Whether or not you agree with him, he is entitled to his opinion.

An opinion, yes, he is not entitled to ignore two referendums and a supreme court ruling.

Which two referendums are you referring to Stephanie? Ireland has never voted in favour of legalising abortion.

Ireland has never been given the opportunity to vote to legalise abortion but we have twice voted against narrowing the scope of who it can be provided to. The x case ruling meant that abortion should be provided to a woman whose life is at risk if she continues with the pregnancy including suicidal women. The ECHR ruling means we are not doing that. There is no legislation to uphold that ruling and the TD would oppose any such legislation.

@Stephanie Fleming,

Ireland has moved on from the twenty year old legal case (X-case) which didn’t even have any psychiatry evidence. We know alot more about the effects of abortion then we did in 1992, and still there is no evidence it is linked with better mental health outcomes. The ECHR ruling is important because it showed we have a legal in-clarity and not a medical issue. Big difference.

@ Stephanie
In those referendums, the Irish people voted to maintain the status quo.
I’m not saying I agree with Harris, but since he’s in favour of maintaining the status quo, you can’t really say his opinion ignores the results of two referendums.

Do people think that the politicians are more conservative than their constituents. They are obviously being elected by people who tell them not to legislate for X or pressure them enough to not do anything.
Ive also been told (by Doctors) that the medical council has consistently been pro life and that in fact since 1992 it was they who refused to pressure for legislation or clarification (making their own guideline and ethics code which prohibited abortion but also emphasised it would be considered malpractice to refuse treating pregnant women who’s life was in danger).

Even Simon Harris is entitled to his opinion and his conscience on abortion…but Simon Harris crosses far too many lines, far too often, in the name of personal publicity.

Several email queries I have sent to him, over the past few months, about why he is validating organisations and reports on autism services that ruthlessly exclude all input from autonomous adults have gone unacknowledged…yet last week I recieved a personally addressed letter through the post (once again pulling my address from the electoral register without my consent) just to strongly suggest that the is protecting domiciliary care allowance for parents of autistics, an issue that I, as an adult autistic, have never raised with him at all.

I have never received a letter like that from a TD before. It’s as if he searched his emails for the word “autism” compared the senders with the electoral register and sent out these letters just to “big himself up” without the SLIGHTEST regard to who the senders were, what concerns they had actually raised, or the provisions of the data protection act (something I already raised with him once before).

So, by return, I sat down and spelled out the realities of my life as an adult autistic in more brutal detail than I have ever shared them with anyone, just in case he has some kind of real interest in his constituent’s lives and needs.

It was a hard, and terrifying thing to do, but I felt so voiceless…I cannot tell you.

5 days later that, very long, email is still unacknowledged.

No doubt, at some point, he will be sending me a letter through the post (at the expense of the state) bigging himself up as the single handed protector of all pregnancies regardless of viability or safety. My email was sent a day too early to specify that I am, in this, as all other things pro-choice, and anti the clueless, imposed, control he seems so determined to support and promote wherever he can find it.

James: That’s because the Irish people were never given an opportunity to vote for legalized abortion, if by “legalized abortion”, you mean abortion by request.

The Irish people did vote in favour of the status quo. The status quo being that suicidal women can obtain abortions. Like it or not, it’s in Bunreacht na hEireann. Would the same people who dismiss the X case because “we understand more about psychiatry now” also be all right with the right to assembly being reinterpreted because, “sure, we have the internet now?:

And Frank, I’ve been told by Irish doctors that the regulations are antiquated and discourage frank communication with patients, specifically being able to offer information to UK doctors treating women. Both of these are anacedotal and why a thorough expert report should be commissioned.

How many people can’t get it into their heads that we ruled in favour of abortion in certain circumstances – and that we voted to keep it that way??? My god.

Nick, I think Frank is forgetting about the recent survey of doctors and gps in Ireland that showed that over 50% of doctors believed abortion should be available to any woman at any time and a further 24% believed it should be available in certain circumstances. Leaving only 11% of doctors believing abortion should be banned. He must only be talking to the 11%. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1125/1224308110256.html

@ Paul
I’m aware of that: I was responding to Stephanie’s remark that Harris is ignoring two referendums.

The guns to which he’s sticking seek to undermine the democratic assertions of the people he represents

The problem was that he “liked” a derogatory comment directed at me while failing spectacularly to reply to numerous requests for an explanation. I’d say it was accidental but either way it was unprofessional to stay silent so long while clearly following the debate.

Like I say guys, I don’t agree with him either.

But, unlike on here where one can “like” (or unlike) a comment fairly readily-on FB, it’s a little harder to mistap or misclick.

So he meant to do it-and is now wriggling out of it.

That’s my point.

And by the way – the cornerstone of democracy is that it’s never ‘end of’. The law is always mutable.

What if she wants an abortion after 8.5 months?

So you decide what rights people have and don’t have?
Who dafug are you?

