Advertisement

We need your help now

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.

sheff via Shutterstock.com

Opinion A woman pregnant by rape is treated as 'a vessel and nothing more' by Irish law

The UN criticised Ireland’s abortion laws and lambasted the State for failing “to assign any accountability” to issues like Magdalene Laundries, mother-and-baby homes, child abuse and symphysiotomy.

AT THE CONCLUSION of Ireland’s appearance before the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva yesterday, a surge of energy penetrated the normally sombre Committee room when the Chair of the Committee highlighted a series of human rights abuses which, he said, could not be disconnected from the “institutional belief system” which has predominated in the State.

Sir Nigel Rodley, referred to the Magdalene Laundries, mother-and-baby homes, child abuse and the practice of sympisiotomy, describing these as “quite a collection of issues” for which the State had failed to assign any accountability.

Sir Nigel’s comments marked the end of Ireland’s Fourth Periodic Examination by the UN Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which saw Minister Fitzgerald face tough questions from the 17-member panel of human rights experts.

The profound effect of symphysiotomies on survivors

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) led a 30-member civil society delegation to Geneva to brief the Committee members in advance of the hearing on a broad range of issues. This group included members of the Survivors of Symphysiotomy campaign group (SOS), who provided direct evidence to Committee members on the profound effect which this procedure – often performed without consent – has had on their lives and continues to do so.

As a newly-appointed Justice Minister, who came to the job with a reform agenda, we waited to hear from her about forthcoming inititiatives which would move Ireland towards with compliance with the Treaty. We heard some good news: on legislation to amend section 37 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 (which permits discrimination on the grounds of religious ethos); recommitment to the “reform of police accountability and oversight mechanisms”; and, a departmental task force to look at the amendment of Article 41.2 of the Constitution on the role of women.

However, although the Minister emphasised that “support for the role of the Treaty Monitoring Bodies [such as the UN Human Rights Committee] is a cornerstone of Irish foreign policy”, we heard no less than six references to legislation that was “being progressed” or which would be “published shortly”, as well as the development of implementation plans, and strategy reviews or the establishment of task forces and implementation groups. There was limited reform to report, it seemed.

And it didn’t get much better. The 70 people who had gathered with expectation in the ICCL’s Human Rights Green Room in Dublin were presented with a reiteration of previous Government submissions replete with reasons why we – Ireland – were not in a position to comply with international human rights standards.

Irish women treated as ‘vessels’

And so, as the Committee members continued in vain to seek answers from the Government delegation about why Ireland, which views itself as a protector and promoter of human rights abroad, could not develop a strategy to bring our abortion laws into line with the Covenant or why we continue to deny survivors of symphysiotomy an independent, transparent and effective truth finding process, the clock was running down rapidly and the spotlight was about to move off Ireland.

But not without some choice words from the previously restrained Chair, himself an international human rights expert and former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Sir Nigel confessed that he was unable to understand how a woman could be “doomed” to continue a pregnancy “regardless of the health consequences” and “at the risk of criminal penalties”. In particular, he mentioned pregnancy as a result of rape “where the person doesn’t even bear any responsibility and is by the law clearly treated as a vessel and nothing more”.

On a broader scale, the Chair captured the essence of the fundamental deficit in Irish political and social life: the lack of accountability that blights the Irish political landscape. He concluded his comments by specifically referencing the survivors of symphysiotomy and the inadequate redress which had been offered to them.

Will we have a repeat performance by Ireland? 

Following on from the Geneva examination, the Committee will issue a series of recommendations to Ireland next week. Minister Fitzgerald and her cabinet colleagues have two options: continue with business as usual and prepare a repeat performance for Ireland’s next examination before the Committee in four years. Or, inject real political leadership into the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations.

With a revitalised Cabinet in place and Ireland’s current membership of the prestigious UN Human Rights Council, we have reason to hope that the latter road may be travelled by Ireland this time. Committing to a full Oireachtas debate on the forthcoming recommendations from the Human Rights Committee would be a clear sign that the Government is genuinely committed to mending its ways.

Deirdre Duffy is Senior Research and Policy Programme Manager at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties.

Read: ‘I will stay married’: Transsexual woman defiant after court ruling

Read: UN told symphysiotomy patients were ‘operated upon wide awake and often screaming’

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.

