Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
defend with pride
"Your sexual orientation doesn't matter" - the Defence Forces launches its first LGBT network
Defend With Pride is a resource put in place to “support all our personnel” says Troop Commander Paul Fleming.
6.20am, 22 Oct 2016
10.5k
32
Defence Forces
Defence Forces
IRELAND HAS COME a long way in the last 20 years.
Probably nothing encapsulates the leaps the country has made as a society perhaps as much as its acceptance of the LGBT community – capped off by last year’s landslide Yes vote in the same-sex marriage referendum.
But that is manifesting itself in other, perhaps more unexpected places also.
The Defence Forces recently launched its LGBT network – Defend With Pride.
It’s been billed as a “resource for all personnel”. At the launch Vice Admiral Mark Mellett described Defend With Pride as a manifestation of the Forces’ ”moral duty”:
For the Defence Forces, it means better decision making, better agility, better resilience.
And to talk to Troop Commander Paul Fleming, such a network in the Irish Army makes nothing but sense.
27- year-old Westmeath native Fleming, who is gay, says the launch of the network “marks the progress of society” here.
“It comes on the back of the marriage referendum and shows the massive groundswell of support for the LGBT community here,” he told TheJournal.ie.
In ways it just confirms what we already knew.
Paul himself joined the army two years ago. Now aged 27, he came upon the Defence Forces as a career while still in UCD. Initially he had planned to teach. Having gained his commission this past January, it’s not a decision he regrets.
Advertisement
“This just offered me more opportunity,” he says. “No two days are the same in this job.”
He got involved with Defend With Pride last March. “A lot of the work had already been done, my role has been with drafting the publicity material and the mission statement,” he says.
The launch of Defend With Pride. Paul Fleming is fourth from right, Mark Mellett is far left Defence Forces
Defence Forces
The network’s mission statement is: ‘a resource for all personnel, a support for all personnel, achieved through peer support and engagement with the wider community’.
There are just over 9,000 members in Ireland’s Defence Forces. However there is no indication what proportion of those are LGBT.
In practice
So how will this new network work in practice?
“It’ll focus on three areas – support for both LGBT and Allies acting as a source for information and guidance; acting as a means to educate the Defence Forces and to help make the army an employer of choice,” Paul says.
Finally, it’s there so our own LGBT community can interact directly and via social networking and events as well.
Aside from the obvious – inclusivity and progress – he agrees that there can be unseen benefits to Defend With Pride. We suggest a strengthening of the chain of command?
“Look, well-rounded decisions come with diversity. The more diverse we are, the more operationally effective we can be. So all it can do is strengthen the chain.
I ‘m certain there are ways it can benefit our whole enterprise that we don’t yet even know about.
Fleming hopes that the establishment of Defend With Pride will lead to more of the community considering the army as a career.
“I’m sure there were probably a range of reasons why LGBT people wouldn’t have joined in the past,” he says.
But we’re here now to educate our wider personnel.
The army has always been a meritocracy. That’s how we recruit, how we promote. Defend With Pride – that should say to LGBT people: ‘if you perform to our standards then your sexual orientation doesn’t matter – we’re happy to have you.’
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
@Gregory Curtis: From a “closed” forum and further down the article
“Asked how they would vote in the upcoming referendum, 58.5pc of the 518 GPs who responded said they supported the repeal of the Eighth Amendment. Another 25.3pc said they would vote to retain it and 14.5pc were unsure.”
@Gregory Curtis: If it’s their job, they shouldn’t be letting their personal feelings get the better of them & should just get on with it. Same if they’re required to actually carry out an abortion if one is requested.
@Keith McDonagh:
Simon Harris has already stated there will be a provision for any GP wanting to opt out of providing abortion services on ethical grounds.
Quite right too, this isn’t communist east Europe…………….yet.
@David Sinclair: It’s not 1989 anymore either, even though you’d like to drag us back there. Maybe you preferred when Ireland was a Catholic theocracy like Iran is today.
@Michael Knight: if this referendum is passed we are allowing women the choice to have an abortion or not. But you would force a doctor to carry one out regardless of their position. Now who is being unreasonable in not giving the doctor a choice??? There should be a register of practitioners willing to provide the abortion service and consultations. The woman can easily go online to find one or be referred to one. Forcing somebody to consult or carry out a procedure they are uncomfortable with isms taking their choice away is it not??? Or are you only pro-choice for the woman choosing the abortion and everyone else be damned?
@Kevin Tyrrell: Doctors should be given the choice…i’m also sure that there is plenty of doctors out there that will provide that badly needed healthcare to that woman..
@Kevin Tyrrell: is it not a healthcare issue?
Last time I checked a doctor is a healthcare professional and should act as such. Your personal beliefs should have no place in the work environment. We all have to make compromises and do stuff we don’t 100% agree with whilst in work.
@Richard Lippy Collins: surely a woman who just doesnt want to carry on with a pregnancy and CHOOSES an abortion it would be an elective procedure…not a necessary one surely. It’s not like the fetus will kill her. It’s like having any procedure where you are exercising a choice. It isn’t a life or death thing. In the case of the fetus being a direct threat to the mother then the doctor would be forced to act just by virtue of the hipocratic oath. But in an elective procedure surely not.
@Are roo from Cork: of course there will. That’s the point. And an abortion on demand up to 12 weeks is an elective procedure surely. No doctor should be forced to carry out one of those and as there will be many who will be happy to do it the rights to refuse and refer onwards should be allowed.
@Kevin Tyrrell: @Kevin Tyrrell: Wow. You make it sound like women are off getting boob jobs. Women don’t just wake up, find out they are pregnant and decide to have an invasive, painful, emotional and draining procedure. They weigh up their options, and come to an informed decision so yes, it is a necessary procedure. For reasons that we don’t need to know, a woman should be allowed decide for herself if she wants to carry a fetus to term or not. With it being a healtchare issue the doctor should then put his years of med school to practice and do his job.
@Tricia Golden: Would you consede that an abortion is an elective procedure? The woman is choosing it. She could easily take the time to find a doctor willing to carry it out and it should be only those doctors carrying out the procedure. It isn’t as though the fetus is going to kill at the very minute she finds out she is pregnant and decides to abort. It would be weeks probably before she would be even showing a bump. Do you want to force somebody against their will to carry out the procedure even though there will be many doctors providing an ample service to do so? I would never force anyone to do anything that they were uncomfortable in doing. That is morally and ethically wrong in every way. Stop conflating this into something it’s not.
