TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 15 °C Saturday 25 May, 2013

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

The message may not be easy to take – but censorship is not the answer, writes Niamh Ui Bhriain of the Life Institute.

Niamh Ui Bhriain

ABORTION CAMPAIGNERS ARE currently in a tizzy about a new pro-life awareness campaign produced by Youth Defence and the Life Institute. They’re orchestrating complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority and issuing press statements describing pro-life billboards as “offensive”.

So far, so predictable; though it’s always ironic to see just how intolerant of free speech these self-styled liberals and left-wing activists are.

Abortion advocates don’t like the campaign because it does something that is usually avoided in most public discussions on this issue: it brings the reality of abortion into focus.

The campaign simply says that abortion tears lives apart, and uses torn photographs for emphasis. The adverts were inspired by a woman who said that after her abortion, she felt as if her life, as well as that of her unborn child, was torn apart.

There are many other women who feel the same. One woman wrote on our website this week that she had an abortion last year, and that she has deeply regretted it ever since. She said: “I made a mistake of turning to the wrong people for advice in a time of need. Although it pains me to see these posters (I passed by nearly 4 on Saturday) I am glad they are there and hope they may help even one person to re-consider and not go through with it.”

We’ve had scores of similar emails and messages since the Better Answer campaign began. The trauma they detail is usually dismissed by abortion campaigners. Instead, they claim that our awareness campaign is offensive, and wish to have it censored.

But while a message may offend abortion supporters, that is not to say that the message is, in itself, offensive. Crucially, our experience during the campaign this far is that the public is supportive of the campaign, which was designed, produced and organised by volunteers.

‘Medieval solution’

We contend that there is always a better answer than abortion – and we should work to terminate the crisis and not the child.

In fact, Ireland’s experience has shown that our pro-life ethos has best served both our mothers and babies. The United Nations rates us as the safest place in the world for a mother to have a baby, and our top experts say that they can care for mother and baby without recourse to abortion.

As Professor John Bonner, the Chairman of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told a Dáil committee: “It would never cross an obstetrician’s mind that intervening in a case of pre-eclampsia, cancer of the cervix or ectopic pregnancy is abortion. They are not abortion as far as the professional is concerned, these are medical treatments that are essential to save the life of the mother.”

Recently, a collection of research studies published in a special edition of The Lancet medical journal found that women who developed cancer when pregnant did not need to abort their baby, delay their own treatment, or give birth prematurely.
 Commenting on the findings, researcher at the French Institute Gustave Roussy wrote that recommendations to abort would be an “unacceptable error”.

So we know that abortion is not medically necessary: and we also know that Irish abortion rates have now fallen by more than 30 per cent because of increased information and better support for women in crisis.

It would be entirely contraindicative then for Ireland to resort to the medieval solution of abortion. The government is currently awaiting the recommendations of an ‘expert committee’ which will look at the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the ABC case. This campaign reminds Fine Gael of the public committment they made during Election 2011 to uphold Ireland’s ban on abortion.

It’s worth noting that the Labour Party’s preferred alternative is to introduce the British model of abortion provision: which has led to abortion on demand, provided through all nine months of pregnancy if the baby has a disability, and leading to the abortion of more than 90 per cent of unborn children with Down Syndrome. This is not a humane response to crisis pregnancy.

There’s always a better answer than abortion. That’s the message of this campaign. It’s a message that will not be censored.

Niamh Ui Bhriain is a spokesperson for the Life Institute.

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

About the author:

Read next:

Comments (218 Comments)

  • Since abortion on demand is illegal in this country I don’t see the point in campaigning against abortion. If you want to stop abortion go to those countries where it’s legal and throw up posters there.

  • I find it incredible that you can’t even put your point across in defense of your views without condescending to and judging a large part of your audience.

    This may shock you, but those of us who are disgusted by your blatant lying and inhumane treatment of women are not bloodthirsty ‘pro abortionist’ far left troublemakers.

    This is not a black and white issue, you have no idea the personal situation of the women who have to make that trip to the UK. And you have absolutely no right whatsoever to demonize them for decisions they take.

    The only thing ‘medieval’ about this situation is the way in which this campaign is being conducted like the Salem witch trials.

    This may also have escaped your mind, but abortion is already illegal in Ireland. You have what you want. Why would you want to inflict pain and shame on people using guilt and judgementalism as a weapon?

    Finally, if you’re really that concerned about the wellbeing of children, there are hundreds if not thousands across this country that are in care, living in broken homes, being abused. Why not use some of the hundreds of thousands which it cost to run a hateful billboard campaign to make a dfifference in their lives? Better yet, why not adopt one in give it the life it deserves? Thought not, because your heartfelt concern for children seems to end at the womb.

    Hypocrite.

  • Paul 22/06/12 #

    Can you provide some researched evidence of the adverts claim, apart from someone writing on your website as if they’re doing that, they obviously share your opinion. Simply stating its true because you believe it doesn’t make it so. You can’t possibly know everybody’s circumstances and the outcome after their individual choice.

  • Getting pregnant by a rapist tears life’s apart!

    • How is the child’s fault? Isn’t that a very moral and judgemental position? And surely is hardly one then that children who are born of rapists are free of if such a stigma exists?

    • Abortion isn’t about blame. It’s about a woman deciding what she will and will not carry in her body. But easy to ignore if you’ll never get pregnant.

    • A decision of what and what you do not carry in your body has no intersection with the quality of that being. It is no qat means that a person is not a person just because of such a decision.

    • I am fine with you thinking it’s a person, just don’t legislate that I have to donate my blood, womb and nutrients to this person without my consent.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      Exactly, it’s not about what’s inside a woman’s body that matters – it’s that the woman has a right over her body and therefore gets the final say in what happens to it. Pretty simple, really.

    • Of course. Time can to some degree be a healer in relation to rape but post abortion syndrome is not so easily overcome. I have personally spoken with rape victims some who opted to abort, others who chose adoption.

    • And I have known women who had children by their own fathers and found it incredibly painful.

      While I don’t doubt that a small minority of women feel hurt after their abortion, it’s obviously nowhere near the majority feeling.

  • “irelands experience in dealing with pro life ”
    wasn’t that when unmarried mothers were shipped off in secrecy,due to the stigma, embarassment brought on families when the pro life church ruled !
    if my child was raped/abused and became pregnant, I would support her to have an abortion

    • Exactly! Yesterday we shipped them off. Today we want to murder them! That’s progress?

      I spent my youth campaigning for the mentally handicapped and how we ought to be tolerant towards those with disabilities. We sought to have people moved out of institutions into society and embraced on equal terms as beings of equal worth.

      I spent some time abroad and it seems that they have taken an altogether different approach. They exterminate them like they are some form of vermin before they are ever born. Even the approach in the past was never this judgemental, it never said that you were not worthy of life. Now Downs Syndrome kids need not be respected, embraced as equals and loved … they just need to be found and eliminated, in the name of a compassionate society. And socieites have been very effective at it. In one place where I lived for some years I never once encountered a Downs Syndrome child. Is this what we call tolerance? Making everything the same as us and repecting only those who are the same. And we call it “progress”.

    • Fair play Jon. Comment of the week.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      Jon, whatever the moral issues with abortion in this instance, it doesn’t cancel out the fact that women will need them in general.

      It’s kind of like the debate about sex-elective abortions. As if banning abortions will change the fact that girls are unwanted. It won’t, and banning abortions won’t change the way we think about or deal with disability in this country. There are plenty factors involved here also – since the state gives parents of disabled children next to nothing in terms of support or help – what will the woman do if she finds out she’s pregnant with a disabled child and she knows she has no time, money or resources to look after it? It’s just a quick example to show it’s not that simple.

      Denying a woman the right to choose her own fate won’t help anyone.

    • Fair play, Eleen. Comment of the week. ;-)

    • I disagree eleen, i dont think women need abortions in general!

      Women dont NEED to have an abortion unless they are going to die.