Jay, what if she does? Are you going to lock her in a room until she reaches 9 months?
You can be pretty sure that if a woman IS 8.5 months pregnant then she wants the child.
Women usually have their mind made up by then.

What is that foetus at 8.5 months has no brain? Should the woman be forced to continue on till 9 months or should she be induced to let the foetus die?
Most abortions are done up to week 13 so the 8.5 months isnt really a valid argument.

maurice, was your point directed at me?
A foetus doesnt have rights over the owner of the womb. You cannot force a woman to provide life to a foetus no more than I can insist you give me your kidney to maintain my life.

Well, the Bunreacht na hEireann says that a woman has a right to end a pregnancy on maternal health grounds. I tend to think that has a bit of persuasiveness in IRELAND.

Ah, the ould “woman who decides to have an abortion on a whim after 8 months” strawman. Usually presented by people who have never been pregnant.

Yes Tommy, how can you be the arbiter of people’s rights? How can you say who has the right to decide? No, you don’t have the right to insist I give you my kidney in Ireland. Not yet anyway. But maybe it’ll become law one day.
I”m not a lawyer nor an expert on Bunreacht na hEireann like Nick, but as far as I understand it, we have certain rights in this country like free speech, to criticize the government, to silence etc. There is no right to abort – except where the life of the woman is in danger through suicidal feelings. A medical procedure which removes the unborn in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion, as the vast majority of people understand it.
And suicidal women need counselling and support for a mental issue, not a medical procedure to kill the unborn. So I suppose I’m taking issue with Bunreacht na hEireann. As someone pointed out on this thread, laws change and can be repealed.

Maurice, who are you to decide whether or not a suicidal pregnant woman should have counselling or not?
Have you stopped to think that the reason she is suicidal is because she wants an abortion but cant get one at home?
Stop patronising women and let them decide for themselves.
If you want to give up your kidney, go on a live transplant list but many women dont want to continue with pregnancies and thats up to them to decide, not you as its not your body its growing in.

Tommy, I don’t decide it. I’m not the ultimate authority in the country like you seen to believe you are.
It is I’m sure the right thing to do – to offer a suicidal woman, suicidal for whatever reason – support and counselling. I believe most professionals would take this stance.

Yes but I would imagine that forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will would have quite an impact on her mental health. I would wager the majority of mental health professionals would agree with that statement.

Except, Maurice, you wouldn’t need to change a law. You’d need to win a referendum. And polls show fairly convincingly that the Irish people are in favour of maternal health grounds in abortion.

I do, however, appreciate you noting that your opinion/the legal situation in Ireland are not the same thing. I think too many people cloud the two.

Yes but at some point a woman’s sovereignty over her own body becomes qualified by the existence of another human being and the value of that life. This is not simply an issue of ‘what happens to a woman’s body is her own business’.

Neither is it Paul hickeys business, unless you forgot to type the ‘a’ at the end of your christian name.

The point is your logic is baseless. The crux of the argument is “when is it okay to intervene in the reproductive process?”. The Catholic church says you can’t wear condoms, and everyone else sits somewhere in the next 9 months. It’s not a “yes or no” argument. You can’t be pro-choice but then avoid discussing the details. If we legalise abortion, whats the limit. It’s not a straw man argument (I hope someone appreciates the irony of the accusation), its the central argument.

It is practically relevant because it must be legislated for. If Ireland legalises abortion, a time limit will be imposed beyond which it becomes illegal again. In the UK I believe it’s 24 weeks, longer in the case of severe physical abnormality. Do you agree with this? I also feel its important for informed debate, have you seen a 24 week old fetus? I don’t believe in shock tactics, but I also don’t believe in glossing over unpleasant realities.

To wrap up, I’m not trying to argue for or against abortion, I’m trying to argue for informed debate. One of the inevitable faults in the “its the woman’s body, she can do whatever she wants” argument is that it’s logic justifies abortion in the late term. I’m not saying it’s an invalid argument, but you have to deal with the consequences.

Tommy, lets not fudge the details with “what if the baby has no brain”. That’s not what I’m asking. It’s a simple question. You said “No one has the right to insist a woman remains pregnant… What happens in a womans womb is her business…”. I’m just extending that to its logical conclusion. What IF a woman wants an abortion after 8 months? Is that ok?

The same question applies to the womans mental health. It’s not right to force a woman to continue her pregnancy if she doesn’t want to. Valid point. But does it become okay to force her to continue after the 24 week deadline has passed? If it is, what’s changed? I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m trying to narrow down the beliefs behind it.

And to be honest, that right now is the conversation we should be having, around maternal health grounds. While there is a broader debate, I don’t think anyone is suggesting it would be appropriate for these TDs to legislate against the express wishes of the Bunreacht na hEireann. How can we best support women with serious health issues?