@Kevin Tyrrell: once a woman has made up her mind to terminate her pregnancy,not even a scan will stop her from ending it..Stop trying to put obstacles in a grown woman’s way..
@Richard Lippy Collins: why can’t she simply go to a doctor willing to carry it out? I’m sure there would be many in each and every county. Is it too much to ask her to drive a few miles to a doctor willing to do it? Seriously…Stop making such a big deal about it. Nobody would be taking her rights to an abortion away. You are being totally inflammatory and exaggerating beyond any sort if reasonable stand point. The services will be widely available…most GPs are statistically pro-choice. So what’s the problem??? There is none…you just need something to be upset about it seems. People should not have to compromise their own ethical beliefs in a scenario where there is ample opportunity for a person requesting the service to avail of it elsewhere.
@Gav Quinn: we have enough ‘pro life’ crap being used against women from procuring an abortion.The last thing that they need would be another weapon to be used…
@Are roo from Cork: I’m not putting obstacles in anyone way. Unless going online and looking up a register of practitioners who carry out abortions and then going to one is an obstacle. There will be more than enough available to do it…so why force a doctor to carry out an abortion who might have reservations about performing the procedure. For one they mat not have any experience in carrying out the procedure and don’t want to for fear of doing harm…and simply refer to a more experienced colleague. Referrals to experts happen all the time. There is nothing wrong with it. I’m sure any doctor not willing for any reason be it experiential or ethical grounds would refer the woman to somebody with the experience and willingness to carry out the abortion. Surely that’s fair enough?? No??
@Kevin Tyrrell: I’m not upset about anything. I’m just saying that a healthcare professional should act as such when in work. Why should someone have to travel, wether it be to England or even a short drive away, to avail of basic healthcare?
@Richard Lippy Collins: what if they have no experience in carrying out abortions and don’t want to get that experience. Can they not simply refer on to somebody who does? Happens all the time in the medical business does it not? And with most GPs being in shared practices now with a number of GPs in one building would you have the woman demand it from a doctor who doesn’t want to…even though there is more than likely one who does just down the hall???
@Gregory Curtis: if you read the article it’s not that they maybe don’t want to…it’s because they have no training in it and would be uncomfortable providing the service in that case. READ THE ARTICLE. :-)For instance… I’m an engineer…if I am asked to design a structure that I have no expertise or training in should I not be allowed to refer to a firm or person that does? It’s disungenuous to say they are not willing to provide the service because they don’t want to…it says clearly they would be against it given they have no experience and no training and would prefer to refer to a practitioner that does…the same way me as an engineer would. Stop making things up and telling blatant untruths…or did you simply not read the article…just the headline???
@Tricia Golden: are you a doctor??? Probably not. So maybe let them decide what is a safe Service to provide…No?? If they think there may be problems with them providing a safe service shouldnt it be up to the doctor. Maybe read the article the original poster put a link to. Or will you start coming into my office now demanding I design bridges when I’m a structural engineer and not a civil engineer…and yeah I could have a stab at it but it might fall down. I’m sure there will be many places to get the pill…the government will have to ensure there are I’m sure. Or do you want women being treated or seen by people who are not sure they are providing a safe service??? Not very good for the woman is it?
@Kevin Tyrrell: Let’s put it like this, should doctors also be allowed to refuse treatment to gay, lesbian, and transgender people, because they may disapprove of their “lifestyle”? Once you’re a healthcare professional, you have to leave your personal beliefs behind, and just treat everyone, and that also means, providing an abortion, if needed or requested.
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: what are you talking about? I’m not saying that at all. I am merely saying some doctors might not want to do the procedure. They would be legally bound to refer the woman to sonebody who does. And many doctors might not have the medical training or expertise to consult or advise or carry out the procedure either. Surely in that case they refer to an experienced practitioner. Not every doctor is an expert in performing abortions. I’m sure many many aren’t. Are they all supposed to be lined up and forced to learn the procedure now? There are specialists in every field of medicine…and there will be in this area too. Is that not fair to say??? So what’s the problem? The woman will have to be referred…or do you want all and sundry doing this unsafely?
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: because it sounds to me that you lot want to just be able to pop down the local shop and get an abortion pill or rock up to the local GP…jump onto the table and say get rid of this for me doc. Zero regulation and zero time spent waiting. Are you taking this thing seriously at all???
@Keith McDonagh: Mo they should not be required to go against their consciences and kill babies in the womb. Why would you think it is ok to force doctors to kill? Is this just another example of intolerance of other people’s rights from ProChoice.
@Tricia Golden: Why don’t you stop the diatribe. Most women who have babies don’t make such a mountain out of a molehill. As a woman who had several (not exactly easy) pregnancies, I have to say this is a pretty natural process without after effects for most women.
@Kevin Tyrrell: Some doctors are not prepared to introduce killing babies in their surgeries & won’t hire doctors who do it. Those wanting it can’t force a doctor to do it. Unfortunately doctors on medical card schemes will likely be punished by withdrawal of funding & will be pressurized to go against their consciences. If I were a doctor, I wouldn’t take medical health card patients at all. Doctors should think carefully about what will be forced on them, in hospitals, practice doctors in primary care etc. It isn’t just a case of ‘if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one’. So many others implicated like nurses, nurses aids and don’t forget the porters who will be left holding the (dead) baby or the dismembered baby parts for disposal.
@Tricia Golden: Do a little research. The mifeprex (mifepristone) chemical abortion pill is not a vitamin tablet. Its not a pain killer. Its not an anti inflammatory. It can have quite severe side effects. It isnt something you pop in your mouth and walk off never having to see the doctor again. Would you not think that prescribing and administering a drug and giving competent advice and aftercare would be essential to the health and safety of the woman?? Maybe not all GP’s are confident that they can safely provide this service. Maybe it should be a specialist like a gynecologist or somebody with training and a full working knowledge of the female reproductive system giving the advice and administering it? Somebody with training and experience of the drug, its side effects, and god forbid its limitations so they can properly act if something does go wrong and a surgical abortion is required. You lot sound like you are experts in the field and saying…ah sure its only an abortion pill….its grand. Pop it into you there and head off and no worries. Until maybe the woman has an adverse reaction or a complication and end up in hospital because the GP was not competent in the administering of the drug. And Im not scare mongering…go look it up yourself.