View 142 comments
Close
142 Comments
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Gus Sheridan
    Favourite Gus Sheridan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:16 PM

    Yes thank God for the UN. This bunch of slimey crooks that pass as a government cant brush this under the table like before!!! ,

    199
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Declan Conway
    Favourite Declan Conway
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:11 PM

    Into the stocks with you!

    And the government has ordered the ducking stool for Ms Duffy.

    next!

    11
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute UnapologetiCapitalis
    Favourite UnapologetiCapitalis
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:06 PM

    It’s a good job we have a real country beside us

    159
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:04 PM

    Symphysiotomy was one of the sickest procedures ever carried out on women in this country via the collusion of the medical ‘profession’ and the barbarian Church lunatics acting as one.

    The mother and baby homes were centres of liquidation for babies. They were liquidated. The mortality rate in some of the homes was 4 times higher than the general public at the time. This was done all over Europe. They were left to die.A quarter of all babies born outside marriage in the 1930’s died before their first birthday – that would have been a similar 17th century mortality rate.

    I’d like to say we’ve moved on somewhat but nearly 100 kids died in state care these last few years.

    125
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michelle Mc Loughney
    Favourite Michelle Mc Loughney
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 8:11 PM

    Well said Niall and all sadly accurate.

    27
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Stephen Moore
    Favourite Stephen Moore
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:19 PM

    Even if Sir Nigel Rodley slapped Minister Fitzgerald with a fish, he wouldn’t wake her or the government from sleepwalking into the next election. Typical irish government navel gazing!

    92
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Catherine Mill
    Favourite Catherine Mill
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 8:01 PM

    Thank you Stephen. I am glad I am not the only one to notice Ms Fitzgerald zombie mode. Typical of course of having all emotions quashed when training as a social worker. She never responds to service users. Treats them as if they do not exist. I actually thought she was dead there for a while. No energy emanating from her at all.
    Then she has the audacity to blame all this on the times that were.??? So thats all right then is it.?
    What happened the women of Ireland was criminal. End of.
    All that RC BS re suffering being good for the less evolved feeble minded of Ireland belongs in the bin. Still we use this same excuse inn 2014.

    25
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tricia Golden
    Favourite Tricia Golden
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:43 PM

    Can we PLEASE have a referendum to repeal the 8th Amendment! Until that Amendment is repealed the law won’t be changed.

    87
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michael Brady
    Favourite Michael Brady
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:40 PM

    It might make more sense to have a UN Human Rights representative – (independent of cabinet/Ireland) – to reside here over the next four years and actually oversee the committees recommendations…
    eg – The IMF resident representative Peter Breuer recently departed after a few years!! – a similar type of action is most probably required.

    81
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:44 PM

    Relevant as the points are, There is not a single member of the UN security council that hasn’t consistently continues to breach human rights far in excess of anything we ever did. than. I haven’t heard him condemn China for allowing abortion right up to the point of cutting the chord, no condemnation on Syria, no action on Gaza. That makes it difficult to listen to Sir Roger lecture.

    We are also a democratic state, and we decide whether abortion on demand is legalised or not. Not the UN or anyone else.

    36
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute insider.ie
    Favourite insider.ie
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:07 PM

    Niall O’Sullivan: the undemocratic UN Security Council has absolutely nothing to do with the Human Rights Committee, which is composed of human rights experts elected directly by all UN member states. Opponents of free choice here, in the US and elsewhere always like to shoot the messenger!

    68
    See 2 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:14 PM

    Democratically elected by all UN member states of which most are not actual democracies in the first place? The majority of UN states are not fully fledged democracies.

    15
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michael Brady
    Favourite Michael Brady
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:31 PM

    Niall, this particular review concerns Ireland, which is why China & the other countries you highlight were not mentioned. The upcoming recommendations will easily get sidelined or caught up in cabinet debate. I think having an expert from the UN continuously monitoring the cabinet subject debates, and evaluating progress would at the very least, provide a deeper insight for everyone.
    To give you an example, Kathleen Lynch – Minister for Equality & Mental Health – her first action was to employ her husband as her personal assistant….considering the lack of human rights in the Irish mental health system, an independent expert might of have said something along the lines of – “hold on Kathleen, would it not make more sense for you to employ an innovative practitioner out of your existing pool of mental health practitioners” —it is these small actions from leaders in the government that prevent actual progress.