      They want one because they dont want to have a hard life, they are taking the easy way out, a get out of jail free card… If your child was born healthy and it was in an accident and was disabled would that mean you would have every right to kill it? NO.

      There is help out there, the early intervention services are great, there is a careers alowance and respite grants also make a wish foundation and other foundations help aswell. Children with disabilitys can bring so much joy into their parents life, and with each milestone they reach it gets easier.

      Just because a unborn baby has down syndrome doesnt mean it should be killed or terminated, the life expectancy of a person with down syndrome can be as high as 60 years old that 40 more years than someone with CF.

    • Karla, if you’re honest about wanting women to go through with pregnancies of children with disabilities, at least be respectful enough not to minimise the financial and emotional burden of long term caring. There is some help out there, but not nearly enough that it is not a real challenge. For a lot of people, the challenge is worth it. You do them a disservice by blindly batting away all recognition of that.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      Our society needs to step up its game in terms of how we deal with disabilities.

      This has nothing to do with women having access to abortion. I think you saying that women who need or want abortion access are “taking the easy way out” is extremely judgmental and mean. And as Nick says, the help that’s out there isn’t enough. It really isn’t and not everybody is equipped to deal with the situation – for many reasons.

    • Firstly I like your name, you old fecker. Secondly my grandfather’s sister wasn’t shipped away or hidden when she became pregnant not everybody bowed to pressure. If my daughter was raped I would see red in the fact that violent rapists are only imprisoned for 6 yrs. Rape victims who opt for abortion also suffer from post abortion syndrome, I have met them.

    • Some rape survivors, Marian. Survivors, if you will.

  • I’m neither for nor against abortion myself but I am against the censorship of free speech and would support Niamh and the Life Institute in their right to put their point across.

    My question is 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? After all what is sauce for the goose…..

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      They spend a lot of time trying to silence the Pro-Choice campaign in every way possible.

    • It is not free speech, it is paid advertising albeit opinion based. Confusing free speech with a media campaign is a dangerous precedent.

    • @Brian Ward,

      This isn’t so much a question of free speech but rather a question of whether it’s correct that anti-choice activists should be allowed to place ads wherever they like based on lies, shame, and stigma, without anyone as much as batting an eyelid.

    • Yes nick the people who do care for children with disabilitys are strong, and some need support from an outside source, i didnt want to say that women who abort a disabled fetus are weak, and selfish. The parents of disabled children are far from weak and far from selfish, they are insperational. They are real people who do fantastic work, who rarely complain and are often in need of a break but rarely take one. They spend there time between hospitals and therapy centres are are truly their kids heros.

    • They do a lot. I can only imagine how horrible it would be to force someone to do it against their will.

    • Eleen, on your point about the silencing of the pro-choice campaign. This is why I asked the question ” Would they also allow pro-abortionists to disseminate their material without pickets or harassment?” considering past history I was begging the question as to whether some elements of the pro-life campaign would stop picketing information clinics, putting up anonymous posters and allow pro-choice campaigners to voice their opinion.

      Ciarain, the same argument could be used if the pro-choice carried out a media campaign based on their opinions.A pro-lifer could easily say that any media campaign in what ever form advocating abortion was offensive to their beliefs. That is why I asked the questions that I did and made reference to what is sauce for the goose.

      Stephanie, without getting into the rights or wrongs of abortion the pro-life posters have succeed in their intent and that is to stir up emotions. Rather than approach the campaign rationally the pro-choice lobby have gone berserk and seem to have lost all reason. I know that you say in your piece that 87% of women felt that they had made the right choice in having an abortion but when you accuse the pro-life crowd of lying about abortion tearing her life apart all they have to do is refer to the other 13%. There are a lot of other points that the pro-life people could be called to account on but I’d prefer to keep my own counsel on those. Like I say I have no affinity to either side here and if the roles were reversed I would defend your right to ” also allow pro-abortionists to disseminate their material without pickets or harassment? “

    • My mother was forced to have an abortion at 19, her mother and eldest sister made her. That was 42 years ago.

      It works both ways!

      Are you saying that if a child in an accident and was disabled that the parents should walk away or kill it because they didnt choose that life? they shouldnt be forced to live that life, its not what they had planned!

    • Brian, I feel it’s inappropriate for anyone to try to minimise this debate into pithy slogans, on either side, as do a lot of people on both sides of this issue.

      And yes,Karla, parents can turn children over to care for any reason. Not sure how many would, but the legal option is available. Are you planning to campaign against that?

      And I’m sorry for your mother’s pain, that’s horrible. It’s a pain that’s shared by Irish women today, who are unable to make the decision which is best for them. I would think these women are your natural allies, rather than groups like Youth Defence which seek to force women to continue with a pregnancy against their will.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      In fairness, that has nothing to do with the debate. Women having control over their own bodies and the choice to do what they see fit.

    • So Eleen if you saw a pregnant woman smoking or drinking or taking drugs it wouldnt have any impact on you whatsoever? as they can choose what to do with their body!

      And for anyone else who agrees with Eleens statment about its a womans body and a womans choice, how do you feel about pregnant women smoking/drinking/taking drugs. Is it still the womans body the womans choice?

    • Karla, I can disapprove of a pregnant woman smoking, but I don’t think it should be made illegal.

    • Spot on, Lisa.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      Of course they can choose what to do with their body. I wouldn’t like it and I would probably tell her so if she asked my opinion. But I’d rather that this kind of thing happens in a few cases than making it a law that pregnant women have to be forced to do what others tell them to do.

    • Lisa, nick and Eleen you disapprove of a pregnant woman smoking but approve of the killing the unborn baby, and eleen you would also tell a pregnant woman that she should not be smoking, why?

      Because its bad for baby? is not killing the baby bad for baby? why all of a sudden does the babys welfare concern you, if she told you she was aborting it then that would be fine? but smoking is a no no??

      *from your own personal view points regardless if its legal or not….

    • You do know smoking is bad for her as well? So if she was having an abortion, I would still believe smoking was a bad thing. I would also encourage a woman to attend doctor’s appointments, take pre natal vitamins, etc cetera. But at the the end of the day, I would accept that her right to do what she wanted with her body was the most important thing.

      No one is asking you to think abortion is morally ok. What we’re asking you to do is recognise that not everyone agrees with you and to respect the right of a woman to make the best choice for her and her family.

    • Nick, I dont expect anyone to agree with me as these are my own personal views, i will voice them on a site like this but would never tell someone what they should or shouldnt do, i have no right too.

      I do feel for some of the men whose wife or girlfriend aborts the baby and he wants to keep it.

      I do think that the baby should have a right to life, i do agree with assisted suicide and euthinasia as the person has a choice, the baby doesnt get a choice. I also agree with the death sentance. These as i said are my own personal views. Im not pro life and im not pro choice, im for the voice that doesnt get heard the babys….

    • There are always adverts promoting Marie Stopes International, the IFPA & the Crisis Pregnance Agency who push for abortion up around the place that is excluding their cohorts in the media.

    • IFPA are not “pro abortion.” They offer counselling and medical services for women and do not offer abortion themselves, so not at all sure why you’re equating the two? But then, could you point me to the IFPA billboard?

      And Karla, I would like to see the figures for men whose partners have abortions without their consent. While it must happen, it’s exceedingly rare (maybe 5%, as 75%, according to research, are supportive – and that number doesn’t include women without partners).

      And no, I don’t think the baby should get a choice as to whether or not it lives off my womb. No one gets the decision as to who can use my body except me.

  • Life institute would be the 1st in the court to ban pro life posters.. There a pack of hypocritical buffoons . Every one has a choice ..

  • While I don’t personally find these adverts offensive, it’s just wrong to suggest there is always a better answer.

    • Mick 22/06/12 #

      Many times I have heard people voice strong opinions against the death penalty for criminals,
      I wonder how many such people support “terminating” (Murdering) unborn children?

    • I wonder if a group paid for a load of billboards telling parents that it might be dangerous to leave a child unattended in the company of a priest, would their be as much controversy.

