Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
AHEAD OF FURTHER discussions of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 at committee stage today, the Master of the Rotunda Dr Sam Coulter Smith has warned that terminations in cases of suicide ideation can “create more problems”.
Speaking to Newstalk Breakfast this morning, the obstetrics and gynaecology consultant said he would not be doing his job if he did not raise the potential “difficulties and dilemmas” with the proposed legislation.
“Suicide in pregnancy is incredibly rare,” he said, before adding that suicide ideation is “probably more common”. However, he believes terminations in such cases can be more problematic.
He also explained that the “whole consent process” can be “fraught with difficulties” because the mindset of the pregnant woman is “different” as they are “not thinking rationally”.
From 9.30am today, the nine-member Health Committee will resume discussions on each section of the Bill, as well as 89 tabled amendments.
The Jerry Buttimer-chaired group has the power to insert or delete passages and change the language of the Bill.
Many of these amendments will be minor, adjusting a word here and there. It is not expected that any major changes will be accepted. The committee has already voted down two suggestions which would allow for legal terminations in the cases of ‘inevitable miscarriages’ and ‘fatal foetal abnormalities’. In both cases, legal advice from the Attorney General suggested the insertions may not be constitutional.
Following a three-and-a-half-hour hearing yesterday, the committee only dealt with three sections so it is expected that they will not finish with the proposed legislation today, especially as the TDs are due to debate the controversial inclusion of suicide ideation as grounds for a lawful termination.
Buttimer told TheJournal.ie this morning that he is prepared to continue the hearing until 9pm tonight, if necessary. He described yesterday’s debate as “measured, productive and interesting”.
Although the availability of the Minister for Health tomorrow is unclear, proceedings could spill over into the latter half of the week as there are no time restrictions on members of the Dáil speaking during the course of the day.
Only the nine members of the sub-committee (Jerry Buttimer, Ciara Conway, Robert Dowds, Peter Fitzpatrick, Seamus Healy, Billy Kelleher, Mary Mitchell O’Connor, Denis Naughten, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin) and the Minister for Health James Reilly can table amendments at this stage or vote during proceedings. But the hearings are open to all members who are not restricted in the number of times they can interject in proceedings. There are also no limits to how long those interjections are.
Once each section and amendment is discussed and voted on individually, there will be a final ballot on whether the committee should approve the law, changed or not, and send it back to the Dáil.
The Bill completed Second Stage in the Dáil yesterday on a vote of 138 to 24. Four Fine Gael TDs (Brian Walsh, Peter Mathews, Billy Timmins and Terence Flanagan) have lost their membership of Fine Gael and various Oireachtas committees as a result of their rebellion.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
“Suicide in pregnancy is very rare”
Which is why this issue has been such a red herring to distract from actually advancing women’s constitutional rights and getting rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities put to the people
I personally don’t agree with the suicide part of the bill. But why if the baby has no chance of survival out side the womb is abortion not an option.
That is why this whole issue is stupid, we are putting into law the symptoms of one particular girl from over 20 years ago.
If Enda kenny had any sense (which he clearly doesn’t) he’d have removed the seriously continuous suicide section (which is rife for abuse and very dodgy on legal grounds) and allowed abortion for when life on the baby was unviable outside of the womb along with serious foetial abnormality.
If the fetus is healthy and living and the decision to abort it is made for no reason other than unsuitability – is that ok to do?
I agree the suicide section should be removed as it is frankly ridiculous. But I don’t think Kenny can allow for abortion when the life of the baby is unviable or for serious foetal abnormalities without a referendum and it appears that is something FG want to avoid at all costs.
For me no, for others that’s for them to decide.
He can’t remove the suicide clause – it’s been approved by the people in two referendum.
That’s it exactly Nick. Suicide has to be included as it has been voted on for the people and the supreme court has also verified it.
The entire, exhausted debate around this bill is just a red herring to a) hope that pro-choicers go away afterwards or b) wear everyone out so no-one will want to continue the debate about including provisions for rape, incest and fatal or severe foetal abnormalities afterwards.
The government are to be commended for finally getting this legislated for after 21 years but they, as Enda is pointing out, haven’t done anything except clarify what is already law in Ireland.