I think equating the choice to have an abortion with the choice to get your ear pierced is pretty problematic. Especially since having access to abortion could drastically change your whole life and would be a significant decision to make for anyone.

Otherwise, I agree with you: we should be focusing on the actual debate at hand.

Completely agree about the mid slinging thing, it seems not many people in the comments are respecting each others opinions! I’m
Also anti ‘casual’ abortion but I’m not a crazy catholic who makes up my mind going just by what the church believes!

While I agree with you, I think it is important to note that maternal health is indeed what the X case guidelines are about.

“For men and women who value equal rights of citizenship for all, this is intolerable”? For all? Really? And what of the equal rights of citizenship for the unborn? Or are rights only for those lucky enough to escape from the womb? As the Constitution states: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother”…

Why the attempt to paint the foetus as some sort of malevolent, invading force who’s determined to suck the life out of an unwilling mother? What a horrible image of what pregnancy is all about. Of course there are terrible situations which can surround pregnancy- there can be all sorts of difficult and painful circumstances. But, when you cut to the chase, we’re talking about an innocent, tiny, helpless human being who’s totally dependent on the mother for his or her very life. Which of us wouldn’t push ourselves to the limit to save a child or rescue an abandoned baby? We’re thinking rational beings capable of empathy and love even when we have to put ourselves out -sometimes in a major way. This is not about forcing women to be incubators to some vile parasites, but believing that women would do no less than their best for the young lives that only they can sustain. And, if this seems to be too difficult to bear, the answer is support and care, not feeding a vulnerable mother the line which suggests that her body has been invaded like some scene from a horror movie.

Maria, the problem with that is that some women might well feel invaded. I know I would. Maybe that’s because I have problems, but more likely it’s because I really don’t want to be pregnant or have a baby. That may change, but my mental state if I was pregnant right now would be suicidal.

Now, I’m probably in a minority but I just like to point out that you can’t speak on behalf of everybody. I believe like you do that women have enough compassion and understanding to know what being pregnant means, and not to treat it like a disease. I’m not so in favour of cold medical language when it comes to such an intimate and emotional thing such as pregnancy and creating new life either.

But there has to be some hard cold facts in this debate, and one is that a person should not be required to donate their body to sustain the life of another against their will. It’s a basic human right to have bodily autonomy.

The post liked was “Funny it’s the same few people that keeping hating on this page.. lol”.

It was seen as being somewhat dismissive of the pro-choice position.,,,

“Just because he’s a politician doesn’t mean he should be muzzled surely?”

Not unless he’s into that kind of thing.

I agree. The position, as exemplified by many of its advocates, when pressed, is anti female autonomy,
anti guilt-free penance-free non-procreative sex,
anti-family planning and family autonomy,
anti pleasure,
anti prudence,
pro authoritarian social control,
pro punishment, guilt, consequences, especially for women
…shall I go on?

@AuntieDote Sorry maybe I misunderstand your comment but are you saying that people that are anti abortion/pro life are also “anti guilt-free penance-free non-procreative sex”?? If so then what the hell are you on about? The view is anti-abortion not anti-contraception! People aren’t saying they’re anti condoms! You can’t equate the two to each other!!

No don’t go on. You want to espouse behaviours and choices free of consequences? You need to grow up and realize that all our decisions and actions effect other people in society as well as ourselves. There are always consequences.
Thankfully the Irish people have sufficient humanity to give this issue the serious time it needs and sufficient rights to unborn children. Pleasure? No consequences? Guilt free? I can see where you’re coming from alright.

You know what? I knew a family growing up who were pro life and had 8 foster children who were ethnic minorities and had been placed in care as older children. I disagreed with their politics, but they walked the walk, you know? I have a harder time respecting anyone who is pro life and will not open their homes to even one child suffering in Ireland’s current care system (which as we’ve all heard, is not doing too well.)

Well the govt. should support the most vulnerable regardless but I find it worrying that so many people think its ok to abort a baby/foetus that has some sort of disability, terminated cause they’re not ‘perfect’?! I’m not necessarily talking about a disability where the baby will die before or directly after the birth.

But this legislation would not allow for abortion on these grounds. The only condition would be maternal health. This would also exclude fatal foetal abnormalities (which, polls do show that a sizeable majority support abortion access in these situations) but the Bunreacht na hEireann does not currently allow for abortion in Ireland if the foetus is disabled (although the mother is always constitutionally permitted to travel).

However, I would suggest that if this a concern you have, the best thing to do is lobby for better support for families of children with disabilities. I think we can all agree it’s currently woefully inadequate and should be increased, both from the government and the community.

No it might not be dealt with in this case but Eilish touched upon it in her comment and worryingly many people have this view.

Yes support for these families is hugely inadequate and more lobbying needs to be some on the issue. Lobbying however won’t change the fact that many people think it is ok to abort a baby because they have some sort of disfigurement, and ‘ethnic cleanse’ in a way. Also people don’t always have this view because they can’t support the child financially…

I just wanted to make it clear that this would not be part of the X case guidelines as I don’t think there’s been enough clear reporting about exactly what the Bunreacht na hEireann requires this to consist of.