    • Limofax, that is a totally stupid comment. If you knew anything about child sex abuse you would know that approx 70+% of abusers are a family member, so why not put up a poster asking is it safe to leave your child in the company of an uncle or aunt? Or for that matter your next door neighbour or your babysitter. But hey, don’t let me stop you getting cheap shots in.

    • Your right of course Brian. My comment above is cheap, ignorant and offensive to some. That is exactly the point, as others I find these anti-abortion billboards just as offensive. There are thousands of women across our country who have had abortions and have moved on with their lives only to be reminded so visually of the difficult decision that they felt they had to make at the time.

    • Yes, Mick. Clearly bloodthirst, rather a recognition that there is another person with rights and a body at stake in this debate.

      But not to worry, if anyone ever tries to force you to give life support to criminals, I’ll argue strongly for your right to choose.

    • Stop making these idiotic metaphors Nick Beard

    • Yes, Sean, recognising that pregnancy one person living off the body of another human being is “ridiculous.”

      Which you’d know, because you’re an obstetrician/gynecologist? Or because you’ve been pregnant?

  • I think it’s great that the journal have facilitated each side if the discussion. The writers haven’t exactly done the best job though.
    This is an emotive topic, and in these cases it’s sadly a tactic to cite individual cases to try to prove a point. It’s worth noting that there is no true pro abortion attitude. Only pro choice.
    If we stuck to individual situations a case could be made for drink driving as there are many anecdotal cases were being locked has prevented injury.
    In the case of one quoted contributor, the blame for her guilt is projected to the people who gave her the wrong advice. She chose abortion…..

    • Hi Tomy,
      I was asked to write a piece specifically on the billboards.
      However, I’d be more than happy to do another general opinion piece on why women should have the right to choose abortion in Ireland, if the Journal would facilitate that.
      S.

  • Brian, you are spot on. Life institute would not tolerate pro abortion information being publically available. Thats what makes this current poster bullshit so intolerable

    • Mick 22/06/12 #

      Who is stopping pro abortion campaigners from putting up their own advertisements?

    • A sense of human decency, Mick. This is an issue for families, not billboards.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      There’s also the issue of funds. Youth Defence obviously have massive funds to do this. Pro-choice organisations here don’t have that kind of money. It’s clearly unfair that those with the most money have the loudest voice, especially in a debate like this and most especially when they are clearly lying in the posters. Seriously, there is not ALWAYS a better choice and to declare it as if it’s fact flies in the face of everyone who’s had a different experience.

  • My partner and I had been trying for years to have a baby. When she got pregnant it was fantastic up until the point we were told that our baby had a condition called Anencephaly. If our little girl was to last full term she wouldn’t last more then a couple of hours after birth. We tried to go full term but my partner had been very sick during the pregnancy and got even worse with the stress after the news we got. She spent 5 out of 6 weeks in hospital. Finally we decided to go to England. It was the hardest decision of our lives and I HATED the fact that we had to go abroad away from our family and friends who did everything to support us. nI disagree with abortion just because someone decides they don’t want a child. But I can understand if someone terminates because of down syndrome, result of rape etc. But i think personally if there is any chance of life, it should be given, if not with that parent, with someone who would love the child. nI am disturbed that so many people in ireland are so closed minded about this subject. I would like to see an anti-abortion person that has gone through something like me and my partner did.

    • Have you seen all the articles on here about the massive failings of care? It’s not necessarily as easy as giving a child into a loving home. There are so many children who need them and not enough homes to go around.

    • @Nick, my partner and I have a loving home for a child that needs one but because of this backwards country, I haven’t got the thousands of euro required to go through the adoption process.

    • sorry, but why would you kill a baby with downs??? some of the most fantastic people on the planet have downs as well as other syndromes! as for rape, such an horrific thing, yet does it then allow for more evil in murdering an innocent child? who’s the better person in that nightmare of a situation!? i do understand where you are coming from in your situation, i have put my money where my mouth is in relation to my beliefs on termination, i was told my baby would need to be removed or i would die, thankfully i didn’t listen to either doctor and myself and my daughter are in perfect health, despite the guarantee i would bleed out and die!!! Dont treat doctors like gods they regularly get it wrong sadly

    • I understand because of the stress and thoughts that would go through people’s mind when faced with the outcome. After that I also said if there is any chance of life it should be given. I would give anything for my little one to be alive today even if she had any form of disability, she wouldn’t be loved any less.

    • And I feel horrible for people who lose a much wanted child. But I think it’s ethically repugnant for a state to force a woman to give life support to another human being in her body for 9 months if she genuinely does not want to do so.

      And Barry, I agree, adoption processes should be made easier. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to see Youth Defence fund a billboard campaign on that issue, which I would welcome.

  • Bryan 22/06/12 #

    Niamh please quantify scores and many?

    • I took “scores” to mean “20′s”. So of the thousands of Irish women who have had abortions, multiples of 20 contacted the organisation. Maybe 60 people?

  • What about the effects of these posters On young children? How do u explain to a 3 year old what it is? Disgraceful!

    • Won’t somebody think of the children? I think that’s their point!

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      They don’t care about children once they’re outside the womb, see.

    • @ Eleen. I do. So you might want to scratch that sweeping and self-serving generalisation of the list.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      I’m talking about the lobbyists who put up these posters. Not individual pro-lifers because I wouldn’t have any facts to back that up with.

      “The only people who have come out publicly against including children’s rights in to the Constitution are the anti-choice lobbyists.” http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/abortion-billboards-youth-defence-pro-choice/

      There’s a link in that article there for ya if you want to check.

    • @ Eleen. Elaboration noted.

    • @Andrew Eager

      Re: Anti-choice lobbyists and children’s rights.

      The current constitutional framework does not afford children rights as individuals beyond that as members of a family due to the position of the constitutional family based on marriage. This has an effect on care, welfare and protection issues for children. It was one of the factors why the state found it difficult to intervene in the Roscommon abuse case.
      In order to rectify this, a Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children was established a few years ago to agree a cross-party proposed formula of words that would put children’s rights in the Constitution. They accepted submissions from members of the public and interested parties on this.

      The only people made submissions against the idea of putting children’s rights in the Constitution, were anti-choice groups. These submissions are in the public domain.

    • @ Stephanie Lord.

      I’m not one of their fellow travellers other than on the issue of abortion, and even at that, I’m quite sure I’m not extreme enough for them. However, if they are as you allege, guilty of neglecting children, after birth, then being pro-choice simply means you proactively neglect children before birth (given that abortion is very rarely in the interest of the child).

      Just saying, is all.

    • @Andrew
      I presume that by “neglecting children” you actually mean “neglect the issue of children’s rights” because I certainly didn’t allege they neglect their own children.
      Anyway, what you’re doing is affording personhood to a foetus and saying that a foetus has rights that reign supreme to that of a living breathing pregnant woman. There is nothing “neglectful “ about being pro-choice, or having an abortion for that matter. It’s simply a recognition that women have a right to control what happens to their own bodies.

    • @ Stephanie.

      IMO, a person begins when a fertilised egg implants in the wall of the uterus. Not before, and not after. Then. You clearly think differently. Therein lies the rub. However, I would prefer to err on the side of caution, even if I am wrong, rather than risk taking the consequences of my and another’s action, out on another defenceless person.

      Peculiar like that, I am, apparently.

      PS What part of choosing to not have sex, or to have sex with contraception, doesn’t give a woman full control of her body? I’m intrigued.

    • @ Andrew Eager I can only assume that you cannot be aware that there is no completely effective form of contraception in existence. I can also only assume that you have never heard of the prevalence of rape, which is surprising given that it was the ruling in the X Case that caused the formation of Youth Defence.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      Andrew, the problem is that every individual will have their own morals and beliefs when it comes to the issue of when a foetus, or embryo, or whatever becomes a baby. That’s why it’s hard to debate on those grounds and no one in a democracy is allowed to force others to live by their rules/beliefs. That’s why it’s got to be up to the individual.