    63
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Daisy Chainsaw
    Favourite Daisy Chainsaw
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:24 PM

    Rather a foetus be dehumanised, than a woman or girl.

    Permission has to be sought to take organs from dead bodies and live bodies. You’ll never be forced to donate a spare kidney, or even a pint of blood to save another’s life, but a woman or girl in Ireland will be forced to be the life support machine for 40 weeks irrespective of what SHE wants or her physical and mental wellbeing.

    The anti-choice, pro-control, so called “pro-life” see a pregnant woman as nothing more than a brood sow, or a vessel.

    72
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 6:14 PM

    So there can be no argument in favour of a right to life?

    12
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Daisy Chainsaw
    Favourite Daisy Chainsaw
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 7:01 PM

    That’s the choice for the woman or girl who’s pregnant to make for herself.

    61
    See 2 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute luke daly
    Favourite luke daly
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 8:14 AM

    Even after say 23 weeks?

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Daisy Chainsaw
    Favourite Daisy Chainsaw
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 12:47 PM

    Abortions at that stage are generally TMFR so, yes I absolutely agree with a woman’s right to choose. The vast majority take place before the end of the third month by taking a pill and having a heavy period.

    Do you think there are women in Ireland who get pregnant, wait till they’re over the halfway mark and think “F**k it, I’m bored with this.”?

    21
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute michael fennessy
    Favourite michael fennessy
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:17 PM

    I presume rape victims would act soon not the alarmist bull paddy scully makes out .they would hardly wait 8 months

    45
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mindfulirish
    Favourite Mindfulirish
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 7:26 PM

    All under the watchful eye of the Pro Life gang. Great name for a group of people who are prepared to allow women and children suffer intolerable pain, sometimes for their entire life. I suspect a few think Jimmy Saville was ok of a chap, just different.

    36
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Keith Maguire
    Favourite Keith Maguire
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:33 PM

    The reason is simple. Irish law recognises the right to life almost from the moment of conception. An argument that does not deal with this fact is never going to sway anything. If Sir Nigel Rodley is confused as to why a woman should be “doomed” to continue a pregnancy you could similarly ask him why a child should be sentenced to death because of who its father was. Until there is some change in when the right to life attaches to a fetus there can be no change in the law on abortion.

    31
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:49 PM

    Doomed?
    You mean damning a woman to bare the child of someone who committed an atrocity against her, against her will is not devaluing her life in favour of what is at that point, a bunch of cells? You can’t see how that is deeply disturbing?

    180
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Keith Maguire
    Favourite Keith Maguire
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:01 PM

    I haven’t given any opinion on the matter. I’m merely pointing out why the law will not change. You call it a mere bunch of cells but many disagree. Until there is some consensus on that point then there won’t be any agreement on the wider topic.

    23
    See 14 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:08 PM

    @Keith

    Well I will say that many a scientist know full well what they define as life and what they don’t and if a virus is considered to technically not be a form of life due to the fact it cannot survive whatsoever without host machinery then by extension, how can that not extend to an organism that can NOT survive without a parent host. When they foetus acquires the communally agreed characteristics of life it should be protected fully but until that point, I nor many a biologist (some disagree however) do not consider that life.

    85
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Keith Maguire
    Favourite Keith Maguire
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:14 PM

    Good for you. That doesn’t change the law though. Only a referendum will. And if your plan to convince people that your view is correct consists of simply belittling their beliefs and dismissing their views as you already have on this thread then I doubt you will change many minds and nothing will change.

    Incidentally, when you apply your definition of life to humans, how to you account for children who are born and placed in incubators and on life support? As they similarly cannot survive on their own do you also dismiss their right to life? Or is it perhaps a little more complicated than that?

    18
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:34 PM

    @Keith

    You would have to disregard logic to think the same applies to babies or indeed people on incubators as it is a temporary state. They still have fully formed organs, features and as of YET cannot sustain themselves whereas the initial cells present in the womb, if the development was arrested, could never fulfil the criteria for “life”. That also is not MY definition of life but the scientific community’s.

    I doubt the minds against abortion will be changed and that’s actually fine because I trust the majority and I know they will do what’s right. My purpose is to offer scientific artillery to others who want to debunk and override “religious beliefs”. I’m not belittling your opinion, merely saying science has a definition, agree with it or agree not.