The US has fairly robust statistics on abortion as it’s been legal for awhile. Those stats show that the majority of abortions are performed due to mothers choice; not due to her health, not due to rape (the percentage is minute of pregnancy due to rape), nor to incest, and not because the amnio showed an abnormality – purely mothers choice. So lets not make the mistake of thinking this is a high brow debate about saving a mothers life, etc. This debate is purely about some saying it’s my body/my choice and others saying what about the rights of the child; whether you are for or against abortion, let’s debate the facts not the rhetoric

The debate on the journal or the debate in the Dail over X case guidelines? Because the Dail will only be considering how to implement abortions on maternal health grounds and to say that what this legislation is ALL ABOUT is irrelevant to the legislation is ridiculous.

I think we should absolutely know all the facts. Along with the reasons for abortion, let’s also consider that most women who have them already have children and cite lack of resources, they also occur in the first trimester. There are facts that pro life advocates are also uncomfortable with.

I’m listening to your opinion, and I’m asking you a question: what business is it of yours? I’m not trying to shut you down, I’m countering your argument with questions.

Well I don’t know how easy it would be to make sure people don’t abuse access to abortion. I feel pretty uncomfortable with the idea that a pregnant woman would have to fit certain criteria in order to be allowed to have an abortion. How difficult does her choice have to be before she’s allowed to have one? And in any case – if we say no she might well find another way (like so many do today).

I’d feel better knowing that women had the choice regardless, and that we lived in a society that dealt with sex and reproduction in a grown-up, respectable manner so that people had more respect for each other and more control over their reproductive lives. If we did, we would more than likely be cutting down on the number of abortions performed as well as making sure every child is a wanted child.

I’m just trying to wrap my head around the idea that we can feel okay about dictating over other people’s lives in such a way as we do. As if we’d know what was best for them. Some people may need help, but I’m more comfortable with the idea that a woman seeking an abortion should access medical professionals to go through what it means and let her make an informed decision. It’s a very private and sensitive issue for the majority of people, I don’t see how us getting involved would be of any help whatsoever. And as pointed out above, the majority of the medical profession believes abortion should be accessible to every woman for any reason.

If all decisions were just private matters and adults were to be trusted to make the right choices, we’d have no need for any laws. There has to be a legal framework to protect all of us and especially the most vulnerable. We’ve seen how, in the past, a lack of regulation resulted in the abuse and torture of children; there was a time when women weren’t recognised as persons worthy of a vote and slavery degraded human beings to the level of property. This seems to be the main thrust of the pro-choice argument- the belief that the developing life is a woman’s property and that she has the complete power over whether this life is allowed to continue or not. Another key factor in the argument, often argued by men, is that the father of the child has no rights at all and shouldn’t even be considered. It’s ironic that so many men swallow this line. I wonder how they’d feel if the baby they helped give life to was to be terminated against their will. I’ve talked with many women who’ve had abortions and a key consideration in their decision to abort was the lack of support from their baby’s father. Instead of men opting out of supporting their pregnant spouse or partner by saying “You’re choice, you’re body,” they’d be better off saying that they’ll be there for their child no matter what and that they’ll do all they can to be there through the months and years ahead. I know there are cases where the father isn’t on the scene, but men washing their hands of the whole issue is a major cop out.

Maria, very good points you’re making.

I just don’t see how regulations will actually help, you know? In the case of abortion, there are usually time limits for when it’s acceptable and anything after that is usually just for medical emergencies. I agree with these. I agree with women having access to consultation with professionals to make the right decision for them. I don’t see what else we could do to help, regulations-wise, that would help protect the vulnerable. Because, since abortion is usually carried out very early on, there is no actual way to prove that the clump of cells or fetus is actually a fully formed human being – and so everyone has to make up their own minds about that. As a country, we may believe in life at conception but that’s something I’d have a huge problem with. And another vulnerable party in this equation is the pregnant mother whose rights we most definitely have to protect too.

When it comes to people taking responsibility and making the right choices, I would be much more in favour of education, access to support networks, and a complete change in our society’s attitude to sex and pregnancy. I feel that would be a much better way to ensure people have the capacity to make the right choices. And when it comes to men not being involved: that’s a huge issue we need to tackle, but denying access to abortion won’t really fix the problem.

Yes, Hitler was cruel and inhuman. Why is that relevant here?

GODWINS!!!