      You decide to err on the side of caution. I’d say the majority of people do regardless because having an abortion isn’t exactly easy. But it IS easy for you to say because you’ll never experience an unwanted pregnancy. There are a lot of factors involved that might make abortion the best or only option a woman has – you have no place in judging her.

      But there is something you CAN do. If you don’t want abortions, make sure you don’t have sex with women who don’t want to get pregnant with you. If you do, use contraception and prey it doesn’t malfunction. Because that happens a lot too, you know. And if they do become pregnant, prey that there won’t be any complications that would result in an abortion needing to take place.

      Anyway, the bigger issue is about a woman having full control over her body – regardless of whoever and whatever else it is supporting.

    • @ Eleen.

      Being an agnostic, I am of the opinion there are no other judges than ourselves, so I’ll thank you for not telling me who, what, when or how I judge.

      And contraception doesn’t malfunction a lot. People being careless and pretending that the contraception malfunctioned, now that does happen a lot. Never had a malfunction of contraception myself, so I see no reason why anybody else should be different. This stuff ain’t rocket science.

      And this isn’t about who does or doesn’t control a woman’s body. It’s about all of us, men and women alike, living as truthfully as possible, and acknowledging our responsibilities, and when we fail to live up to them.

      For the record, I don’t care what any of ye do in the rest of your lives, in your bedrooms or elsewhere. Just this one thing, which in fact doesn’t just involve you but others too, despite your pretenses to the contrary.

    • @Andrew Eager
      Nor do people get abortions “a lot”. But contraception failure does occur (simply because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t make it not real; I presume you have never had an abortion, that doesn’t make them not real either) and far more frequently than people are aware. http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html

      15 couples in every hundred using condoms in a year will get pregnant. 8 couples in every hundred using the pill will get pregnant. Those are HIGH figures.

      I note you’ve chosen to completely ignore my point about the existence of rape and the X case.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      “And this isn’t about who does or doesn’t control a woman’s body. It’s about all of us, men and women alike, living as truthfully as possible, and acknowledging our responsibilities, and when we fail to live up to them.”

      No. This is about granting women full human rights and therefore access to abortion. People being irresponsible happens, but it’s no reason to deny complete access to abortion to women and therefore take away their rights over their body. Better sex education, better access to contraception and combating the warped idea about sex that seems prevalent in this country will help reduce irresponsible behaviour (and reduce the need for abortions).

      Deal with the issue at hand or don’t at all.

    • But Eleen, it’s so much easier for him to be condescending while up on his high horse…

      One where women never have contraceptive failures.

    • Hi Sinead,

      The couples cited are self-declaring (by necessity, obviously), which unfortunately very much puts a question over the quality of the data.

      As for the X Case, I commented on that previously, perhaps elsewhere.

      My position is quite simple, abortion can be a necessary evil, but being an evil, must be kept to a minimum. Hence, abortion in the case of rape, incest, threat to life of the mother and the inviability of the baby outside of the wombs are all legitimate if unfortunate grounds. All else after that is intolerable and abhorrent.

      As someone once sagely observed, all those in favour of abortion are always those who are already born.

    • You think all those in favour are already born. That’s pure hypothesis until you can actually poll sperm, eggs, miscarried, stillborn and aborted foetuses.

    • @ Eleen.

      Having given 15 years as a volunteer Human Rights activist with Amnesty International, Eleen, I was then, and still am, of the opinion that my rights end where another’s begins.

      And if we’re talking about dealing with the issue at hand, what do you propose to do with the human/woman rights of the girl children being aborted? On what grounds do they not get a look-in? How ironic that the patriarchal ‘might is right’ of yore has now been co-opted by the feminist movement for itself in its SRR agenda. Feminism will consume itself at this rate.

    • @ Nick.

      I’m not on my high-horse at all. I’m down in the thick of it, in the piss and the shit of human fraility just like everyone else. I just don’t believe we progress by taking our failings out on the weakest of us.

    • Andrew, probably because legally speaking, a human being is only granted personhood once born, not before.
      So whether you choose to define personhood by your own moral values, or even medically, it has absolutely no relevance to the debate at hand. Since the abortion issue is a legal one, ie whether to legalise the possibility of a fully safe, clinical abortion or not, legal definitions must be used. And as Ireland only grants personhood to someone that is already born, rights do not apply to unborn humans.

      That is why people who are pro-choice AND who are pro-life are already born. Cos I’ve never heard a zygote talk.

    • @ Joost

      “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right..”

      It’s the constitution, after the 14th amendment.

      And as for zygotes, you might be right, but peculiarly, I’ve never seen a woman give birth to anything other than a human baby. Go figure.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      I’m not going to enter a debate about sex-elective abortions. That has nothing to do with granting women in Ireland access to abortion. That has to do with a culture entrenched in sexism.

      The right of the foetus over the woman carrying it is a tricky one because of the “my rights end where another begins” idea. But that’s where we differ because I believe a woman should have total control over her body. Why? Because I trust women to understand the complexity of the issues at hand and act according to their own moral judgement. I want to give them the power to make the decision because it is ultimately their lives that are affected.

      What about the potential life you say? I think the woman – with already long established human rights and being the mature being in the debate with an actual ability to think and reason – along with sound advice from doctors and family or whoever else she wants to consult – should have the final say. They know what’s best for themselves.

    • And that’s where you and I differ Eleen. Being an egalitarian, I don’t see male and female. I only see people and their rights and responsibilites. If it was the other way around, and men carried the babies to term, I’d be saying the same thing (despite what some people would have us believe).

      This is not a matter of trusting the judgement of one individual or another. It’s a matter of acknowledging that there is to a degree a hierarchy of rights, and the most fundamental one, from which all other rights must by necessity stem from, is the right to life. In all other aspects of another person’s private life I have no desire or inclination to involve myself. Only where the actions of one have extreme ramifications for another, is there an onus to depart from a position of minding one’s own business.

      And while you say the woman will know what’s best for themselves, I say that unfortunately and reluctantly, in this one instance, that’s not good enough, because it’s not just about them. It’s also about the life growing inside them.

  • If these medical procedures are confidential and between patient and Doctor, where do you get the figure that 90% of all down syndrome pregnancies are aborted in Britain. I can’t see clinics releasing this sensitive info. Where is the evidence for this?

  • Niamh, could you please respond to the statement in the opposing piece which says ” 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?”, because one of you is clearly lying

  • Una 22/06/12 #

    I have many problems with this article but I’ll focus on the few that bother me most.
    The author starts by commenting that “Abortion Campaigners are in a tizzy”. I think this is the kind of language that confuses people. Most pro-choice campaigners aren’t advocating abortion but they are interested the woman making a choice. Maybe giving the baby up for adoption is right for one woman but for another it’s abortion. The point is it’s their choice. So calling people “Abortion Campaigners” seems to imply they are trying to convince every pregnant woman they come across to choose this option.

    She also goes onto say “it brings the reality of abortion into focus.” No, it brings one reality into focus. Yes there are some women who feel this way afterwards but not everyone. The reality of abortion is that it’s right for some and not right for others.

    People aren’t trying to kill free speech when they complain about these posters but there are a few things that need to be looked at. a) Only one side of the argument is represented here. People should be provided with all the information before making a big a choice as this. b) The message is damaging. “There is always a better answer.” They have even underlined always. But the problem is that there isn’t always another option. For some women this option is the right choice. Again I emphasis the word choice!

    The pro life campaign is entitled to their opinion just as the pro choice is but in this case they’ve gone about making their case in the wrong way. They should be presenting facts that could help someone decide not shaming people for their choices.

  • Hahaha Free Speech. Have we forgotten SPUC V Grogan then?

    I’ve noticed that the weather is taking down a number of posters. Well they do say that heavy rain is an act of god. Top job, big man!

  • 30% drop in Irish abortion rates due to better information? Impossible to put an accurate figure on it since women traveling for an abortion essentially live outside Irish law when they make that choice. Easily attributed to an overall drop in crisis/unwanted pregnancies due to better sex education etc.