Can’t really bring in things like abnormalities without a referendum. This whole bill has been very unpleasant in terms of public debate, a referendum would be even worse.
I’d welcome a referendum on repealing / amending the 8th amendment, but Id dread the campaigns.
Yeah, the suicide clause is rife for abuse by all those devious, underhand women, they can’t be trusted, neither can psychiatrists, they are easily fooled.
You would think people would be more concerned that a vulnerable girl or woman could be imprisoned for taking the abortion pill up to 9 weeks rather than obsessing over the suicide clause which is only going to affect a few women who can’t get to the UK. It so disgustingly misogynist of people to claim that scores of women will pretend to be suicidal to obtain abortions.
Women shouldn’t have to lie in any case, abortion should be on request up to 12 weeks, an embryo is miniscule and non-sentient and only a proteo human, women ARE sentient people with lives and loves and connections to other people, an embryo has none of these and is not the equal of any girl or woman. The 8th amendment puts women’s lives at risk, its hugely insulting to equate a woman with the contents of her womb, particularly before 24 weeks.
What is better when a child has little chance of survival? 1. Allow nature take it course & the child to die naturally or 2 look back at this tragic moment in your life & have in your memories a painful injection of feticide being injected into the little beating heart of the disabled person.
Marion you are an unbelievable troll. Unless it’s actually happened to you, get lost.
Actually not I rejected the last two referenda because of abortion on demand.
You reject referendums? Do tell us more. What other aspects of modern life do you reject?
Kelly will you stop playing the sympathy card and making all women out to be hard done by and victims. In all fairness we have it good compared to years ago. We don’t all feel controlled or dominated or that out rights are oppressed. In this fight to be equal are we actually losing a vital part of what it is to be a woman ? Each case is individual and is treated as such as it is! No one thinks we’re fools or stupid….what reason does anyone have for keeping is under control…?
Torpedo, the threat of suicide is VERY real…..
I still cannot believe that forcing a woman to carry a rapists child to term is where we are at. Or carrying an abnormal foetus that cannot survive outside the womb only to still birth.
Hmm, can’t really dispute that one…
Why does the AG say its unconstitutional to include this?
@Stephen Because the Irish constitution considers human life to start at conception. You would, in essence, be terminating a human life. The constitution protects all life until its “natural” end. The Bill is supposed to be aimed at protecting the life of the mother where there is a choice to be made in the rare occasions that the right of life to the unborn directly jeopardises the life of the mother. The Bill tries to legislate for termination without removing the right to life of the unborn from our constitution, as this would require a referendum.
80% Men 20% Women – another case of men making decisions about women’s lives.
We need amendments to include inevitable miscarriage and fatal abnormalities – if we need a referendum then make it so.
How long must we remain backward treating women as second class?
90% of profiteers in the abortion industry are male but that is ok.
73% of commenters on this site provide statistical information with no reputable evidence to back up said claim. Well done Marion.
@ Marion – point being?
And the to prove you’re correct.
It’s not about treating women as second class citizens. Its about the protection of life and a moral issue. Please stop making us out to be victims as many of us don’t feel that way
I can’t understand why the suicide in pregnancy bill is talked more about than any of the bigger,more relevant situations such as approx 4 women in Ireland are told every day that their baby will not live for longer than a few seconds outside the womb. Surely, common sense should prevail and priority should be given to this (more common) situation rather than the RARE cases of suicide threat in pregnancy. As previous poster mentioned, this suicide in pregnancy bill is indeed a red herring.
If you look at the UK statistics 98% of procedures carried out each year, mental health concerns are cited as the reason so it would be doubtful the it’s that RARE.
Have a question rather than a comment , if a women, who is say 28 weeks pregnant ,becomes suicidal .Do they abort or remove the child ?
Jeff, if she is suicidal because of the pregnancy those thoughts will probably have appeared long before 28 weeks. A 28 week foetus would not be aborted as it has a chance of being viable outside the womb and would be delivered if it was necessary to end the pregnancy to save the life of the woman. After birth it would be given the same treatment as any premature baby.