@Richard Lippy Collins: so do you agree then that a woman who wants a c section for delivery of a baby is her Choice and should not be forced to deliver natural birth, there is very many hospitals that will not provide a elective c section, never mind doctors, and parents often have to go into huge debt to obtain a elective c section. Or are they just too posh to push?
@Johnny Bellew: @Johnny Bellew: Anti choicers view it as killing an innocent. I view it as a medical procedure that a woman may need to have due to circumstances that don’t allow her to continue with a pregnancy.
@Kevin Tyrrell: yes. That is exactly what should happen. No judgemental attitudes like yours. No waiting period. A decision between one woman and one doctor. On demand. Butt out. You will never be pregnant
@Kevin Slater: all I am saying is the decision should also be allowed to be by the doctor that may be they don’t feel they are competent, qualified to offer an abortion service. Many posters on here were saying a doctor should have no grounds to not do the abortion…and lack of experience or training is apparently a cop out. So my remark that you are commenting on was a bit facetious but all my other comments are standing by a doctor’s right to not offer the service if they feel they don’t have the expertise to offer it. Abortion practitioners should be regulated so they know what they are doing and how to offer a safe service. Many on here want to be able to go to a GP demand the abortion pill and walk away. It’s not that easy…that pill needs to be given by a qualified specialist.
@The Risen: okay so. Hypothetical for you. You have a female relative that is in need of an abortion. All doctors must provide the service since we are in your ideal world. They don’t get to have a choice. Now. You send your female relative to the local GP who has admitted he has never prescribed the abortion pill before…has no actual experience with any aftercare or complications and would rather refer your relative to a specialist. There is a specialist in the town 15 miles away. Would you have her demand the GP prescribes the pill and looks after her and takes care of her aftercare etc….or would you simply tell her to take the referal to the specialist who actually deals with this on a daily basis? That to me is a very easy question to answer. You go to the specialist. Every time.
@Kevin Tyrrell: I am not surprised that many GPs are unwilling to administer abortion pills. Firstly contrary to what some maintain abortion is killing a fetus-baby in the womb. GP training is to preserve life. Besides the ‘guidelines’ are so vague. Unspecified time lapse between request and administration 3mins, 3 days +. Will a GP risk litigation if s/he delays ‘too long’. My most recent experience of booking a GP appointment for flu symptoms was a 5day delay before seeing a GP. If this happens with over-worked GPS will they fear being sued? Conscientious GPs may refuse the pills to a woman over 35 years, or a smoker or a patient with breathing or cardiovascular problems. Will such a GP fear being sued. Only some of the reasons why an over-busy GP will say more trouble than it’s worth.
@Michael Knight:
No.It’s 2018 and Simon Harris has already stated that GPs who wish to opt out of providing abortion services on ethical grounds can do so.
Do try to keep up.
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus:
‘should doctors also be allowed to refuse treatment to gay, lesbian, and transgender people, because they may disapprove of their “lifestyle”?
It’s highly unlikely that gay, lesbian or transgender people will find themselves pregnant.
GPs who refuse to provide abortion services do so on ethical grounds.
It is quite right that Minister Harris has allowed them an opt out clause.
And I’m sure if the EU creates a federal army then no doubt you will be supporting any gay, lesbian or transgender person who wishes to opt out as a conscientious objector.
@DPentony: Down syndrome will not be grounds for abortion though. This has been discussed at great length at this stage and yet people are still trying to use these people for their political aims.
@Biggus Diccus: I assume you forgot to include “up to 12 weeks” otherwise you could be accused of deliberately spreading inaccurate information…which I’m sure was not your intention.
If we can at least try to keep this debate factual it would be a big help.
@DPentony: It doesn’t help the anti-choicers case that they are spouting non facts about abortion rates of fetuses diagnosed with Downs. The anti-choice campaign is now really just being driven by the hope that people will go, aww those poor children, why would anybody do that?! It’s disgusting and makes me sick.
@Richard Lippy Collins: You better get used the idea of the referendum being defeated. I wasn’t one of them but 38% voted against gay marriage, these people will certainly vote against abortion. In theory it shouldn’t be hard to find about 15% more this time. I & many others who supported gay marriage won’t vote for abortion, this is what I’m hearing. This is the group of people who will defeat this. Death is going to such a hard sell for you guys. The save the 8th campaign have a much more simple effective message.
Such a waiting period sounds draconian. A distressed woman should not be forced to wait for treatment just to appease some Catholic fundamentalists in Fine Gael.
@Christian Taylor: Doesn’t address any issue, only meant to force people to wait and for what purpose? Why include it? It’s patriarchal at best, it won’t change anything, it’s an attempt to appear in control, it’s herding cats in reality.
@Gav Quinn: It does address an issue, actually, I would say. It’s giving the woman (and possibly her partner) time to reflect once a decision has been made. I think five days is too long because if you’re going to abort, do it as soon as possible because no one knows when the soul joins the body. I’m not religious at all but I am self-aware and I’m quite certain that most other creatures (humans and otherwise) are too.
To throw in the word patriarchal here though is quite daft. Stirring nonsense into a serious question.
@Chucky Arlaw: Have you got a reasonable statement to make or do you just have shite talk to fling around?
Call it what you will, a soul, self awareness, whatever. I know I have it and I don’t need any religion or label to be sure of that. Not so sure about the likes of you, based on your recent confession.
@Philip O Brien: Her partner doesn’t get a say, rightly so too. It’s her body, not his. It’s FORCING her to wait, it’s assuming she needs time to rethink. It’s enough to assume she has already thought it through, but you proved my point. The reflection period is being inserted for others to feel better.
@Gav Quinn: Her partner, assuming she has one, does have a say. I’ve gone through two abortions with two different women I was with, and I had a say in each case, by which I mean we both sat down and discussed the issue, and decided together what to do.
Aborting a child is not a minor decision, so once you make the decision official by going to see the doctor or clinician, it’s probably not a bad idea to have some time to think about it within the context of “now I’ve made my mind up, does this change how I feel?”
I do think that five days is too long though. It might be better to say “come back in 48 hours and if you still feel the same way, we’ll do it then”.