Children will not suffer their whole life through.I have read widely on this issue and children with medical conditions suffering severe pain is a failure of medical staff to provide professional health care. Having to have surgical interventions is not an indication of a miserable life. My niece was diagnosed before birth with Dandy Walker Syndrome, has had numerous tests and two major cardiac surgeries and is now a happy, lively and loving 2 yr old. A dismal diagnosis turned out to be way off the mark and, if my sister and her husband had believed in abortion, they would have missed out on the joy and happiness that their daughter brought to their lives and the lives of their other children. Let’s not go down the road of ending a life based on some subjective view of what that life will be like. This sort of thinking has been responsible for the demise of thousands of unborn babies, solely based on a diagnosis of Down Syndrome. Is this what we want for our country- a no tolerance attitude towards any disability or severe illness? Not a very pleasant vista!

Maria, you literally DO NOT KNOW if a child’s pain can be managed, the only person who does know, for sure, is the child in question.

…and a child is for their lifetime, not just for their first few, precious, protected years.

Not all pain responds indefinately to pain management, not all pain is even physical.

I would have been better off aborted because I am high functioning autistic, from an abusive background. Currently there is no real help or hope for autistic people. No-one understands us well enough to help us, and a lot of people are happy to exploit us in the meanwhile, often making our lives an absolute misery to rake in money from the HSE while they contain us.

I look just like you, I am very intelligent, and down to earth, but I cannot stand people near me for more than a couple of hours the stress of trying to cope with interaction is too great. I cannot develop healthy relationships, I cannot find a way to make a living that I can tolerate and sustain. I live my whole live in absolute terror of being forced to be too near to my own species because of the intolerable stress that places me under and the irresolveable bullying I attract.

The organisations that claim to support me are too callously exploitative to deal with safely and no there is no real help or prospect of any. If you are autistic, unless you have a supportive family you have no hope.

I just sit here in my refuge, trying to find ways to distract myself from being terrified of the resources I need to survive being cut back, or taken away…because if they are I will have nowhere to turn to appeal that.

I am not bitter, or self pitying, I do not blame society. I am just a useless burden (through no fault or choice of my own) and in cold, hard, real terms it would be best for everyone, including me, if I had been aborted, as my mother would have liked to do, not because she knew I was autistic, but because she knew she was not ready to have a child at that time.

@ Gaye. You are clearly neither useless, or a burden. Your thought provoking and informative comments have shown that this is not the case at all. I’m sure that many people in your situation, probably thought that they were alone in feeling the way you do. Now, due to your bravery, some of them will not feel alone, and in some cases, this will be the first time in their lives, that they have felt that somebody else understands them. That’s down to you in this instance. So you should be proud of yourself, and realise how useful you’ve been to others, and also know that far from being a burden, that you will have relieved people of their burdens, by saying what you’ve said.

@Gaye i don’t want to belittle a fellow posters words,but you are amazing and i sincerely doubt a burden at all.You have shown bravery by your posts.I hope your words inspire others.Thank you for sharing.

Thank you SO much Norman and Dhakina…I was afraid I was being a bit too blunt there..and maybe upset people.

Tommy C just wants Susan Denham’s job.

All of the above tells me to run screaming from this subject before I am eaten alive. However, as I go I cannot avoid suggesting that the way I feel must be very similar for the vast majority of Dail Members.
I am not a coward and always state my views openly but this is a war zone.

It’s true – it’s because they’re slaughtered by a vocal minority. I’m pro choice, but I also understand and accept that the majority of Irish people support abortion access for maternal health reasons, fatal foetal abnormalities and it’s pretty split on rape and incest. The majority do not support abortion access for other reasons (but do believe in a woman’s right to travel.)

While I have my beliefs, I would never expect a legislator to legislate AGAINST the Bunreacht na hEireann. I just wish the current organisations making a fuss would agree with this. Youth Defence do not speak for the majority in Ireland on the issue of maternal health.

Nick, got any opinions of your own besides hiding against Bunreacht na hEireann?

Ever hear of amendments to constitutionns? Happens all of the time.

I do have opinions. I just think there’s been a lot of misinformation spread about what these guidelines would mean and my main priority at the minute is correcting them. If you want my personal beliefs, I’m happy to discuss them, but I think there’s been too much “well, I think” in this debate rather than “the legislators have a constitutional obligation to do this.”

Although I’m probably the first person EVER in Journal history to be accused of not offering enough opinion!

Lynda, it seems you’re mixing up the need for us all to have a say in how our shared social concerns should be regulated by the legislation our representatives pass vs the lack of any need for us to involve ourselves in the private decisions made by other people.

NO she’s not. There are private decisions made every day that effect all of us in society. They are all our business, or you wouldn’t be on this thread giving your opinion, would you.

Lol, Jack, presumably the same person who just gave you a thumbs down for that comment!

Have you read the stories from TFMR? Or ever spoken to a rape victim who fell pregnant? Or a woman who experienced domestic violence while pregnant?

it must be nice to have the luxury of the No vote as you’ll never have an unwanted foetus growing in YOUR body.

Stephanie, I think its obvious people like John could give a sh*t about rape victims etc. They would put a foetus before a woman. They are misogynists who dont believe women should be allowed determine their own reproductive rights.