    67
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:37 PM

    Not to mention, incubators impose on NOBODY else’s body, rights or choices.

    65
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:38 PM

    Well in Ireland, Mary, we now have a law on suicidal ideation that stipulates no time limit at all. So it’s kinda moot in some respects when one considers life to begin or not.

    11
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:39 PM

    @Niall

    Well I do not think babies should be aborted past a certain point, that is for certain.

    50
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kelly Davis-Jordan
    Favourite Kelly Davis-Jordan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:05 PM

    Actually, at about 24 weeks the foetus would be delivered not aborted at it had a possibility of surviving outside the womb. So ‘abortion up to term’ is a misnomer.

    60
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Emilio
    Favourite Emilio
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:34 PM

    Kelly, you are using logic there, the anti-choicers can’t handle that much.

    48
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:35 PM

    @Kelly
    Thanks for that. Didnt know that and useful to acknowledge.

    36
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 4:32 PM

    As it stands in law Kelly, whatever about practice, it is legal to kill an unborn at any point in the pregnancy if it meets the criteria laid down.

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kelly Davis-Jordan
    Favourite Kelly Davis-Jordan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 7:49 PM

    Say a woman develops severe preeclampsia/eclampsia in the 24th week of pregnancy which can cause stroke and death, the only way of saving the woman’s life is terminating the pregnancy, that’s the only cure for eclampsia.
    A pregnancy can be terminated by abortion or birth, the foetus has a possibility of survival at this stage so why would anyone preform an abortion rather than an induced delivery?
    In the case of suicide, if the case suits the criteria then the pregnancy will be ended, if the pregnancy is at around 24 weeks it would be ended by delivery not abortion. A term limit in this case is irrelevant as if the foetus was viable it would be delivered and attempts made to save it.

    21
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tomás Heneghan
    Favourite Tomás Heneghan
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 2:51 AM

    Niall, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act actually only permits abortion where such a procedure is the only way to prevent the death of the woman. It may not be explicitly stated in the Act but anyone with any legal knowledge knows that the Act implies that premature delivery of the foetus must be the action taken when the foetus has reached a stage where it is viable outside the womb. Abortion is therefore limited to the early stages of pregnancy under the terms of the Act. As well as this, Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution makes it a breach of the foetus’s constitutional right to life if it is aborted after the point of viability outside the womb. This is because abortion is only ever currently permitted in Irish Law where abortion is the only way to prevent the death of the pregnant woman concerned. Very few Irish laws and constitutional protections are considered by themselves or on face value and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act is no different. So please get the facts right before you start making up or repeating ‘pro-life’ “facts” to suit your own agenda again.

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 4:33 AM

    Is there legal limit, to terminating a pregnancy, in cases of suicidal ideation?No is the answer.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tomás Heneghan
    Favourite Tomás Heneghan
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 5:58 PM

    Probably not, because termination of pregnancy can be done through abortion or delivery of the foetus and delivery of the foetus is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:29 PM

    I never taught anyone could start three paragraphs in one article with “Sir Nigel”, but I was wrong. Sad to see raped women been used as the vassal by which the “killing fields” of out times aim to finally fully dehumanise the child in the womb. For the reader, is it true compassion for the rape victims, or playing with the genuine concern for raped persons to bludgeon through their contempt for the pre-born?

    28
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute William Nunan
    Favourite William Nunan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:40 PM

    Our cap tipping and deference to titles issued in another jurisdiction astounds.

    What about sirs jimmy and rolf , they too were treated as deitys.

    16
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:47 PM

    Hello Paddy,

    You’ll be thrilled to know I have time to chat today.

    Abortion for rape victims is paramount. Considering that statistically a woman is significantly more likely to become pregnant as a result of rape it is especially important something is implemented quickly.

    146
    See 84 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:50 PM

    I agree abortion for rape victims is important. Proving it will be the problem and defining a framework around it. I think, but I’m not certain. a system of allowing abortion in cases of rape exists in Poland?

    58
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Hannigan
    Favourite Paddy Hannigan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:53 PM

    Along with Fr. this and Sr. that and His Holiness the other thing.At least this guy does not think that his title grants him magical powers to dictate what someone does or doesn’t do with their own bodies.

    80
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:59 PM

    @Paddy
    You’ve said something similar to me and my creditials, I believe.