Thanks Kelly ,it was something that came up during one of those pub discussions
Getting reds for asking a question .Do you guys respond to being asked directions by punching them in the mouth .Or do you really hate people learning as you probably can’t :)
Jeff – Suicidal thoughts can occur to anyone at anytime for many reasons. They can also disappear quickly when fears are allayed and proper support and counselling and care is given to someone suffering from depression and hopelessness. That’s the message that should be promoted in relation to Suicide prevention.
Abortion is not part of a suicide prevention strategy or treatment.
Delivering children early is a high risk solution to trying to end up “not pregnant”. It’s an unnecessary burden on the Health Services to have to spend huge amounts of money in caring for a purposefully delivered premature child. Nevermind the life long damage that could be the burden on the child for the rest of its life. I can see these children being the next Thalidomide cases or the Magdalenes in relation to fighting to receive compensation from the State for the way they were treated when they were at the most vulnerable point in their lives.
It seems that “choice” is going to prove quite costly in the long run, but people don’t consider the bigger cost to society , only to their own narrow agenda.
“‘I begged the staff to let me end the pregnancy to save the baby… I turned up in [a Dublin maternity hospital] because I knew I would be safe… I wanted the pregnancy to be over… and I needed the baby to be safe… because I was now feeling I wasn’t safe.”
These are the words of a young mother, Joanne*, whose biggest fear was that she would act on the terrifying impulsive thoughts of suicide that haunted her throughout the later part of her recent pregnancy.
Her fear was real.
That she would take her own life and with it the life of the baby she was carrying.”http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/i-begged-the-staff-to-let-me-end-the-pregnancy-to-save-the-baby-one-woman-s-story-1.1449251#.UdPY2x3-9IA.facebook
Oh I’m sure the pro-abortion crowd will just denounce him as religious zealot and how dare he “tell a woman what to do with her body” etc etc
Technically zealots are non-religious or at least don’t follow their religious leaders, just for your information
That’s just one of the pejoratives used by your ilk against anyone with a contracting view, Just for your information! Smart @ss
That’s just one of the pejoratives used by your ilk, just for your information
Hey why don’t you put that on the back of postcard written in blood and send it to somebody who gives a hoot.
Good one Dee *pats on the head*
I’m guessing the term “pro abortion” is ye’r perogative then. .
I don’t like to squabble with semantics you’re either pro or anti abortion, call a spade a spade
Pro-abortion crowd?
I prefer brigade, thank you very much. Me and my ilk.
Vile.
Dee you’re one of these uber-sensitive freaks, get a life
This Thomas fella has a lotta bile for so early in the morning!!
I wouldn’t say 11:45 is “so early in the morning” pretty late in the morning I would say
tomayto, tomahto!!
Ah Thomas, you don’t get jokes, do you?
And yes, you have told me already that I am an uber-sensitive ‘weakling’ for not wanting to give birth to a rape baby, but keep on doing that. Assh*le is a really good colour on you.
Dee, where did I call you a weakling for not wanting to have a “rape baby”? Find me that quote please.
Also, where was the joke, I didn’t see one anywhere.
“Assh*le is a really good colour on you” I would say don’t quit your day job but sitting on your @rse watch Jeremy Kyle isn’t good for you either.
Pro abortion would imply that you think all pregnancies should end in abortion, I have never seen anyone advocate that..
Jeremy Kyle makes some decent points. Plus it’s fun to yell at chavs!
Gavin, that Jeremy Kyle comment was aimed at Dee but point taken.
What has that comment got to do with my day job?
It’s really cute that you think you understand the words and phrases you use.
Any day there Dee, you know, still waiting for the comment where I called you a weakling for not wanting to have a “rape baby” and offending your sensitive nature…or do you admit you imagined all that?
Incidentally Thomas,
You’re ok with ending precious life if it is a product of rape, how do you reconcile that? Surely it is not the precious life’s fault that it’s father is a rapist? Surely you are either pro-life or not – I mean, isn’t it a bit sick that you would deem yourself competent to pick and choose the situations where other people entirely should be allowed ‘kill their babies’, based on your own beliefs?
The cognitive dissonance must hurt.
Or do what pro-aborts do and smudge private property with human excrement.