..except that TWICE the Irish have had referenda on allowing for abortion and twice we’ve passed them; yet 20 years later, no one has done anything. The second someone does try to bring in the legislation for things we have already voted in, some narrow minded cynical individual like this TD try to stifle it. That’s not democracy; it’s the exact opposite of it, it is opposing the national mandate. So yes, perfectly reasoned, if you’re a bigot.

David this a particularly gross misrepresentation of what actually happened. In neither referenda to which you refer did we “pass” anything, they were both no votes. (in 1992 we “passed” 2 other amendments allowing information and travel)

The 2002 referendum in particular was actually quite a detailed amendment which involved legislation such as Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act which would actually have clarified when abortion was allowed and would have allowed Embryo Research and regulated the IVF industry.
The Irish people didnt pass anything, they voted against changing the Status Quo.
It was incredibly close. And as I said before Youth Defence also voted no, do you think they were voting to legislate for X? Dont get lost in rhetoric and listen to your own advice and look at the facts.
Simplifying one of the most controversial issues and divisive referenda and pretending like you know what the electorate meant is disingenuous.

There is *no* national mandate for legislating for the X case. Fine Gael gave a solid commitment to oppose introducing abortion, many Pro lifers campaigned and voted for them for this reason. In my eyes they have a mandate to not introduce abortion.

Frank, you’re talking through your prolife pro catholic rose tinted glasses and sadly missing the point by a wide margin. I’m not bothered talking to you about this anymore as it was getting tedious on twitter anyway, but I have already written an analysis of the history of this which anyone can read if they’re so inclined.

http://3menmakeatiger.blogspot.ie/2012/02/20-years-since-x-case-irelands-eternal.html

Frank, I understand YD urged a ‘no’ vote in 2002 because the amendment/accompanying Act stated that life began at implantation rather than conception – they basically rejected it on that basis, where an alternative even more restrictive wording would not only criminalize embryo research (the oft-mentioned reason) but also IVF, the morning after pill, and all forms of contraception except barrier methods and the combined pill as they can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. I can’t imagine any more than a small number of people voted ‘no’ on that basis, especially as the mainstream anti-abortion groups such as the Pro Life Campaign were calling for a ‘yes’ vote and as far as I remember all the pro-choice groups were calling for a ‘no’.

And talking about ‘not passing anything’ is pure semantics – the Irish people (other than the minority who rejected the amendment on the above grounds) rejected an amendment that would have removed suicide as a legitimate reason for abortion, ergo, they voted for suicide to remain as a legitimate reason, along with other threats to life. Which still hasn’t been legislated for.

So you’ll avoid addressing the facts. You accuse me of seeing this through pro catholic and pro life tinted glasses and you fail to acknowledge that your own bias leads you to ignore the facts.

Fact.
The Irish people never passed or voted in favour of legislating for the X case. Had they done so you would be right that there is a mandate from the people. They didnt, so, there isnt.

I recognise that in 1992 65% of people voted against narrowing the interpretation of the Supreme Court.
The main reason the Supreme Courts decision was never implemented was because the Medical Council has consistently been pro life and refused to pressure the government into legislating in this area.

In 2002 it was only 50.4% against which even if your interpretation was correct means that in the 10 years support for X has been dramatically reduced. The 2002 referendum was a very different debate. That you refuse to accept this is dishonest and frankly ignorant (in that you are ignoring the facts). Regardless nothing was “passed”, the Irish people never gave a positive mandate in referenda or elections for the government to legislate for X. But sure who would be bothered with facts when rhetoric and simplifications are so much easier.

Your analysis of Youth Defence’s motives is correct but I add that given how close it was, had Youth Defence, Dana and the rural Church, elderly electorate voted in favour (instead of against) it would have passed.

Regardless my point is that pretending like it was a black and white; abortion if threat suicide or not unfair to the electorate. Far as Im aware legally speaking voting against something does not give the government a mandate. In fact we voted against divorce in the 80s does that mean we didnt want divorce?
we voted against nice does that mean we didnt want nice
we voted against Lisbon does that mean we didnt want Lisbon
Hardly because, having voted on them again with slight modifications, we voted in favour the next time around.
My issue is that the rhetoric is
“the people voted for something and the government failed to legislate”
as if its somehow un democratic and unfair especially in 2002 where it was much more nuanced and not as simple.

My point is that people are using the No votes in 92 as a poll of people who would legislate for X.
In 1992 you could argue that 65% wanted to legislate for X
In 2002 you cant say the same and as I said even if you did 50.4% shows a drop of support from the irish people.
But if you consider that all those voting in favour are against legislating for X (49.58%) and you are honest enough to accept that YD et al would also be against legislating for X (do you think they amount to at least 0.43% of the population) then it would be certainly even closer.