    I think you’ll find that being highly involved with DNA, as a genetic scientist (DNA- a word which you actually first referenced in your post) gives me a reasonable amount of credibility on this topic and is in fact not a result of “magical powers” (those are reserved only for your magical, alien friend in the sky so that he can impregnate virgins) but of lengthy hours researching and working on the topic.

    74
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:04 PM

    @ Mary Doherty
    Hi Mary.
    Would you clarify what you mean by “statistically a woman is significantly more likely to become pregnant as a result of rape”. My instinctive understanding would expect exactly the opposite.
    I still cannot see how an innocent child can be condemned for the crime of its father. It is clearly not the mothers wish, but one crime does not justify another.

    23
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Hannigan
    Favourite Paddy Hannigan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:11 PM

    @mary. Which Paddy you talking to. I believe in abortion being legalised in line with international practices.

    59
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:12 PM

    @Paddy

    I’m thrilled you asked. I mean that actual scientific studies have been carried out that for some reason (and it is not fully understood) women re more likely to become pregnant as a result of rape than consented sex.
    Here is a summarising article from Psychology Today http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201208/why-are-rape-victims-more-not-less-likely-become-pregnant

    Abortion is NOT a crime Paddy. Expecting a woman to automatically be less valuable than a foetus simply by default is pretty criminal though.

    108
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:13 PM

    @Paddy Hannigan

    Sorry, not you! Paddy Scully.

    61
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute insider.ie
    Favourite insider.ie
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:15 PM

    @Paddy Scully and William: most of us have moved on from caring about titles either way. Whether “Sir”, “His Eminence”, Fr.” or “Sr.”, the only thing that really matters is the substance of what they have to say!

    54
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute CAK
    Favourite CAK
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:17 PM

    HI Paddy, in addition to the scientific point Mary raised, no doubt you are following the christian teachings of how ‘god doesn’t get you pregnant when you’re raped’. As a woman however, I use a condom when having consensual sex with a partner – rapists tend not to use protection when they are attacking and violating women.

    Hope this helps.

    Do you also believe that an innocent woman should not be condemned to a life and pregnancy they do not want just because of the crime of a man who attacked them? Or is it good enough for the woman to have to go through that?

    100
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:42 PM

    @ Mary Doherty
    I’m always interested in humans, and nature is full of surprises. I’m not so sure about the article, it could be true. But the basis for my understanding was that married couples will copulate more frequently naturally around the time of ovulation; but I don’t think rapists are so discerning.
    I never have, and never would, believe a mother is less valuable than the child she carries. So please stop implying I believe that. Should a mother, who has rejected her child for whatever reason be allowed to sniff out its existence, well no. The mother will experience deep anguish, the child will pay by dying.
    Abortion is a crime, even when the mother claims she will commit suicide; but induction is preferable to the death of the mother, as has been practiced in Ireland for years.

    11
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute CAK
    Favourite CAK
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:58 PM

    You are completely entitled to think that abortion is a crime Paddy. That is your opinion. However what you are not entitled to do is push your own opinions on the women of this country who know their own mental health and their own bodies far better than you do.

    Personally if I was raped and got pregnant I would have an abortion as I know I would not be able to cope with that pregnancy on top of the rape. I know this about myself for a fact. You do not have the right, as a complete stranger to me, to prevent me from doing what is best for me in this situation.

    If you were in this situation (which conveniently you never will be) you would be entitled to make your decision based on what is best for you.

    What we need is legislation that allows grown women to make decisions that are in their best interests.

    108
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:00 PM

    @Paddy

    The article is legitimate from a great magazine which has summarised the statistical data quite nicely. It’s legitimacy really is not up to date.
    Have you a link for the study on married couples? I haven’t seen it but I would anticipate that a married couple probably live in the same house (and so have access to each other)and are the most likely people to plan pregnancy (because it could be assumed they are more financially and emotionally stable, from studies and actually invest in knowledge about ovulation periods etc) which is all circumstantial and different to the clear biological bias for conception via rape.

    But by saying a woman, even if raped, should be prevented from having an abortion and therefore in cases should incur the psychological and physical burden of not just having a child but a rapist’s child, that clearly infers the child is worth more than her life which is viable to stop. It is a myth to say the mother ALWAYS experiences “deep anguish” from a termination. Studies show, in fact, it is the stigma of abortion that most affects the woman’s health and not the procedure itself.