    • The Department of Health stats do show it’s dropped by about 1/3 since 2001, but I think she’s making a leap to say it’s all due to her organisation.

      As mentioned in previous articles, emigration of young women could also be relevant factor.

    • I’m sure it has actually dropped, but aside from the difficulty in putting an accurate figure on it there are many more plausible reasons for such a drop in figures.

      Always nice when they dismantle their own arguments though.

  • 1 existing, feeling, sentient child dies from hunger every 5 seconds on this planet. Shame on people who obsess about so-called ‘potential people’ when actual children die like flies. Perhaps the “pro-life” types might put their efforts into something actually worthwhile rather than parade their psycho-sexual hangups for the world to see.

    • there is so much waste in this world, there is more than enough food as it is to feed everyone yet greed and selfishness prevent or hinder this, however it doesn’t excuse the killing of others! just because one bad thing happens somewhere doesn’t excuse other bad things happening elsewhere either! when is it ok to kill???

    • oh yea a baby doesn’t gain feeling and emotion after being born, they already have it as they grow and develop!!!! imagine, we have probably already aborted many people with the ability to cure cancer or fix world hunger….

    • Brian 22/06/12 #

      @Sinead Fox And I suppose they would have prevented the current recession as well eh? And while we’re at it, we could have aborted someone who would have scored the goals that kept us in Euro 2012. The list is endless Sinead isn’t it?

    • Great point. Also, another point, Catholic Church preaches abstinance over contraception, end result, AIDS is rampant in Africa. Where is YD in highlighting this tragedy? Nowhere of course.

  • @Sinead Fox. And all the “potential” of people like Anders Breivik to Adolf Hitler (& Co.) would have been lost to us. Let’s face it, a child from an unwanted, economically devastating pregnancy has a very low probability of going up on the podium in Stockholm. The reality of the situation isn’t about the metaphysical ‘what ifs’ but the fact that REAL children die and women are revealed by the “pro-life” brigade as nothing more than breeding mares for the so-called principles of others. As for “oh yea a baby doesn’t gain feeling and emotion after being born, they already have it as they grow and develop!!!!” I would judge the first trimester to be an adequate cut-off point for termination as the research becomes a little fuzzy from there on in. There is enough neurological evidence supporting the fact that embryological development encompasses a curve in pain perception – Thalamo- Cortical neural ‘circuitry’ not properly developed until (anecdotally) 26 weeks. Of course, people can have a principles PERSONAL opinion on whether THEY should have a termination or not – it is NOT for others to decide this on behalf of an unconscious collection of foetal matter.

    • Her argument is also horribly utilitarian. Too bad you don’t want your body hijacked,your child could cure cancer. I’m more than a breeding receptacle.

  • Isn’t it funny that all the people who make the laws about what a women can and can’t do with her body aren’t women? If they want to have an abortion they’ll just go to the UK. By not offering the same service here we just complicate things.

  • Aside from the article, i think its very interesting that most comments are from men. Why? Is it mostly men who read The journal? Or would the fact it doesn’t affect a mans body have something to do with us feeling more free to speak because we’ve less to weigh up.

    • No baby ever got made without a man. Just saying, is all.

    • Which is why 75% of women who end a pregnancy do so with the consent and support of their partner. No one has ever said fathers shouldn’t be consulted.

      What we are saying is fathers won’t have to carry a baby in their body for 9 months, so it’s a lot easier for them to preach about putting your control over you own body second to the “baby’s” rights when they will never be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

    • @ Nivck. But clearly 1/4 of fathers aren’t consulted, by your own figures, so while you make all the right noises, and say the right things, you do entirely the opposite, and endorse a position in which 1 in 4 fathers don’t get that sacrosanct thing you call a choice in the matter.

      And what about unwanted fatherhood? That goes on for a whole lifetime. Seems to me you’re picking and choosing to suit yourself. There’s no coherence in your thought process other than an over-riding, ‘because it suits me.’

      Just saying, is all.

    • What I am saying is that in a position where abortion is illegal, fathers also don’t get a say as to whether or not a pregnancy is terminated. If my partner and I decide together, the law in Ireland thinks both of our opinions are irrelevant. So the other option isn’t to give men a choice.

      Seems to me you’re picking and choosing to suit yourself. There’s no coherence in your thought process other than an over-riding, ‘because it suits me.’

      Just saying, is all.

    • I would suggest that a man who doesn’t want to be a father yet has a respectful discussion with his partner about their views on the subject and most likely, finds someone who’s views match their own.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      No, once again, you can’t make it a law for a man to have a say over a woman’s body and what she does with it. Of course it’d be great if the man involved had input and that should be encouraged, but there will be cases when this doesn’t happen. That’s the way life goes.

      And if a man doesn’t want to be a father, then he shouldn’t have sex with women :P (just using a typical pro-life argument there against ya).

    • @ Nick.

      You and your partner get a say by choosing to be careful how and when you have sex. Is that not enough choice for you? Just how much choice do you want? Why should the state underwrite your lack of care in the issue of sex? And more pertinently, why should the baby that was made do so? Like I said, your position is entirely informed by ‘because it suits me’. How about a little less ‘rights’ and a little more ‘responsibility’? Granted, responsibility and accountability are dirty words these days.

      Just saying, is all.

    • @ Eleen.

      I agree with you entirely. If men and women don’t want to be parents, there’s an onus on them not to get pregnant. It’s not the State’s job, and it’s not the baby’s job. It is the adults’ job. If they choose to have sex, they have to accept all the possible consequences. Any other behaviour is beneath human dignity.

      However, if you insist that a man should not make a law over a woman’s body, then how can you sensibly make the argument that a woman can make a law over a boy child’s body in the womb? That is galloping hypocrisy.

      Remember, there’s plenty of choice up to and how you have sex. Plenty. No shortage of it. It’s in abundant supply fact. Coming out of the sky in fact. In vending machines in pubs near you, and in pharmacies and GPs all across the land. Choice everywhere. The place is coming down with Choice.

    • And THERE it is. I knew it would come eventually. The idea that by engaging in a loving, healthy sexual relationship, you should have to be punished. Sex should be engaged in for the purpose of closeness in a relationship and I very much disagree with the idea that as a consequence, I should be forced to offer up my body/womb/blood/nutrients to another human being without my consent.

      Having an abortion is a form of taking responsibility. You seem convinced that everyone who has one is a lazy hippie rather than someone who has considered and decided against bringing an unwanted child into this world.

      But glad to see you’ve abandoned all pretence of interest in father’s rights!

    • Andrew, have you ever even had sex? Because that is not how it works :D People get horny, they have sex, mistakes are made, a girl gets pregnant. Abortion allows that mistake to not haunt those people for the rest of their life. Bringing up a child they perhaps cannot afford, or do not want, with all the damaging mental health effects that would come into that situation for everyone.

    • @ Nick. What bit of sex don’t you understand? It’s primary purpose is to make babies. All else is secondary (a close second, granted, but secondary nonetheless). You’ve fallen for the sexual revolution codology hook line and sinker, and you’re so far gone into that morass of self-above-all-else that you don’t even realise it. I’m properly intrigued as to how you think I am of the opinion that sexual activity should be punished. Just so you don’t go down a cul de sac and make yourself look foolish and prejudiced, I’m not a god-botherer. Far from it in fact. Interesting to note though, that you see taking responsibility for your actions as ‘punishment’. An odd slant of things, to be sure.

      And for the record, hypothetically you and your partner consented by having sex in a fashion that led to the apparently unreasonable eventuality of her getting pregnant. Who would have thunk it, eh? The stork doesn’t really bring babies, I’m sure you are aware.

      And abortions aren’t taking responsibility. You made it, you pay for its upkeep. It’s that simple. Perhaps that consideration should be brought into play before having sex, rather than after the fact when the decision has extreme consequences for innocent third parties.

      As for my abandoning father’s rights, I can’t see how you came to that conclusion. Please elaborate on that, at your leisure.

    • @ Martin.

