Susan Daly, Editor, TheJournal.ie

  • There is cold comfort in knowing the Catholic Church and YD agrees with an opinion solely based on secular considerations, i.e. ordinary human decency which BTW does not always enlighten actual moral decisions.
    By any sensible definition of words, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend here.
    Likewise the “friend” of your enemy is not your enemy. I speak only for myself.

  • I bet you were all just outraged to bits by the intentionally offensive and disrespectful American Atheists billboards in Brooklyn a few weeks ago