Dee again you’re presuming and mis-quoting, you do that a lot. How old are you, 11? My concern about the legislation is that I don’t think suicide is a good enough reason to legislate and people might take advantage of that and as history shows this is usually a stepping stone towards abortion on demand. you’l probably pull the religion card next. Still waiting on the comment where I called you a weakling for not wanting to have a “rape baby”
Pro-abortion means in favour of legislation & being acceptable of the unnecessary procedure. If nobody was pro-abort then there would be no aborts.
You do know that the longer you go on about ‘pro-aborts’, the sillier you sound?
Marion – do you have any evidence to back up that accusation?
Ok.. Dunno what happened to the rest of that comment..
Lucky I had it copied… Here’s the rest of it..
*Bull excrement, damn you autocorrect!!
Journal – why can’t I post a link to your article on the disgusting Incident that Marion refers to? It proves she’s talking our of her hat..
With the amount of nuts in this country screaming out “abortion is murder” it’s no wonder some women feel suicidal. These people are responsible for the very problem they rail against!
Unless he is master of the supreme court, it is just an opinion.
Dee a doctor would know more about these things than a lawyer I’m sure, you’re denying facts
A doctor would know more about the law than a lawyer?
No, he’d know more about the effects of women’s health than a lawyer
He is not a psychiatrist or perinatal psychiatrist in particular so is opinion is not relevant it is the prenatal psychiatrist who deal with these women
You will believe what you want to believe Orla, if he said abortions now or hundreds will die from suicide you would believe it without question because it would fir in with your agenda
*fit in
Unless you are master of a maternity hospital his opinion will probably carry a little more weight than yours. Maybe that’s why there is an article on his opinions and you’re just arguing in the comments section under a pseudonym.
I would take the word of a professional, experienced doctor over a bunch of liberal rabble and lawyers.
And silent majority is your real name I suppose? You tw@t!!
Ok orla – ur more qualified than he is.
His opinion doesn’t matter.
Perhaps it is! Are you one of the Wexford Hutters per chance? And my point was directed Dee not you, but don’t let that obscure you’re indignant outrage. By the by, you toddled off when you were provided with some statistics yesterday – facts really can derail the ignorant can’t they!
Sorry, you’re comment was directly under mine so I can be forgiven for presuming, maybe next time specify.
I didn’t toddle off I actually wrote a long response which uploaded but was removed or otherwise disappeared. you also had a very smug, smart @ss, and condescending tone which I didn’t think merited much acknowledgement.
My point is that he is talking to law makers today not the medical council, so it is just an opinion
Sarcasm is preferable to ridicule when dealing with the desperately ill informed I find.
Desperately ill informed? Would you care to back that up with anything?
A bit rich coming from someone who refused to back up assertions with anything other than assumptions. But how about your point that making examples of traffickers would curb drug supply? All facts would indicate that that is rubbish. Or what about your assertion that the benefits of legal drug supply would be outweighed by the negative impact on public health, another point supported by nothing but your own preconceived notions? Perhaps your comparison between bodily integrity and anarchism, despite the fact the Supreme Court (hardly a tool of anarchism) has ruled that we do all have autonomy over our own person.
We all the right to hold & express our own opinions, unfortunately none of us has the right to our own facts.
SM – you based your arguement that hard drugs should be decriminalised on one article you read on Time magazines website which was in relation to narcotics being made legal in Portugal and Spain and believe that’s sufficient enough to prove hard drugs should be decriminalised. I don’t have time to rummage through the internet for facts and statistics to entertain the likes of you but only a f**king idiot would believe that legalizing hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin is anything but a bad thing. In my line of work i see the negative effects of drugs, young people dying from over doses, families torn apart, not to mention all the junkie problem on the streets of our capital, that’s what the tourists want to see isn’t it, the walking dead. And finally you’re refering to the Supreme Court, have they made the decision to legailise hard drugs? Was there a huge public outcry for heoin and cocaine to be available to all if they chose? i must have missed that article in the paper, you poor misguided little fool. You should go and take heroin then, if you turn out ok I’ll believe you. Ignorance
Just because I only provided you one link does not mean I based my opinion on one article – some day tommy you will learn the danger of assumption, I fear it won’t be today however. But I do wonder how do you see “the negative effects of drugs, young people dying from over doses, families torn apart, not to mention all the junkie problem” – these drugs are illegal, which surely means they’re not prevalent in society, no? Heroin and cocaine were only illegalised in most of the world in the 1920s, and heroin use was particularly prevent in the UK who even went to war to secure their supply – did society exist before they changed the legal status that do you think?