      It’s been a while, I grant you that much, however as far as I remember, there is a thing called ‘will’, ‘self-control’ and so forth. Like I said, you seem to want all the fun of the fair, without paying in. That’s not how it works in the real world. Somebody somewhere in the process ends up having the consequences visited upon them. Personally, I’d prefer to take responsibility for my actions, all of them, and in such a way that my choices have minimal negative impact on those around me, because that to me, seems like the adult thing to do. Obviously you think otherwise, for reasons which you haven’t really elaborated on other than ‘people get horny’ – which actually in fairness, is a pretty shit reason, given the possible consequences for others.

      And there is always putting the child up for adoption. Always. It’s not gone away you know.

    • Eleen 22/06/12 #

      Andrew, LOL. Firstly, the reason a woman would have a say over her pregnancy is that it is HER PREGNANCY. It is her body that the “baby” is using. A woman doesn’t need a man’s body to survive so therefore he would have no right over her body. It’s the most stupid argument I’ve ever come across.

      As for everything else, it’s pretty clear you haven’t a clue. Leave the debating to people who know what they’re talking about yeah?

    • Yes, if you’re going to insult the sexual revolution, I’m going to assume you’re not married and if you are, you have about 10 children. I don’t have sex only to have children and I feel very sorry for someone who does. I don’t particularly care if you’re a “god botherer” (weird term, I’d never use it), but I think you’re definitely someone who underestimates the importance of a healthy sexual relationship and I feel fairly sorry for you!

      I consider having an abortion to be taking responsibility. I don’t see how you can disagree, as it’s certainly not doing the irresponsible thing by thoughtlessly having a baby and shunting it onto someone else.

      And you only seem to care about the right of a father to stop a woman having an abortion. You don’t seem to care about a father’s right to access a termination.

    • @ Eleen. It’s for 9 months only. Maybe we should let people kill their CEOs or HR managers if they look like they’re going to start laying people off. After all, given these straitened econonic times, a person being made redundant could be facing a much longer period of massive personal upheaval and distress – indeed people of a certain age may well be looking at never working again. Funny how that dependency thing works, eh?

      As for my argument not making any sense, I suppose it wouldn’t to someone who speaks of equality but practices something else entirely. I suppose that’s why I’m an egalitarian and not feminist, thankfully.

      And as for the personal abuse bit at the end, well that’s just unfortunate. I thought you were a bit more cerebral than that. Ah well.

    • @ Nick. Save your sympathy for yourself. I have no need of it, truly. There are far more deserving cases than I, believe me.

      As for a father having a right to seek a termination, well given that I think abortion is wrong, that would indeed be a rather peculiar stance for me to take, what? Again, intrigued as to how you managed to concoct that strawman argument from anything I’ve posted thus far.

      And for the record, doing the whole ASSuME thing normally makes an ASS out of U and ME, but on this occasion, just you. Assume less. It will do you the world of good.

    • I’ve assumed nothing (well, except that you’re not married), which seems obvious.

      And my point is simply that you’re not concerned for the complexities of men facing unwanted pregnancies. You just don’t want abortions. You’re not concerned for men in general, but men facing a very specific situation.

      And as for the personal abuse bit at the end, well that’s just unfortunate. I thought you were a bit more cerebral than that. Ah well.

    • @ Nick. What an unfortunate post by you. Is that what your position boils down to in the end?

      Ah well. I suppose I should know better.

  • If there was really truly ‘always a better answer than abortion’

    Women would accept it as so, it wouldn’t be necessary to put up a billboard telling them of what you feel there opinion on the matter should be and condemning them for taking a course of action the effects of which are entirely on them and their own body and quite frankly has NOTHING to do with you…

    • Doesn’t every political party in the run-up to every election display posters telling people what they feel their opinion should be? Don’t both sides of every referendum do the same? Don’t athiests take out large ads in London and NY?

      Wasn’t all that stuff about conscripting us into an imaginary European army (Nice treaty) kinda emotive?

      Frankly, I find those InjuryLawyers4U ads deeply offensive, but it doesn’t mean they should be banned. There is no such thing as a right to not be offended

  • Brian 22/06/12 #

    There are so much wrong with Niamh Ui Bhroin’s article that I’m not sure where to start.

    The first two words set the agenda for her and her people: ‘Abortion campaigners’. This is extremely disingenuous on her part because she knows damn well that pro-life campaigners are not ‘abortion campaigners’. There is a huge difference between the two terms but as usual this woman tries to score some points before the bell has been sounded.

    “While a message may offend abortion supporters, that is not to say that the message is, in itself, offensive.” –
    So you think the message only offends ‘abortion supporters’ (as you again wrongly label them). What would be your response to women who have had to undergo abortions for genuine reasons and are upset and haven’t emailed you to say you were right? We know damn well what your response would be and there’s no compassion involved, that’s for sure.

    Here’s a message for you and your obnoxious gang Niamh. If you wish to make your arguments against abortion, for whatever reason, that’s absolutely fine. But do it in a way that doesn’t set out to shame and alienate women who have made an agonising decision, for reasons that are known to them and have nothing to do with you. The idea that you lot can somehow tell Irish citizens they CAN’T do this or CAN’T do that is undemocratic and belongs to fascist and authoritarian dogma.

    And the next time you and your shower are campaigning on O’Connell St, stop shoving graphic pictures into people’s hands, stop waving graphic banners around where adults and small children can see them. That’s not freedom of choice, that’s intimidation and bullying, something that Youth Defence hold dear to their cold hearts.

    Life Institute/Youth Defence belong to a part of Ireland that is being consigned to history. If they haven’t discovered this they soon will.

  • You actually admit in your article that a women who had an abortion was hurt by these posters. You actually admitted that. You are more concerned with hurting women emotionally than protecting the “life of the unborn”. You make me sick.

  • While I disagree with the values any group that is ”pro-life”, I’d never associate myself with ‘Youth Defence’ regardless of my stance on this issue. With their new slogans, they have proven themselves to be insensitive and devoid of compassion towards women who have had to make an incredibly difficult life choice.

    This is not even to be begin to mention their historical ties to the far-right. Odious.

  • Paul 22/06/12 #

    I just meant that it does in fact represent reality for some people. I agree that it isnt always the reality for a lot of women who have abortions and in some cases abortion is the best choice for their individual circumstances. I am very much pro-choice and if their was a referendum on the issue I would be voting yes as I believe abortion is necessary and will always occur regardless of whatever controls are in place, so you might as well make it as safe as possible for the women who make this choice. However, I dont believe in covering up the reality of abortion (calling it sanitized names like termination, pretending that it doesnt in fact end a viable life, can have traumatic psychological effects and so on) for the protection of middle class sensibilities is right. If we are going to have a debate on it then lets be grown ups!

  • She ignored the disturbing fact that physical violence by a partner is often triggered or escalated by a pregnancy. Risk to womens’ health can be in a variety of forms.

  • Bryan 22/06/12 #

    Niamh, If you or your members are free I’d be happy to reeducate you on how a persons body is their business and clear up all the other ignorant statements you spout out. nnLook it’s going to be tough but it’s not your fault your ignorant you are conditioned to think like that but don’t worry we can educate you out of ignorance. nnThe way you scare monger is a classic symptom of your own fear.

  • Someone suggested above legal protection only begins at birth. This is clearly incorrect. Protection of the unborn is constitutionally enshrined under the amendment. As to when it begins, legally, it’s at implantation. See MR v MR. Summary here – http://www.hayes-solicitors.ie/news/FrozenEmbryos.html

  • Anecdotal evidence taken from your own website? Is that really the best you could come up with?n

  • What other campaigns do Youth Defence carry out?
    Do they have a responsible, safe sex campaign, promoting contraception?
    Do they educate men to always use condoms when having sex to significantly decrease the likelyhood of getting a woman pregnant?
    Do they have an abstinance campaign to stop men and women having sex?
    Do they have any support schemes in place to help prospective parents who are in distress, be it medically or financially?
    Do they have support schemes in place to help new parents, struggling in the aftermath of the birth of a severely disabled child who has little prospect of survival?