@Philip O Brien: well if self awareness is the test babies aren’t actually self aware: ie understand the distinction between self and non-self until the age of two
Souls and self awareness are no part of this debate
@Gav Quinn: dude, it’s like a cooling off period when you sign a new contract. you have 14 days to go off and think, and you can change your mind in those 14 days. we need to trust women, but they aren’t infallible, and believe it or not, they do change their minds sometimes, just like men… so why shouldn’t there be a period where they can go and reflect before making the ultimate decision?
@Chucky Arlaw: Souls and self awareness are not part of this debate, but in my opinion, it’s really all that matters.
It’s an inadequate argument, I feel, to talk about infants understanding the difference between self and non self. There is a point somewhere between conception and death where the soul joins the body. I’m not religious, so I don’t want to waste much time contemplating the God Theory, but I wonder will science ever be able to prove when a bunch of cells becomes a “me”.
The only difficulty I have with abortion is that we don’t know at what point a bunch of cells becomes a bunch of cells with an assigned conscious entity.
If I grew a bunch of human cells into a tree of organs in the lab from which I could pick a new heart, lungs or big toe from, and one day I unplugged it from its energy source and it died, my feeling is that no wrong has been done, because it was never going to become something independent with its own thoughts and perspective.
A foetus in the gestational phase may or may not be just a bunch of cells. If I knew for a fact that there’s no soul (simplified term) attached, fine, I have no ethical issue. If I knew for a fact that there is a soul there, I do have an ethical issue.
The only thing I am certain of is that I don’t know, and the women I’ve known or loved don’t know either, so it’s not about trusting them as such. It’s far deeper than that, and far deeper than big mouths or flag wavers or banner holders on either side of the debate.
@Christian Taylor: Maybe we should just go for abortion if the woman has a headache! How could anyone expect a woman to continue being pregnant if she has a headache?
@Gav Quinn: maybe wait so that the woman doesn’t make a rash decision while emotionally upset. They give you a 14-day cooling down period if you buy something!!!
@Philip… What???
Your talking about how we have souls etc
You don’t mind abortion if they don’t have it but have ethical problems if they do!
Yet you supported two women through abortion?!
We have souls.
(self awesomeness, doesn’t happen till much older in our life)
The building blocks for Human life are there from the moment of conception, so If your in doubt assume its from conception when all else is created.
@Bridget: “You don’t mind abortion if they don’t have it but have ethical problems if they do!
Yet you supported two women through abortion?!”
Correct – both of the incidents in question happened quite a long time ago, circa 2000/2002. I’m pretty sure I was manipulated into believing the first was mine, but the second certainly was. Both came about through careless behaviour, and both may well have been completely avoided if abortion wasn’t available anywhere. I make that latter point based on the learned notion that making mistakes is more likely if you know deep down there’s a way out of it (which there was for me and the women in question – but not for the children in question, of course).
I am well aware of the contradiction in my actions before and my attitude now. Some might call that hypocrisy, but I see it as learning from my mistakes. If I got a woman pregnant today, I’d encourage her to keep the child. At the same time, I’m far less likely to take stupid risks because while I could “get away” with it before by “fixing” my mistakes, I don’t consider that to be an acceptable way out now – for the reasons that I’ve stated before (we don’t know when the soul arrives into the body).
“The building blocks for human life are there from the moment of conception, so if you’re in doubt, assume it’s from conception when all else is created.”
While I agree with the biology, I’m not sure about the metaphysical aspect of this, by which I mean I am not convinced that the soul arrives upon creation of the zygote (the initial fusion which occurs when the male sperm implants into the female egg). What I do know is that the soul does arrive at some point after conception and before birth. I don’t know the answer to this question, and while I somewhat agree that in cases where you don’t know, you ought to err on the side of caution, I will never make any assumptions about this.
In the event that I am lucky enough to have a wife one day and we are lucky enough to have a child on the way, if it turns out that continuing with the pregnancy puts my wife in unusual danger, there is no way I would want to continue with that pregnancy. Her opinion would matter too of course, but a potential new life does not get to usurp the place of an existing life, and I would say that no matter how far along the pregnancy is.
” (self awesomeness, doesn’t happen till much older in our life)”
That was absolutely absolutely shameless from Minister Harris, to exploit Savita’s death to further his pro-abortion agenda. I wonder will he show as much pity over the countless lives lost in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy should he and his cohorts get the chance to bring in legislation to let the killing of innocents begin?
@Johnny Bellew: you stated before that thousands of lives have been saved because of the 8th. I asked you to provide some information baking this up, I am still waiting
@Johnny Bellew: Nobody’s killing anyone, they’re talking about allowing women the choice to have an abortion for whatever their reasons. If they feel it’s the right move then it’s very much up to them & if they don’t feel it’s the right move, they don’t have to do it. It won’t be compulsary so don’t worry about it.
@Johnny Bellew: well said.
Harris and cohorts showing their true colours.
Recommend everyone to attend the Right to Life Rally this Saturday 2pm.
Unborn Babies need a voice and someone to protect them.
Government wants zero protection of life for unborn babies.
@Johnny Bellew: Johnny, on behalf of the people who trust women in relation to their reproductive rights, I’d like the thank you for your tireless work for the pro choice side.
Please, keep up the inflammatory, hyperbolic language….
@Johnny Bellew: “@The Risen: Sometimes facts, because of their very nature, may sound inflammatory/hyperbolic, but at the end of the day they are simply facts.”
Oh, you like facts Johnny do you? Well riddle me this. If you have such a problem with abortion why do you worship a God that mandates it in your holy book?
@Pconor: but if the pregnant woman doesn’t want to be pregnant then she will go to the UK and have an abortion or will buy abortion pills online. How are you protecting the unborn as they will continue to have no choice should the pregnant woman decide she doesn’t want to continue being pregnant. Going abroad for an abortion is legal and Irish woman by the thousand are having abortions.
@Johnny Bellew: I did say it won’t be compulsary so if a woman doesn’t plan on having one, she doesn’t need to worry & neither does anyone else for that matter. Women who want one already go to England for them anyway, you can’t stop it so you may as well make it more easier & let them get it done here. You don’t have to support it but you have to understand that’s it’s their choice to make & you just have to deal with it. Don’t want one, don’t get one, don’t worry about it. Problem solved.
@Brian Madden: that’s no comparison at all. Traveling to the US to procure a gun to commit a murder is also legal, yet we don’t stop people from traveling.