SM, As I said I base my opinions on what I see and deal with in every day life, I’m a paramedic so i have to deal with drug addicts regularly, they abuse me and my colleagues who try to help them, they abuse the nursing staff and doctors and the public in A&E units wasting time and resources, they utterly ruin their lives by destroying themselves with what you claim should be available to all. Why would I pull up some bullsh!t article from the internet, I don’t need to do that, no one with more than 2 brain cells would need to in order to see the negative, catastrophic effects drugs have, and didn’t they say years ago in these surveys you’re so fond of that smoking was actually good for you? In regard to heroin years ago I don’t know about that I didn’t live then.
Well if you didn’t live then then I guess it’s just completely irrelevant. People with more than two brain cells can usually see the limitations in relying solely on personal experiences for a world view, but then those people wouldn’t be so bold as to ASSUME that what they have witnessed is an accurate reflection of the world at large. This is why we have statisticians. And what those statisticians has found is that hard drug use reduces with decriminalisation, so the points you make about having to deal with junkies and the damage they cause would actually be reduced. But then, the statisticians must be wrong, I wasn’t aware you had seen something different to them.
Like I said already didn’t these same statistics used to say smoking was good for you? I gave an opinion, the opinion that the solution is better awareness of the harmful effects of drugs and tougher penanlies for those manufacturing, trafficking and distributing drugs. If you disagree that’s your problem and I’m not going to try to change your mind, luckily I think most people have the basic cop on to know drugs do more harm than good. Saudi Arabia has very tough drug laws yet one of the lowest levels of drug use in young people.
No, no they certainly did not. How would a statistical survey ever possibly prove that smoking was good for people? Surely scientific & medical examinations would be how one would establish the health impacts, be they positive or negative, rather than just asking masses of people do they reckon fags are good for you, or do fags make you feel healthier, which is all a statistical survey could do. The reason stats are used in relation to drug consumption is because it is something that can be measured quantitatively. You can often check out things like this before commenting – I believe the below link may prove useful.
Also, please never believe figures out of Saudi – apparently no one drinks there, so the people in the alcohol treatment programmes must have travelled abroad every time they fancied a pint.
Aw so I shouldn’t believe statistics from Saudi Arabia but should believe your ones, that you pulled from the zionist gutter rag Time Magazine, no they’d never provide misleading informaton would they?? Look I wasted enough time on you already, keep believing cocaine and heroin are great and should be for sale in every Centra.
The Supreme Court is just an opinion too. The US Supreme Court in 1823 defined native American Indians as Savages not entitled to their own land, 1851 Blacks were subserviant to whites & whites were not obliged to treat them with equal respect, 1973 the child in the womb wasn’t human. Were they right?
Thomas…can you please shut up now, your boring the t*ts off me…your taking over the whole thing here ..I’m trying to read what others are trying to say. Thank you.
shhhh, Marion you can’t say that, you hate women if you say that
Supreme Court also might say that hard drugs are illegal and should stay that way, I think the Silent Majority would agree as they would be the Supreme opinion on the matter.
Bronagh if I’m boring you, you can f**k off, I’m not here to entertain you
So do you think the SC’s decision that we all have a right to bodily integrity was incorrect Marion? Similar to racist decisions of foreign SC’s in generations past? Not sure I see the link beyond the fact that they were SC decisions but perhaps you could enlighten me further. I would have thought that right is particularly relevant in relation to the current abortion debate.
“zionist gutter rag Time Magazine” and your true colours are finally revealed. Is it the Jews peddling these nasty stats that disagree with your world view? These were not Time studies, Time just published the results of peer reviewed studies. And that is also the major difference between stats I quote and those released by the tyrannical Saudi monarchy – peer review negates vested interests, Saudi stats are only published so long as they reflect the image the House of Saud want the world to see and are not objectively peer reviewed. Also, decimalisation is not the same as legalising, but frankly life is too short to try and and explain the difference to the desperately ill informed.