    Or are Youth Defence only interested in slut shaming?

  • Sorry, meant “principled” – foaming at the mouth makes for bad spelling. :)

  • Way too one sided this article. Then again the author does work for the LIFE Institute. There is nothing positive about this advertising campaign. As always with campaigns based on religion, it’s based on fear. Try showing some understanding and compassion for a change. To be honest this being on the journal has put me off using this website.

    • Without discussing the issue at hand I must disagree with you about the Journals approach to this issue. Of course it takes a slant at the issue, it is an opinion piece, the site has also put up an opinion piece from the otherside this morning. Best approach, well done to the Journal, we should never be afraid of debate

    • TheJournal did two opinion pieces on this; one from the pro-choice side, and one from the pro-life side. The pro-choice side article can be found here: http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/abortion-billboards-youth-defence-pro-choice/

    • Since when did ripping babies out a eomb consistute “understanding and compassion for a change”? I believe in the equality of all persons. The greatest attrociticies in history have always decided who is and who is not human, or even who is less-huamn than another. I’d hardly liken such deeds to “understanding and compassion”.

    • This is clearly a very sensitive issue, as per Murphy v IRTC (1989) which held that an all out ban on religious advertising was justified on the basis that it was a very sensitive issue and rich men should not be allowed have a disproportionate influence on the matter through the purchase of advertising, it could be argued this should also apply here. Both sides are entitled to their view but such graphic public images do not engender a neutral to the pro life side, they make their case in an offensive tone which is intent on trying to shame anyone that ever had an abortion and do not contribute anything significant to the debate apart from offense. Accordingly a more responsible and respectful expression of the pro life view would be much more beneficial to their argument and less offensive to many. These ads are offensive regardless of your view and like the Supreme Courts take on religious advertising arguably a similar ban on graphic abortion advertising would serve the same purpose with regard to a very sensitive issue.

    • Interesting that John Douglas refers to this as a religious argument…when the author makes no mention of God…a scripture quote…or any church doctrine…

      This is not about religion. This is about life. There is no argument, religious or scientific or economic or other that adequately supports abortion.

      When will we see that our decisions are not just about us? When will we see the wider picture!? You speak of pro-lifers needing to show compassion, and yet the pro-life campaign is the one which seeks to protect the most vulnerable in our society!

    • I would say the most vulnerable in our society are these children dying in care. I must have missed the work Youth Defence did with them.

  • Neil 22/06/12 #

    What has Niamh Ui Bhriain and her “Life Institute” (lol) got to say about joining forces with an org that has ties to the far right, neo nazis and bigots? How about the homophobic campaigns that Youth Defence have promoted?
    Or maybe spitting on and verbally abusing women outside the GPO?

    Yeah, “pro-life”.
    They only give a toss until you are actually alive, then you can piss off.

  • What an unbelievable load of fallacious twaddle.nThis debate requires logic, it requires fact, it requires truth. All of which are completely absent from this woman’s opinion. nnTo be pro choice means that you support a woman’s right to make the decision that is best for HER. As it is her body that is required for incubation, she has the right to decide whether she is comfortable with this or not. If she is not, she will have hopefully taken precautions, abortion is never a decision that is taken lightly.nnIf a woman chooses to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or terminate it – someone who is pro choice will accept that it was her choice to make and support whatever decision she made. The pro choice stance accepts the pro life stance, but the pro life stance cannot offer the same respect, they expect everyone to live by their beliefs, regardless of whether or not they are shared. nnA billboard is not an appropriate forum for this topic. Nor is shoving graphic and misleading images in people’s faces on the street (it’s yet another logical fallacy anyway). The overuse of logical fallacy in an argument is known and specifically utilised in propaganda campaigns for its manipulative success. If you want to appeal to emotions and throw around guilt by associations, straw men and whatever else be my guest.. To me it makes you look like either a) the most disingenuous person / campaign on the planet or b) an uneducated fool.

  • While I am opposed to the idea of ‘abortion on demand’ I would support it if the mothers life or health was at risk.
    This is the problem with both pro choice and pro life campaigns. It’s so black and white with them, they both sound sanctimonious. The pro choice article preceding this one had a fair point in saying the pro life campaign would do well to channel their considerable energies and funds into providing real support to those women who need it, and getting that message out. But equally the pro choice campaign should accept that abortion is a last resort for most, and that the message it tears life apart is NOT a lie. It is a serious decision, the consequences of which can resonate throughout the life of the woman. Getting an abortion doesn’t mean you get you get your life back as it was and there will be no regrets. There are always two lives, and it is not simply about the woman, or simply about the child.

    • Bang on the money.

    • For some women, it is a last resort which they feel guilty and shamed over. For some women, it’s not a problem. There’s not one abortion narrative and presenting it as the only option is ignoring the diversity of women’s experiences.

    • It’s not a simple decision of course. But let me pose this question to you Ailís, is the trip to England, to a foreign country, perhaps on your own, staying in a hotel for a night and returning by plane and in secret the more harrowing aspect? Or is it the abortion?

      The government by choosing not to legislate are tearing peoples’ lives apart. Abortion isn’t.

    • @ Martin. Why don’t you ask the baby about lives and things getting torn apart?

    • I’m sorry but are you being an idiot on purpose? Tell me, if you conceived a child tomorrow with a woman, how long would that child spend being carried around in your womb?

    • Just asked my little cousin, Andrew. She didn’t have a lot of coherent thoughts on the topic.

    • @ Martin.

      No time at all, is your answer. But it would get the best of my attention for the rest of my life. Not enough for you? Ah wells, no pleasing some folks.

    • @ Nick. So what you’re saying is that you can off your little cousin because she can’t speak for herself in a sufficiently competent manor to a standard of your liking. I see. Lovely. Where’s the tolerance, eh? And the compassion, and the understanding? So in closing, what you’re saying is ‘might is right’. Nice,

    • Nope. I’m saying I have the right to decide who lives off my body not her. I don’t think you’re stupid, so it must have conveniently slipped your mind that foetuses are living off of another human being without that human being’s consent. Funny, you fail to mention that in every post you make.

    • @ Nick.

      (apologies btw, I thought, by your name, you were one of the males of the species). Some of you remarks were throwing me a little.

      But to your more substantive point, as much as it is one, I think your argument really isn’t with me, with regard to unwanted foreign object feeding off your body, rather it’s with Mother Nature, yes her, the cow.

      And even at that, there’s no necessity for you to get pregnant. All that is required is you be careful, responsible and sensible. I see no reason why I shouldn’t presume that of you and every one else. Can you?

    • It clearly is, as unplanned pregnancies happen all the time. I’m always baffled by people missing the empathy chip. Women who marry abusive men made “choices”. Should they have to “take responsibility for the consequences?” Of course you’d disagree with that. What you think is by having sex, women have made their only choice and should have to live with it. I disagree, but then my lived experience of pregnancy probably explains why I’m a lot less cold than you are.

      And medical science has already kicked Mother Nature’s ass. Now we just have to get over men who can bleat about how having a child is taking responsibility, safe in the knowledge their bodies will never be on the line.

    • @ Nick.

      Clearly unplanned pregnancies happen all the time. Where we differ is the fact that you think it’s because ‘stuff happens’ whereas I am of the opinion that people make ‘stuff happen’, whether its by acts of omission or commission.

      As for me missing the empathy chip? It’s not that it’s missing, I just choose to save most of it for the most defenceless, blameless and weakest of us. Adults should be adult enough to take the rough with the smooth.

      And no, don’t be daft. Anyone, man or woman alike, in an abusive relationship needs to get out of it ASAP. Again, where you are coming from and going to with these strawmen arguments is completely beyond me.

      You’re the one that wants to give people the right to kill unborn babies, and I’m the one that’s cold? I see. Fascinating. Completely off the wall too.