@Johnny Bellew: this referendum is about abortion and not about gun control. Can you please provide me with some proof that thousands of lives have and are being saved as a result of the 8th as you mentioned. Cora Sherlock mention five thousand per year. Can you explain to me how the process life group gets this figure?
@Johnny Bellew: “About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks.
This doesn’t include situations in which you lose a fertilized egg before a pregnancy becomes established. Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time.” https://www.babycenter.com/0_miscarriage-signs-causes-and-treatment_252.bc
@Brian Madden: why is it ridiculous Brian? It’s spot on! The mechanism (travel), process (securing the means) and result (ending of life) are all the same are they not?
@Brian Madden: it’s called an analogy Brian. It’s spot on. You’re concerned that the state permits women to travel to UK to end life via abortion but you’ve no concern for them traveling and ending life by any other means. Bizarre!
@Sean @114: are you giving equal rights to the born with the unborn? Why is it that abortion is legal and killing a born person Isn’t? If life begins at conception then why is the morning after pill legal?
@Keith McDonagh: If somebody thinks of abortion as really just being about ending a human life, this line of thought isn’t going to reassure them. What you’re essentially saying is ‘the government has legalised badger baiting, but if it bothers you, remember it’s not compulsory, you don’t have to do it’.
That doesn’t address any of the concerns the pro-life people have.
@Brian Madden: they’re giving more rights to the non viable embryo than to any born person when it comes to using another persons organs….they’re saying that that human embryo doesn’t need the consent from the human being, but once it’s born, it does…
*****consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy****
Savita’s death was caused by sepsis compounded by gross medical negligence. Three independent investigations have confirmed this. Absolutely nothing to do with the 8th Amendment and shame on Simon Harris for trying to exploit her death in this manner. Her husband has previously asked that her name be left out of Ireland’s abortion debate.
@Emma Murphy: Do you know more than Dr Peter Boylan, chair of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and former master of the National Maternity Hospital?
Boylan: “Of course she died of septicaemia, she wouldn’t have got septicaemia if her uterus was empty and any practicing doctor knows that and anybody who claims otherwise is really not telling the truth.”
@The Risen: Its normal procedure with a miscarriage to let nature run its course. Savitas blood tests were not followed up which led to the septicaemia not being diagnosed. They were the findings and thats a fact and Dr Boylan is being deliberately misleading cos we all know he is stone mad for abortion.
@Emma Murphy: don’t let facts get in the way of them using a woman’s death to forge their lies.
Save the 8th. And btw I have zero religion. Now square that peg repeals
Such a wonderful act of self-deception couched as ‘termination of pregnancy’ but what it actually does is break the chain of life by dehumanization or inserting the idea of subhuman where none existed before. I understand from experience that the readership of the Journal are prepared to consider the issue as a woman/foetus or woman/pregnancy while ignoring that it is not a gender issue but rather how far people are willing to deceive themselves at the expense of the most cherished relationship in society – mother, parents and child.
@Gerald Kelleher: it’s a gendered issue while women are the only ones who can carry a child. You and your church will dictate to women of Ireland no longer
@Chucky Arlaw: I look at the standard of discussion here and it is fairly poor – normally an attempt is made to make it a denominational Church issue when it is, in fact, a vapid language issue where mother and developing child are entirely absent from consideration. There is nothing positive about the ending of a life so if people are willing to distance the woman from the developing child in her womb by an act of self-deception based on words, then they die in themselves as reasoning humans.
Nobody dares touch the word ‘subhuman’ and that will get me banned but it is the word that encompasses this whole issue.
@Chucky Arlaw: Put down your trumpet, you daft troll! Abortion is not a gendered issue in the sense that the arrival or not of a new human being affects both parents.
Unless of course you’re the sort who likes to dip his wick and run, which, judging by your other comments here, indicate a sort of brainlessness that wouldn’t surprise me at all.
@Tricia Golden: Fair enough, I wouldn’t expect anyone who avoids the words mother/child would find anything positive in this issue. The use of the word ‘subhuman’ was always towards extermination purposes and used in different centuries for different things but unfortunately the ‘pro-lifers’ are just not interested in the historical development and its awful consequences.
@Gerald Kelleher: but Gerald you are actually a devout Catholic are you not? You go so far as to deny Newtonian physics because the Church tells you to
So therefore it seems likely that your anti choice views come from your allegiance to the Catholic church. And of course everyone knows that the Catholic ‘concern’ for the unborn is rooted in their medieval desire to control women. Just look at how your precious church treated children under its care to look at the altruism behind their actions
@Chucky Arlaw: You can’t help yourselves can you as this is not a Church issue or a gender issue, it is however whether you can even bring yourself to write about mother and developing child instead of an Oireachtas report that can only mention woman/foetus or woman/pregnancy.
The chain of life as a concept doesn’t take a holiday because people are dead set in dividing mother from developing child for extermination purposes so it is an individual act of self-deception to believe woman/ foetus is something less than what it actually is.
You remind me of the brexiteers who develop impossible notions yet truly believe by some reworking of language that the border problem will go away where the North overlaps the South and the UK overlaps the EU -
By trying to isolate a mother from developing child it creates a society that loses self-respect as it is prepared to believe anything because of the wishes of one sector of society. No point in complaining about brexiteers when we as a nation are prepared to apply the same self-deception by imposing impossible notions on life in the womb.
@Gerald Kelleher: well said. Agree 100%.
Can see the referendum passing. People trusting politicians to decide??? As a country where has that ever got us…
@Chucky Arlaw: Because you want to bash the Church is no reason to mix it up with abortion. You obviously aren’t aware that there are atheists, LGBT, all religions and none, all professions and none who are against abortion so stop using the FG propaganda in their document for canvassers when they were talking about priests in the debate – “attack the Institution of the Church” also they said link the Catholic Church to Prolife! We know it is a tactic and if you want credibility in the debate, stick to the issue and leave the straw men out of it.
Please correct me if I’m wrong (with a source) but as far as I know there were three inquests into the death and all three found medical negligence to be the result. Nothing to do with the abortion laws in place.
@Chucky Arlaw: Correct. Had she been given the abortion when she requested it (for a fetus that was dying anyway, remember) she would almost definitely not developed the sepsis that killed her.
@Chucky Arlaw: but the reports found that the 8th didn’t apply and shouldn’t have resulted in her not getting an abortion? The wording of the 8th should have allowed her to obtain one so if anything it’s to do with educating doctors about what the 8th means.