Who are u entertaining ? This is about women’s issues …?
Good girl Bronagh, now run along you little scamp :-)
Hey Thomas you are doing nothing but cutting down women here ….your a creepy little pervert. Awww poor wee Thomas, did mammy not give you enough love and attention as a little boy awwww now run along now and stop slagging off the women on here. You little perv, is making a complete mockery of very serious issues here… U haven’t a clue …have u ?
The Supreme Court don’t offer opinions, they offer interpretations of the law. So were a challenge to come before the SC to the prohibition of hard drugs I have no doubt that they would find the prohibition safe, legally speaking, as otherwise unsafe legislation would have remained unchallenged for decades with not one person who found themselves falling foul of this law thinking to submit a constitutional challenge. Good Lord, this is like civics 101 sometimes.
Hahaha, thanks Bronagh, I got a good laugh from that one :-)
But a different rule would apply if his name was pro-abort Peter Boylan MD.
Silent Majority. Do you know the subtle difference between opinion and interpretation?
They basically are born out of the thought process of the Judges in the courts.
The Judge was of the opinion …… that the interpretation of the law should be …..
They reach a consensus based on their opinions of how they should interpret the law.
So at least we can see now that they do offer opinions and take into account facts, precedence and public opinion and unfortunately more often than we’d like, political direction when making judgments around the ever changing interpretations of law.
If you can accept the X-Case ruling as the correct interpretation how could you currently then not accept that under the law hard drugs are illegal and should remain so?
Do you think that might be a bad interpretation? Maybe so but nothing is written in stone when it comes to these matters.
I can just see the floodgates of comments. Again.
Who was it that came up with that drinking game, I think I’ll be hammered by about 10am.
This Bill is just a joke. We should legalise abortion in Ireland. End of. A woman’s right to choose instead of pussyfooting around suicide and foetal abnormalities. Are we to forever remain a parochial backwater, dictated to by archaic religious beliefs???,,
So where are you when women are pressurized to abort? That’s ok also because this has led people such as actress Jiah Khan to suicide. Abortionists don’t quiz pregnant mums if they are the person who is making the decision after all their aim is profit.
@Marion, I had not heard of this death. Having read up on the case, and her letter, it sounds like she was in an incredibly abusive relationship, however, to attribute this solely to an abortion is incorrect.
I think they should get rid of the title ‘master’ … Especially in a women’s hospital … Disgusting and f**king degrading …this idiot hasn’t a clue about women especially their state of mind during pregnancy …
Silly comment, only the liberal riff raff would appreciate that one
He’s just a specialist but then again I presume you could say the same about Jozef Menegele when he fled to Argentina & became a professional abortionist.
“this idiot hasn’t a clue about women especially their state of mind during pregnancy ”
He doesn’t agree he must be an idiot!!. How is it these childish immature radical feminists get any acceptance is rational debate is beyond me.
He has probably spoken with and cared for thousands more pregnant women than you Brona, so save your idiotic references for yourself.
First of …what’s the story with your ‘title’ Peace For All’ ….ammm a bit of a contradiction for you ..isn’t it ? Second .. Spell my name right !! Thirdly, you said … ‘he probably’, ammmm that means you are guessing things, making assumptions .. No?? Fourthly .. ‘ these feminists, ?? Until you have had children in the Rotunda hospital, (assuming you are female of course, which I doubt) maybe we can continue the point that I made in the first place….with a little bit of experience and knowledge…rather
than reading from your little texts books or copying and pasting crap from Google, you uneducated fool.
No contradictions there Bronagh. Apologies for getting the spelling of your name wrong. I’m a mother of 3 all born in Rotunda.
So as I was saying, your experience of many many many pregnant women’s experiences is more valid than the “master” (godamn insulting patriachy) of the Rotunda is what now?
I’ve a Masters (oops there we go again damn patriarchy!!) in Science, which qualifies me as an uneducated fool.
Now Bronagh please continue what you were saying about how your formal education in insults and slander and derogatory comments makes your views far more worthy than say an inexperienced or uneducated fool like myself or the master of the Rotunda or anyone else that disagrees with your radical feminist bile?