The failure of the government to legislate is actually a reflection of the Irish people who at best are sharply divided on legislating for X.
the X case and the 1992 referendum is 20 years old. The abortion debate is not about suicide or not its about a clash of rights between the unborn child and the bodily autonomy of the mother.

My issue is that the rhetoric
“the people voted for something and the government failed to legislate”,
as if the government is failing the people or un democratic, is dishonest. Especially, considering how divisive and nuanced the 2002 referendum was.

“except that TWICE the Irish have had referenda on allowing for abortion and twice we’ve passed them”

Bare-faced lie.

It’s not a bare faced lie. The Irish people have twice voted to allow abortion for maternal health grounds, rather than restricting it to maternal life grounds.

If you want to argue that legislators should pick and choose which referenda to legislate for (by considering what they think people MEANT by voting), then that’s a scary prospect for a lot of issues (bad enough the re-running of selection referendum.)

And Fine Gael did not promise to prevent abortion on maternal health grounds. Fine Gael promised to introduce an expert group to examine the issue. Which is why Harris refusing to consider the recommendation and vote against them regardless of what the legislation was is indeed a departure from FG policy.

Nick. You accept yourself that its wrong to let legislators “pick and choose which referenda to legislate for by considering what they think people MEANT by voting”.

That means we agree that legislators should only legislate for amendments which the Irish people vote in favour of? Otherwise we are considering what we think people meant by voting No and legislating for that… though thats not how it is supposed to work.

The Irish people were offered a change to the constitution, in 2002 it was especially complex. They rejected it. Thats not a mandate to do anything, its a mandate to do nothing.

You’re right that the status quo is that suicidal women can obtain abortions.
So the question remains why legislators never legislated. Is it perhaps because they feel (based on listening to their constituents) that in fact the Irish people disagree with the Supreme Court decision.
A doctor could easily take a case that legally he is allowed preform abortions in these circumstances. Why hasnt he? possibly because its so rare, but also because the guidelines of the Medical Council dont allow for it. These giudelines could be changed (in fact they were in 2001).

That said I agree that a) regulations and guidelines should be clearer, explicit, detailed and public or easily available. b) Doctors should not feel restricted in their communication with patients, whether thats the medical guidelines or legal situation, this should be changed. c) I understand why it felt it was necessary to have the Expert Group, even if the ECHR doesnt have to be acted on, it highlights these problems in communicating the situation of the law and best medical practice.
Th biggest problem with X is that its not strictly based on the best medical evidence, is clearly open to abuse if not strictly limited and doesnt give the applicant the best possible treatment. It also would be very hard to define “suicidal” and the discourse seems to emphasise the womens personal subjective feelings and not the doctors advice. (How would pro choicers react if doctors refuse to believe a woman who claims to be suicidal? or who think that abortion would make it worse? ). The X case does not give a woman a right to an abortion. It gives doctors the right to decide if she is “sick” enough to have one. Is this what you want?

To quote from the completely justified backlash against those Youth Defence posters recently, “people are entitled to their own opinion, they aren’t entitled to their own facts”. Saying the Irish voted to twice to “allow abortion” is making up your own facts. Either you’re ignorant to the reality, or wilfully ignoring it. Deciding to fill in the blanks with your own opinion in either case is obscene and denigrates to legitimate argument to be made for its legalisation.

Here’s the Wikipedia article “Abortion in the Republic of Ireland”, skipping to the subsections on the referenda, if you want to touch up on your details;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Constitutional_Referendum_1992

Well, I was attempting to clarify what the referenda said. As I noted, it dealt exclusively with maternal life and health grounds and both times, the vote was to leave it as maternal health. I can’t speak to what David meant, but it’s pretty clear that maternal health is the wish of the Irish people.

And Frank, despite your assertion that the majority of Irish voters don’t want this legislated, polls (most notably Red C/Irish Examiner) would continue to back up that most Irish people support abortion being available on maternal health grounds. I would say the average Irish person hasn’t read X or ABC (as you noted, you yourself hadn’t bothered to read it!) and has minimal understanding of the precise legislative situation in Ireland. I find it very hard to believe that they think a cancer survivor should not be able to get clear medical advice and if necessary, an abortion (which is the situation in the access of legislation.)

Sorry, absence of legislation. My spell check hates me.

again putting words in my mouth, I emphasised that I had read up on it at the time and I had many questions which i could not get answers from reputable sources. Most of the articles summarised it, the case itself as you said urself didnt focus on the private details or the medical problems only the ability to get information on abortion etc. I found many holes in the states argumentation and defence and with the various gaps in explanation was generally not satisfied that I had got the full story.

2002 was very unclear at the very least very complex with a whole act to be implemented. So I dont see how its clear to deduce what the will of the people would be. Its not my assertion that the majority of Irish voters don’t want this legislated; i implied based on 2002 it could be a very slim majority but I dont think we can guess and assume when the electorate wants or thinks as regards X other than its sharply divided and certainly not enough to insist theres a democratic mandate. There are polls which show the opposite, as we have discovered with studies etc theres lies, dammed lies and statistics.