@Daisy Chainsaw: At 91 years old I wouldn’t have thought so. Of course that might lead a reasonable person to suspect that the 8th amendment could not have been a factor in how her case was managed and there is a wider problem with the treatment of sepsis cases.
Harris and his cronies are cowards ,another political stunt to bring in the wholesale slaughter of the innocent ,they have from the outset built their pro abortion agenda on the negative ,in a country where many couples who are unable to conceive ,where many travel abroad to adopt ,we give the green light to destroy our own native unborn children .the children of the state born or unborn are all our responsibility .society is a collective ,a child in the mothers womb has the basic right to be protected not exterminated .natural laws rise above mans laws and the right to life is fundamental to our own very existence .the republic is a commonwealth ,children born or unborn are part of that common wealth .we have no right to have them sacrificed .
@Anthony Gallagher: Whilst I feel for women who can’t conceive and/or have to go abroad to adopt, I fail to see the connection between that and the issue if abortion.
Are you suggesting that we carry on forcing women to carry to term so they can then in turn give their baby away to someone who cannot or chooses not to concieve?
Also, there is nothing sacrificial about an abortion.
@Daisy Chainsaw: these guys are a hoot :) If they want to ‘protect’ that “child” in the womb,why are they not looking to repeal the 13/14th amendments? Why are they not losing their minds at the 1500 women that are taking the abortion pills from right under their noses…
Beginning to veer to a no with this information. Usually not involved with the abortion debate but the first bullet point is troubling for me. It sounds similar to the provision which brought in abortion in demand in the UK and possibly negates the 12 week limit.
@UnTriggeredv2: The first bullet point is necessary to allow a pregnant person receive medical treatment and/or medication for conditions and events that arise while pregnant, such as cancer or brain bleeds, that under Article 40.3.3 may be prohibited due to the possibility of causing harm or death to the foetus.
“termination up to 12 weeks of pregnancy will be permitted without specific indication.” That’s a bit vague. How does a GP determine whether the fetus is 12 weeks old?
The fact is the vast majority of abortions are carried out long before the 12 week cutoff.
The irony being Irish women with the additional burden of travel (and all that can entail (raising money, time off from work, organising childcare, flights etc.)) led to them have later term abortions than would have occurred had they been able to access abortions in Ireland.
@Tricia Golden: if they’d bother to look at the UK abortion stats,they would find out that most Irish women have the procedure carried out before the 10th week…
@EK: Thanks for the replies guys. I had to laugh at the chalk one. Apparently there’s a company that sells pregnancy testers that can tell you how far along you are.
@EK: Scans are what determine how far you are gone but in the UK they don’t let women see the results because they often change their minds when they see a real baby instead of a ‘clump of cells’
Personally, I don’t like the idea of a “waiting period”, however I could tolerate it. About time women were allowed to control their own body after becoming pregnant.
@Tricia Golden: I’m in two minds over the waiting period, on the one hand, I don’t like it, and think it has only been included to appease some fence sitting people, on the other hand, a waiting period of say 24 to 48 hours, after the doctor has explained what is involved in the procedure, for the woman to make up her mind, if she really wants to go through with the abortion, that I could live with
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: The waiting period is understandable and it does give the woman time to make sure that this is her choice, but she should also have access to a local doctor or clinic, not be forced to hang around in expensive accommodation in a city waiting for that time to lapse.
Such a wonderful act of self-deception couched as ‘termination of pregnancy’ but what it actually does is break the chain of life by dehumanization or inserting the idea of subhuman where none existed before. I understand from experience that the readership of the Journal are prepared to consider the issue as a woman/foetus or woman/pregnancy while ignoring that it is not a gender issue but rather how far people are willing to deceive themselves at the expense of the most cherished relationship in society – mother, parents and child.
Absolutely horrified that the Journal banned me for a more expansive view of the issue.
@The Risen: Nobody was called a racist however scientific language supports the notion of subhuman which far exceeds any racist ideas. It is the major framework that provides the background for this issue as woman/foetus are being misdirected towards extermination where once scientific language was used for humane purposes like miscarriages and difficult pregnancies where loss of life is unavoidable.
You have had your fun and games and so what if I am banned again, it may even help other readers appreciate how their own decency stacks up against those like yourself who have convictions but stand for nothing positive.
@Gerald Kelleher: If you could go ahead and provide citations for your assertion that “scientific language supports the notion of subhuman” in the context you are implying, that would be great.
@Felicity Hensen: I already did many, many times before insofar as the term ‘anthropomorphous’ became accepted via natural selection and is still taught in secondary schools as an achievement. Nobody wants to go there , not even the ‘pro-lifers’, but that language swamps the issue which dilutes normal language of mother/developing child into woman/foetus where it can be directed towards extermination policies rather than the humane language which surrounds miscarriages and other medical problems with pregnancies.
The gender issue spills over into normal pregnancy where at the same time parents are celebrating the upcoming birth of their child while others are exterminating a foetus. It is not a gender issue, not a Church issue, not anything else other than a use of language for an act of communal self-deception.
@Gerald Kelleher: The term anthropomorphsis relates to the giving of human features, firstly, to deities. It was our arrogance & ignorance that claimed all other species were incapable of self-awareness & emotions. But I fail to see what either anthropomorphsis or natural selection has to do with a foetus, or the provision of abortion services. And as you have provided citations “many, many times before”, I’m sure you will do me the courtesy of providing one more.
@Felicity Hensen: Anthropomorphous apes was the term used to describe negroes and aborigines as evolutionary props within a natural selection narrative which distinguished glorious white skin people from gorillas and baboons. Once the notion became accepted then subhuman entered academic language as a principle and so it remains to this day. Anthropomorphous morphed into untermensch through the national socialists and now foetus for extermination purposes in Ireland.
Those with a balanced view make their case on the use of language like mother and child or mother and developing baby however there is another issue , almost totally ignored, where subhuman or something less than human provides the basis for extermination of life or termination of pregnancy as it is called in some circles. This issue is so unpopular that I invite being banned rather than have citizens here look at the use of language head on.
@Felicity Hensen: Even people who consider themselves intellectually strong find it almost impossible to put the academic acceptance of subhuman in context -
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Darwin
Once a society breaks the chain of life by inserting subhuman at a specific time in a child’s development for nothing other than willful extermination purposes, that society becomes diminished and in fact it may already be diminished. Try to make a positive out of killing is self-deception.