      And in Ireland where woman’s lives are equally ‘on the line’ during pregnancy, we have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world for childbirth. And yet we don’t have copious amounts of abortion. Hmmmm. That’s rather vexatious now, isn’t it? How can this be if abortion is for the woman’s good? This just don’t stack up, does it?

      Btw, Medical Science is Mother Nature. So what you’re saying is Mother Nature kicked herself in the ass. Excellent.

    • “Btw, Medical Science is Mother Nature. So what you’re saying is Mother Nature kicked herself in the ass. Excellent.”

      Yeah, I take it back, you’re not overly cerebral. And yes, you are cold.

    • If it’s cold to expect adults to act like adults, then yes, absolutely, I’m cold. Freezing in fact.

    • There’s a joke there about people who only have sex once in a blue moon for procreative purposes and freezing, but this is a family site, so I’ll try to resist.

    • @ Nick. Knock yourself out. I won’t tell. I promise.

    • Hey Nick, does your little cousin have a right to life? Is she sentient? Capable of surviving without assistance from others?

    • Yep. She is. Which is why if her parents don’t want her, they’re free to turn her over to care.

      After birth, bodily integrity and life are no longer at contest. When the two are at contest? Bodily integrity wins.

  • Just in case anyone is wondering how Youth Defence fund themselves by the way, it would appear that their main method is scavenging from the dead.

    http://www.prolifeinfo.ie/mcms_print.php?nav=p-70926

  • This article is totally biased and reads like a propaganda leaflet for the pro life lobby. Abortion is never an easy choice to make but the problem I have is that in Ireland it is not a choice irish women actually have unless they go abroad that is and people like Niamh are determined that it should stay that way. Until irish women are given the right to chose in their own country then campaigns like the one highlighted are simply propaganda for the deniers of women’s rights in Ireland and before you all start bleating on about the rights of the unborn let me remind you that you live in a country that has and absolutely appalling record when it comes to looking after children, dead or alive, be it in state homes, family homes, religious run gulags or the way some children were buried in mass graves or denied christian burials by dogmatic priests, the current status of children in ireland is a disgrace and the abuses at the hands of the same religious allies who back the pro life lobby that Niamh and her ilk are apart of should remind everybody that as a country it has failed to look after it’s children and is still doing so today, 200 dead in care and nobody even sure of how many more may have died over the years!

  • Wow, how one sided can an article get :(

  • Paul 22/06/12 #

    Very one sided argument (obviously as it is an opinion piece people!) and imho sometimes abortion is the best choice for certain people. In regards to the campaign itself I agree with the author that it is a reality check. The reality of abortion is that it isn’t very nice. Being offended by the pictures doesn’t change that.

    • Paul there are numerous examples as to why it does not in fact represent the reality of abortion. The photo of the foetus in the posters is at 18+ weeks, 89% of abortions take place before 13 weeks.

      http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_075697

      Therefore it reflects the reality of 11% of abortions.

      As for the picture of the young lady whose life has been torn apart (and for some, I’ve no doubt it has) well she is in the minority too.

      http://www.crisispregnancy.ie/pub/cou.pdf

      Bottom of page 3 are where the relevant facts are.

      Finally the slogan “There is always a better way”. YD were founded in the wake of the X-case, the European ruling on which calls for the Irish government to provide for abortion if there is a risk to the life of the mother. In this case, the “better way” would appear to be the death of the mother.

      From the facts above you can see that the posters do not reflect the reality of abortion. They reflect, at most, the reality of 11% of abortions and that is before you take into account where the mother’s life is also ‘torn apart’.

  • The endless abortion ‘debate’ goes on. I am heartily sick of it. Since neither side listens to the other, nothing is achieved by joining in this argument

  • Love the article and the campaign, well done

  • Some people are simply afraid of facing the fetid gory reality of what abortion actually does…ie kill in a brutal fashion an innocent human being who is a human being no matter how small they are or where they are living.This brilliant and though provoking campaign funded by thousands of small donations like my own shines a light onto a brutally repressive regime of cruel babarism which kills babies and exploits women. This campaign shines a light on a sordid underworld of fear and propaganda which seeks to dehumanise the most vulnerable among us just like those worhty campaigns against modern day slavery and child prostitution in Asia does. This campaign advocates for what is the most noble human rights cause of our generation.Please join us any of you who are uneasy at the lies and deceit of the abortion industry and help us to keep Ireland the safest place in the world for mothers and babies( accodring to UN ,WHO & World Bank stats 2010)

    • “This campaign shines a light on a sordid underworld of fear and propaganda” – The only propaganda I see is Youth Defence. Could you point me to an alternative campaign spreading fear and propaganda?

    • Between 80-90% of abortions carried out are done so by inducing a miscarriage. This happens before the 12 week period has ended, and could just as easily happen at random (indeed, 40-50% of pregnancies end up in miscarriage). nnLater term abortions are most frequently in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities – in which case the baby was very much wanted, it just had sweet f.a. chance at a decent go at life..nnReally I don’t get where you are getting your info from.. It sounds like someone’s been feeding you some spotlight fallacies and indulging in the fallacy of composition.. n

    • “Decent” is subjective. What I consider a decent go at life could differ greatly from yours. If you think the unborn should have no right life then argue that, but surely everyone should be treated the same? If you say one life is better than another then you start down a very slippery slope

      (I’m not talking about conditions which we can be certain are fatal in the immediate term)

    • Hi Ray, what other campaigns against murder to you advocate? What about the Catholic Church’s position on contraception which has condemned millions of Africans to death from AIDS? I’m sure you’re heavily involved in criticising the Church’s position on that :)

    • Er, Chuck, would you care to actually read what I wrote rather than waving that straw man around?nI said later term abortions tend to take place because of fatal foetal abnormalities in which case the baby was very much wanted but did not have a decent shot at life. nnYou kind of just reiterated my point while trying to argue against it..

  • I fail to understand why some people are worried about what their claim in relation to this article as being slanted when RTE & the mainstream media are biased against pro-lifers.

    • Yes? Point me out one RTE or “mainstream media” article which pushed the pro legalisation view, Marion? Not an opinion piece, but one which biasedly pushed a direction. Ah, go on…

    • When have they ever provided a non-biased report? Date & year please?

    • The piece of women telling their own stories a few months ago in the Irish Times. It contained a wide variety of stories, including a woman who regretted travelling.

      Of course, I’m not the one making ridiculous claims, so maybe you should back it up…

  • Never read such a one sided article on the journal before …….
    Is there a woman involved here somewhere or does that not matter once there pregnant

    • Just go one more article down and there is another one sided article. I can’t believe the amount of people posting comments like this.

    • “Is there a woman involved here somewhere or does that not matter once there pregnant”

      Well, the article is written by a long-haired person called ‘Niamh’. Now, I’m no biologist but………

  • Ridiculous article and ooh look at the surname of pro life campaigner and the editor in the journal-dusters perhaps? Disgraceful use of power

    • Hi @Kdwizzle – We’re not sure precisely what you mean, but we can at least confirm for you that the editor of the site (Susan Daly) and the author of this piece (Niamh Ui Bhriain) are not related.

    • Hi @Kdwizzle – I can’t understand where you made that leap – My name is Daly (Ní Dhálaigh). I’ve never met this writer. And also you seem to have not read to the end of the article where there is a clear link to another opinion piece, also published by us this morning, which puts forward the polar opposite opinion on this particular issue.

    • @Kdwizzle…Disgraceful use of imagination and a brain duh!

    • Brian 22/06/12 #

      Kdwizzle, you should try engaging your brain before you go and jump to hysterical conclusions. I can never understand the obvious stupidity of people like yourself. Daly? Ni Bhriain? Hello, anyone home?

  • The journal needs to balance this debate. It’s just not credible allowing somebody from the life institute shove their opinions down out throats without any of her OPINIONS go unchallenged… Must try harder journal.ie…

  • Sisters not dusters!

  • If you are going to publish such a one sided tirade could you please co-publish with a similar article from the other sides for impartiality and journalistic integrity and all that jazz

  • Hi Niamh…