    78
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute coolioboi
    Favourite coolioboi
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:09 PM

    One crime does not justify another
    The other crime if she became a mother
    Glad you agree ,Paddy,my brother

    8
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute michael fennessy
    Favourite michael fennessy
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:24 PM

    Paddy “innocent child” rape victims dont wait around long enough for it to become a child.

    46
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute michael fennessy
    Favourite michael fennessy
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:27 PM

    Paddy would u like to have larry murphys child inside u for 9 months.easy for a man to say what you say u dont have to be pregnant and go through labour.u r either very naive r very heartless.

    76
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:42 PM

    Though I don’t share Paddy’s view on this one, I can see where he’s coming from. Some people do believe that life itself should be protected at all costs, unless that cost is the actual life of the mother herself or in self defence where one’s own life is under a direct and very real threat.

    If you believe that the unborn is actually equal, and has an equal right to life then that seems a logical conclusion. There are some admirable qualities to that imo. But it is devoid of emotion, and it’s that last bit that gets to me.

    15
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:58 PM

    @Niall

    I agree that there are certain aspects of those who defend life that are admirable, I personally find those who suggest they are against abortion because of the right to life to be a little confusing. To me, the right to life extends to the woman too who, when pregnant against her will, certainly exists but pigeon-holing her in to that position demeans HER life and it’s quality. It’s a tad myopic and presumes to exist is to be happy and to not exist is to be sad when really this is not true. To not exist is nothingness but to be alive should include a reasonable shot at happiness. My point is sometimes pro-life is ironically anti “life”.

    50
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute CAK
    Favourite CAK
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 4:00 PM

    I don’t personally see any admirable qualities in Paddy since in a similar discussion he said that if it was his daughter who was raped and got pregnant and didn’t want to have the child that he would ‘try to forgive her for the crime she committed’. Nothing admirable about a man who would do that to his child when she’s already going through a horrific time and needs parental support.

    I would also consider mental health very important in this situation. A woman may be physically capable of carrying the child and therefore her life is not in danger, however her life in terms of the disintegration of her mental health and well-being is very likely in this event if she was vehemently against carrying the child – I would argue the mental health and well-being of a woman supersedes that of the life of an unborn child even if the woman is physically capable of going through with the pregnancy.

    51
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 4:27 PM

    @Mary. I think the right to life is unquestionably the most important fundamental human right of all. Without that right all other are meaningless.

    The question I would ask you, as the unborn does have an established right to life in the constitution, is what point a mother’s happiness justifies the termination of a life that also has a right to life?

    A right to life imo, means a right not to be killed – or perhaps a right not to be killed unjustly. What are your thoughts on that?

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 4:54 PM

    @Niall
    “I think the right to life is unquestionably the most important fundamental human right of all. Without that right all other are meaningless.” But there’s the first problem: some undifferentiated cells in a womb do not (despite what many believe) does not constitute a human being and thus to extend that, it is not necessary to subject this entity to laws that govern human beings.

    The right to life is instigated for this entity from the moment it exhibits actual characteristics of life and is not merely perceived to be life.

    Again, all of your points negate the fact that technically speaking, from a scientific perspective, and I believe also a philosophical one whereby life is synonymous with consciousness, this entity as not human, is exempt from these human laws. A woman’s happiness and livelihood supersedes that of this, non-child as it would any non-human.

    33
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 4:56 PM

    @ Niall o’ Sullivan
    I’m believe the interest in rape victims is purely in so far as it can advance the cause abortion.
    One thing one gets used to on my side of the debate, is nobody from your side addresses of the debate addresses the rights (human right) of the child. Despite the new found role of the UN as agents on behalf of the abortion industry, the right to life is enshrined by governments as a human right.
    @ Paddy Hannigan
    Im not concerned what they do with their bodies either, im concerned what they are willing to do to anothers body, a distinct human being, with distinct DNA.
    @ CAK
    I can see your re was lost on you.
    We continually push our opinions on others every day, in the form of the laws of the land. This is how we decide what is right and wrong, and enforce what is right. The law of the land will always hold sway over the rights of individuals to do their worst on other persons.

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:04 PM

    @Paddy

    Or it’s been used an as especially important aspect of abortion?