@Gerald Kelleher: It appears you are trying to use the necessity of repealing the current version of Article 40.3.3 from the Irish Constitution to promote racism and bigotry. At no point is a foetus considered “subhuman”. That term is only used by racists. It is not used by scientists. It has no part in an accurate understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Access to abortion services will not, as shown by all other jurisdictions where it is legally available, lead to “willful extermination”.
@Felicity Hensen: ” At no point is a foetus considered “subhuman”. ”
The only means to exterminate a developing child in the womb is to dehumanize that child so it is ultimately a vapid language argument and an act of self-deception. The danger always was that the humane language surrounding miscarriages and pregnancies in difficulties would be swamped by gender issues.
As for racist, give me a break, the aborigine/ anthropomophous ape part of that natural selection ideology refers to the genocide that happened in Tasmania in the early 19th century when the aborigine population was wiped out by settlers.
@Felicity Hensen: “It [subhuman] is not used by scientists. It has no part in an accurate understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection.”
You asked me to provide a citation where a subhuman term is used and anthropomorphous within the context of natural selection was the original bridge between glorious white skin people and baboons so you can’t have any complaints. Darwin would have known about the aborigine genocide on that lovely island of Tasmania so he wasn’t a racist or bigot when he suggested extermination of anthropomorphous apes, in this case native Tasmanians, he was just considering the matter as an academic with a dispassionate language of what is less than fully human -
At least the population of Ireland get to discuss the issue in historical context when issues of extermination of life such as large scale willful termination of pregnancy for lifestyle reasons becomes part of a national mindset. In my view it is a step towards self-deception and really unhealthy for any nation as it amounts to mob convictions.
@Jim Kenny: But you’re all for the betrayal of women’s rights and continuing to treat them as second class citizens. Whichever politician can betray them the most gets your vote, is it?
The ‘pro life’ people were told a few years back that the abortion pills would be the game changer…and so it has turned out that way..We have been told that there is approx 1,500 first trimester abortions happening in this country every year…so it’s now best to take your head out of the sand and have it done under medical supervision…
Minister Harris can’t live with the thought of women not be able to get an abortion.
I agree with him but why can he live with people on trolleys on corridors where their health only get worse and not better.
i am a bit confused by this. if the 8th is repealed, can a future government change the abortion law without the people having to vote. if this is the case, how much do we trust our politicians.
@Datuk Don: Yes, that’s exactly what will happen. So if a future Government decides that it wants on-demand abortion without any time limit they can legislate for that without reference to the people.
@Frank McGlynn: yes Frank. They are asking the Irish people to trust the politicians. Take the decision away from the general public and allow the politicians decide if a baby must die or not. If 12 weeks gets in then next will be 6 months.
The UK regime of abortion is horrific. I would hope Irish people have more compassion and morals to vote ‘NO we don’t trust politicians…
@Pconor: Would you be so kind confirming that, based on what you’re asserting, a politician will need to be present at all appointments for prospective and confirmed pregnant people. And the politician, not the pregnant person, couple, or medical professional, will be making the decision as to whether the pregnancy will be allowed, or if an abortion is necessary.
@Pconor: “the UK regime of abortion is horrific” – can you show us cases of the “horrors” of the past two years ? There must be “loads” of them that you can put up…
For shame simon harris for shame!!!
3 official reports confirm savita died from mismanaged sepsus.
Her spouse gas askef her name not be used in this debate.
You have no morals whatsoever. Disgusting
@willypearson: Regardless of why she got sepsis it was still mismanaged and that is why she died. She died because medical staff didnt do their job properly.
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair: Obviously the man can have a say. The two can sit and talk and decide together, I’m sure it happens all the time. But the woman has the final say. If she doesn’t feel like carrying a fetus to term then she doesn’t have to. That’s what this referendum is for.
@Richard Lippy Collins: correct. The woman ultimately can decide whether she wants to end the life or not. There have been many contentious legal cases on this, where does the father’s duty of care start and end to his own offspring?
@Richard Lippy Collins: what if she changes her mind, very common, for example after 3 months?? So all is snowdrops and daffodils for 3 months then mother decides not for me but father wants the child. Very common scenario so father caught with a moral dilemma, wants his offspring to live but…
@Sean @114: Well then she changes her mind. It’s allowed. We change our mind all the time, it’s in our nature. It’s sad for both people involved, but she still has the say. It would be an horrific occurrence but if it’s the right thing to do then it’s the right thing to do.
@Sean @114: It is a difficult place for the father to find himself. But it’s not him that has to carry the fetus, so the ultimate decision belongs to the woman. So yes, it is black and white in that regard. You’re bringing in an extra element that has nothing to do with the referendum. Also, you are aware abortions happen anyway, we just export them. The issue you’re raising is already an issue that is faced by potential parents. I don’t see how it is going to change if we allow abortion to happen in a safe and legal environment.
@Richard Lippy Collins: it is not the right thing to do. After 12 weeks I doubt if there is any person living who does not know that the baby in the womb is a recognizable baby whom many mothers can feel moving. To be so immature as to say ohI have changed my mind it is my right to get rid of my son or daughter is unnatural. It is the total opposite of how a mother should behave. Anyone who displayed that level of irresponsibility does not deserve the right of choice. I cannot believe the callous disregard for human life expressed in this blog.
@Richard Lippy Collins: yes well as I said above ultimately it will be the woman’s decision to end the life. The father, although responsible for the welfare of his own child outside the womb is powerless to protect it’s welfare inside the womb.
@Kay Kehoe: @Kay Kehoe: I never said anything about after 12 weeks. I was responding to a comment regarding twelve weeks, not after. Did you read the previous comments. I believe the previous comentee mentioned 3 months, not later. I do not, nor have I ever expressed myself to have a callous disregard for human life. Where you got that from, I have no idea. Your comment has no merit in this argument as you fabricated stuff to respond to.
@Sean @114: Not powerless, he can try. At the end of the day it’s the womans choice to carry or not carry. Unless you would rather we continue to force women to carry a fetus to term. Are you for that?
@Richard Lippy Collins: depends on the reasons for ending the life Richard. If her life is in danger, the baby will be born with a fatal condition etc then the older life should take precedence over the younger. If she wants to end the life at any time to suit her lifestyle then clearly this should not be allowed. The majority of people would not want this permitted and open season on the young life.