” I find it very hard to believe that they think a cancer survivor should not be able to get clear medical advice and if necessary, an abortion (which is the situation in the access of legislation.)”

but you seem to think that there are people that dont want this. Even Youth Defence accept that intervention when the Mothers life is in danger is permissible.
Information should not be outlawed and we agree that the situation, as to what is allowed or not as per best medical practice, needs to be clarified.

The interesting thing is that many people would assume the X case is about rape when legally speaking its not.

No, it’s not. Reading between the lines of the X case (which, note, my personal opinion) as a sexual violence advocate, it seems she had an incredibly traumatic experience between being raped as well as facing an unwanted pregnancy as a child. I would like to think that everyone thinks that this young woman needed access to not only medical information but counselling, support and yes, if necessary, an abortion. I think the reason for the link is there seemed to be an understanding by the judges that the rape certainly influenced her mental state.

But see, you and YD disagree here. You agree that legislative clarity is desirable. They do not. I have seen several statements which indicate this. I can only conclude that if they have read ABC and still believe that there is no need for legislative clarity, they do not think C’s case is worthy of legislating for. Which strikes me as rather inhumane.

@David why is someone a bigot if they disagree with abortion? It seems if anyone disagrees with the pro-choice group they are antiquated idiotic bigots who bible bash and shove Catholicism down people’s throats. What about individuals who simply believe it’s wrong? Are they not equally entitled to their opinion?

But what business is it of yours whether or not a woman does use abortion as a method of contraception?

It’s everyone’s business if babies are being killed.

The operative word above is “if”…

Lynda: where are you getting your facts? How could it be that people would use abortion as a contraceptive? Some might but I’d wager the majority don’t. Did you read all that in the Daily Mail or something? And as Tommy C states: what business is it of yours?

This is weird logic you’re applying. Read the accounts of women who’ve had to leave Ireland to terminate their pregnancies – the amount of money it costs, the stress and trauma of being away from their support network, having to go home on a plane bleeding and cramping and once home having no aftercare. Yeah…that sounds like a real grown-up way for Ireland to treat its citizens.

And as was pointed out a million times: over 90% of abortions occur very early on if women have access. If a woman continues with a pregnancy until 25 weeks or whatever, then chances are she’s aware she’s pregnant and wants to keep the baby. So her reasons for needing an abortion are going to be very important ones – like her life being in danger or the baby not being able to survive outside the womb etc. It’s still none of our business – and it should be the case that she gets to make the decision. It’s her body and her life and her baby – let’s trust her to make her own decisions, yeah? She’s the one who has to deal with the consequences either way, not us.

They, of course, don’t use abortion as contraception. Lyndas trotting out the same shock soundbites as the rest of the anti-choice brigade.

Who says it’s a sin? A non-existent sky fairy?

2012 man….. different world…

Your argument lost any credibility when you said “It’s a sin”. The good thing about a democracy is that people have a choice. The laws of this country, should in no circumstances be decided by the church. I’m fine with people having a belief in bronze age fairytales just don’t expect a democracy to have its laws decided by it.

Either a troll or someone who would force pregnancy on a teenage rape victim. Not worth arguing with either way.

Just wondering where in the bible it is directly specified that abortion is a sin..?

Troll your usual rubbish designed to incite go away back to the seminary

Unfortunately for you other people don’t share your views that it’s a sin and shouldn’t have to live their lives by your beliefs

@Deborah,according to http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html abortion isn’t, but men “spilling their seed” is. So all you masturbating men are going to hell for destroying thousands of potential lives every day.

And @Waterford, how many babies did God murder when he killed the Egyptian first borns and that’s only one massacre he presided over? How can you defer to the word of a god who has snuffed out countless lives when it comes to condemning women who have abortions?

Will people stop engaging with this guy- he’s a troll.

@Waterford

Thankfully many don’t have the same opinion as you. Remember ‘Waterford’ your religion and the bible is man made, a story, a very horrid violet story, one shouldn’t believe everything they read.

@Waterford

‘voilent’ not voilet!

@Waterford

I wish journal.ie would allow people correct their posts!

“violent” !

And sorry, but the Bunreacht na hEireann disagrees with you. As this is the same document which protects your right to say things that a lot of women here find offensive (like that your religious beliefs trump my right to die in childbirth), I’d maybe be a bit nicer to it.

The constitution was written when the catholic church, who view women as second class citizens, called the shots. New century nick, new beginning.

Hey, bring the referendum and I’ll vote for it. While you’re at it, let’s define marriage as a union between two consenting adults, get rid of blasphemy and this ridiculous protection of a woman’s place in the home!

Folks, Waterford is just a troll who goes from thread to thread looking for reactions. The troll typically tries to balance their no existent life by drooling behind a screen looking to wind people up. Don’t feed it.