Sorry my name is entered as ‘null’. It is Patricia O’Sullivan.
Hi Pat.!
If there’s a threat to the mothers life then the mother should be entitled to make the decision to terminate… suicide should not be brought into it IMO because i believe it will lead to women lying about their mental state to get an abortion in some cases. These politicians are worried about not doing enough or doing to much that could ultimately effect them at the polls, this is the Pandora’s box that they are talking about, actually, its what Varadakar is talking about!
You have so little faith in women on this island that you think a substantial amount of them will lie to receive abortions?
For what end would a substantial amount of them do that instead of, say, go to the UK and not face a panel of judges? I’d actually like to know the answer to those questions if you have the time.
Nah, Niall you’re right. Women are completely to be trusted. Especially with our kids… Let’s let them work in our creches!!!
So hold on, you are giving out about abusive and untrustworthy women being let near ‘your’ children, but you want to force those same untrustworthy (apparently it’s all the same) to actually produce their OWN children?
What is wrong with you? Why can’t you be logical? How can your debating skills and rationale be so, so sorely lacking?
Right, so because of a perceived risk of some women’s dishonesty you will gladly risk the lives of those who are genuine..
Dee you shouldn’t lecture anyone on debating skills, your debating skills are to try to emotionally blackmail, mis-quote people and cry because you can’t handle someone having a different opinion
Any time you want to explain the logic of what he said, or how it makes a decent argument, is just fine. I’ll happily read your explanation.
Is telling someone they are a reprehensible piece of shit emotional blackmail? Or do you just feel bad because you acted like a complete ass and got called out on it? If you have no qualms over the horrendous shit you said, than how can you be emotionally blackmailed? The answer is, you are very aware of what a nasty little shit you are.
Deea I’ve asked you multiple times to highlight the “horrendous shit” I said and you can’t, so give it up will you. You are just discussing me personally and not the issues because you’re a terminal pea brain and bloody hypocrite. I’ve no more time to waste on you either. Talk to me when you’re grown out of nappies.
The procedure performed to terminate a pregnancy when a mother’s life is in danger is an induction. Legal & above board. The pro-aborts use hard cases to further their pro-abort agenda & turn a blindeye to the consequences of post abortive women. So women matter others don’t.
I’m clearly making a statement that if you want to take trust of a whole gender as a concept, let’s investigate how that worked so well when you lump all women together!
Not forgetting that it is drugs prescribed by doctors and Psychiatrists that can cause foetal abnormalities in some cases. Including the use of “anti-depressants”/SSRIs. As highlighted in last Monday’s Panorama documentary on BBC1. Women of childbearing age should avoid these drugs. There are other ways of dealing with “Depression”. I personally have been damaged by SSRIs but luckily I wasn’t a baby in the womb when it happened!
Panorama The Truth about Pills and Pregnancy BBC full documentary 2013 ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHSQiWJ-x7M (“anti-depressants” covered 15 mins in). Includes discussion about a legal case in America regarding the drug Seroxat (made by GlaxoSmithKline).
Because the negative trials are hidden on these drugs by pharma companies it should not be assumed they are safe during pregnancy. Prof David Healy discusses this 6 mins in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3YB59EKMKw
[Never stop or change medication without talking to a good doctor, due to the dangers of withdrawal]
@Nathan Anderson . I must point out the glaringly obvious; The issue of abuse in creches is a completely different one to abortion .( really it is)
Surely you can’t link them over the basis of gender alone , it’s absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical.
By the way abuse has happened in Ireland in family’s, schools , old folks homes, hospitals , religious institutions, shower rooms in sports clubs … A range of places…. . Emotional abuse,sexual abuse, neglect, physical abuse- theres more than one kind.
To suggest that this is a problem caused by a ‘ bunch ‘ of women shows you up to be an incredibly foolish person to come on a public forum spouting such utter rubbish.
Whatever your beliefs on abortion you are really gone off the track here.
Save it for your shrink mate
As I stated elsewhere, if the pro – abort side is going to presume to lump my pro – life views into a “you don’t trust women” umbrella, we’ll apply that umbrella to all cases. It’s a crap argument by them and I’m only highlighting why it’s such a crap argument.
have your say