2 things that wont be in the bill referendum.
(1)
Humanity
(2)
The right to life
Just to add,,,neither will a pregnant woman whom is killed by domestic violence or killed whilst pregnant her unborn child unprotected,,,,her imediate family will not be able to prosecute for a double “Homicide” the unborns rights have therfore been vilafied by (7) Supream Court Judges.
Says a lot for child protection.
ABORTION A LISENCE TO KILL BY REFERENDUM,,,,,SAY NO TO MURDER.
@Michael Donovan: Given the historical and current difficulty regarding acknowledging the serious consequences of intimate partner & domestic violence, including situations that result in homicide, repealing the Eighth Amendment is lower on the list for those trying to survive intimate partner & domestic violence than you assert.
@Felicity Hensen: He also needs to look at the ‘double homicide’ convictions in the U.S. over the past 20 years…Of all the attacks on pregnant women, which resulted in the loss of their pregnancies,there still has only been a handful of convictions.
The attack on the pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy was seen as the bigger crime…
@Keith McDonagh: You may not be aware, Keith, but there is a referendum to be held before that shameless mob get a chance to put their soiled hands towards any legislation.
@Johnny Bellew: I’m just saying, it’s better to get all this stuff done sooner rather than later so you don’t waste any time or effort drafting up a plan after something is voted in.
@The Risen: The man said he was an atheist yet he looks to have a nice balance of head and heart so this quasi-commie attempt to neuter discussion by bringing in the Vatican looks desperate rather than anything else.
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: Thank you for reminding me that I have to descend to a crude level to respond otherwise easy enough to ignore you.
Make sure you celebrate ‘mother’s day’ in gratitude to a body that give you life.
Hi guys, I thought I’d post this comment on a post relating to the Eight amendment. I have created a brand new Facebook page entitled ‘Pure Politics’ to get people engaged with political affairs and get people talking. I will be doing opinion polls on this new page with some of them relating to the upcoming May referendum in Ireland. I would really appreciate if you could visit the link below and like the page! Thank you very much!
I’m really sick to the back teeth of the polar opposite views being displayed on social media at this stage already. Seems to me that rational people tend not to comment in general. Seems to me that extreme comments only help to polarize views and certainly will not convince anyone to vote in favour of the protagonist. Time now to sit back and consider what you believe to be important. The majority will then decide.
@Ronan Ryan: I agree completely. A good example were the two numpties on The Last Word yesterday evening with their “my protest march is bigger than your protest march” b#llsh*t. Wouldn’t like to be back in Ireland for the next 2 months with all the propaganda, posters, etc.
This is all just a smoke screen to divert every other failing Simon Harris is governing. He is incompetent.
With 660- 700 people lying on trollers not sure how his “health service” will support all the abortions he now wants to support nationally with an infrastructure that can’t cope.
Malak Thawley and her partner Alan, two of the greatest victims of the cut backs and incompetency within the Irish health care system. Malak lost her life during an ectopic pregnancy emergency surgery by an inexperienced and no doubt overworked “have a go” junior doctor.
The doctors in this instance ended up in the pub across the road looking for ice during this surgery…. Harris is accountable for this death. He has enough failings and blood on his hands without adding even more…
While we all appreciate that this issue is complex, the Minister for Health should be ashamed of himself. His attempt at heartfelt sincerity is disgusting, a one-sided view of the issue as typical of this pro-abortion government. Using Savita Halappanavar and other cases are appalling. He is effectively spitting fire in the faces of babies, children, men & women who are alive today as a result of the protection imparted to them by the 8th amendment.
Will he stand in the Dáil and put it on the record in front of the people who are alive today because of the 8th, and tell them he wishes they were killed in the womb?
Can he live with their existence as sentient human beings just like us all?
We should not be falling for this one-sided propaganda by government and media.
I have yet to hear the moral or ethical argument by the pro-abortionists for the killing of unborn babies. Has Simon Harris seen ultrasounds of a baby in womb @8 weeks let alone 12 weeks & how well a baby is developed at that age?
Israeli military approves plan for new offensive as South Sudan denies Gaza relocation reports
Updated
1 hr ago
4.2k
met police
Over 140 people have reported crimes by former Harrods boss Mohamed Al Fayed to UK police
1 hr ago
4.4k
Animal Welfare
'Awful to watch': Outrage over video of horse and trap crashing into car on Dublin road
15 hrs ago
35.0k
Your Cookies. Your Choice.
Cookies help provide our news service while also enabling the advertising needed to fund this work.
We categorise cookies as Necessary, Performance (used to analyse the site performance) and Targeting (used to target advertising which helps us keep this service free).
We and our 220 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device. Selecting Accept All enables tracking technologies to support the purposes shown under we and our partners process data to provide. If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you. You can resurface this menu to change your choices or withdraw consent at any time by clicking the Cookie Preferences link on the bottom of the webpage . Your choices will have effect within our Website. For more details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
We and our vendors process data for the following purposes:
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
Cookies Preference Centre
We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent. You may exercise your right to consent, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. Some vendors may process your data based on their legitimate interests, which does not require your consent. You cannot object to tracking technologies placed to ensure security, prevent fraud, fix errors, or deliver and present advertising and content, and precise geolocation data and active scanning of device characteristics for identification may be used to support this purpose. This exception does not apply to targeted advertising. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework. The choices you make regarding the purposes and vendors listed in this notice are saved and stored locally on your device for a maximum duration of 1 year.
Manage Consent Preferences
Necessary Cookies
Always Active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
Social Media Cookies
These cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.
Targeting Cookies
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
Functional Cookies
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
Performance Cookies
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Store and/or access information on a device 154 partners can use this purpose
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development 201 partners can use this purpose
Use limited data to select advertising 163 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Create profiles for personalised advertising 124 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Use profiles to select personalised advertising 125 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Create profiles to personalise content 52 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Use profiles to select personalised content 49 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Measure advertising performance 181 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Measure content performance 79 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources 113 partners can use this purpose
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Develop and improve services 119 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Use limited data to select content 52 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
Use precise geolocation data 67 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification 38 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Ensure security, prevent and detect fraud, and fix errors 126 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Deliver and present advertising and content 128 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Match and combine data from other data sources 96 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Link different devices 69 partners can use this feature
Always Active
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Identify devices based on information transmitted automatically 120 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
Save and communicate privacy choices 108 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say