    The clear point of differnce here is what is perceived as a human. You like to mention DNA a lot Paddy and I would contest that this is not as viable as you think. Ultimately all this is is 5 elements: oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen and these are found in all eukaryotic species. The only thing separating our DNA from that of another species is the organisation of these elements and we, as humans attribute meaning to this when in fact it has no intrinsic value until we bring in consciousness and being animated and alive. Human DNA itself is merely attributed abstract meaning here when I fact there is none intrinsically if not in a living, breathing person.

    And no Paddy. Laws exist for order and our benefit and when one is surplus to requirements or no longer serves a benefit it is thrown out. In democracy, laws have logical basis. Positions born of religious belief do not.

    35
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Beabad Bishop
    Favourite Beabad Bishop
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:10 PM

    I presume as a Christian the poster Paddy believes in the antichrist.So I wonder if he would equally object to an abortion if god told him that the cells that were being aborted were that of the anti- Christ ?

    27
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:14 PM

    @ Mary Doherty
    The likelyhood of pregnancy is not too relevant really, but the lives involved are really important.
    My contention is that the penalty of being killed for your fathers’ crime, is significantly disproportionate to the anguish of carrying the child. If the rejection of the child persists after its birth, then adoption is possible. Generally speaking the motherly instinct to protect its child greatly reduces the incidence of suicide in pregnant women, despite their natural reaction against the child which was forced upon them.
    @ coolioboi
    Least there be any misunderstanding, the crime I’m referring to is the killing of the baby.
    @ michael fennessy
    There are indeed many adults, the outcome of a rape, who are alive and well today. I encourage readers to look up the pro life stories many of these survivors tell.

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Conor Buggy
    Favourite Conor Buggy
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:19 PM

    But Paddy its a foetus not a child. It is only a child when it is capable of living independantly outside of a womb.

    Is a bunch of cells (blastocyst) attached to the lining of a womb a child? No. Is it dependant on the life of the woman to survive? Yes. Can it survive independantly outside the womb? No. It has the potentual to be a child but it is a bunch of cells.

    Your side of the argument classify everything from the first cell division after inception right up to the end of the third trimester as a child. And quite simply thats incorrect.

    36
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:25 PM

    “The right to life is instigated for this entity from the moment it exhibits actual characteristics of life and is not merely perceived to be life” At what point in the pregnancy do you deem that to be so?

    Also, science, where useful and informative, is only one part of the equation. Many people on both sides of the debate may not consider a foetus to be a person, yet nor do they view it as valueless.

    Nor can science be called upon to give us a fixed point along the spectrum whereby a ‘person’ comes into existence – for that reason there’s no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life.

    But in law, we do all have a right to life. In fact I was reading of a case last night in common law in the UK in 1994 where the House of Lords held that injuring a foetus badly enough that it died sometime after birth constituted manslaughter because a ‘person’ had been killed. However, they also found that as the foetus was not actually a person at the time it was injured it couldn’t be murder!

    It’s all quite a mess all in all.

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John Everyman
    Favourite John Everyman
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:27 PM

    Wasting your time Conor; the biology of pregnancy has been explained to our lad Paddy countless times. Peer reviewed studies have been cited and linked, biologists like Mary here have debunked his unfounded claims and he has stated bare faced lies which leave him open to ridicule and well deserved derision.

    He ignores facts which don’t suit his world view; or rather the world view he has been indoctrinated with.

    39
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:29 PM

    @ Niall o’ Sullivan
    Trust me Niall when I say this is emotional for all, and to the greatest extent of course the victim mother. But is our law based on pure emotion, or has rational considerations got a role to play.
    @ Mary Doherty
    Mary you expression “some undifferentiated cells” worries me. I am straying into your realm but I understand the cells are differentiated by their unique DNA, the heart beats at 18 days, so those cells may not be a nose or an eye at two days, but id hold they are differentiated.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:29 PM

    @Paddy

    In the case of rape it’s not just that your father has committed a crime but that in a sense you serve as evidence and a reminder of his crime.
    And no, it’s not disproportional to the anguish of carrying said child because as I’ve said, no existing is not painful in any sense to the non-child, it is just nothingness. And adoption also creates all sorts of problems which further complicates the woman’s life where an abortion would have served to maintain more of a status quo.

    37
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:30 PM

    @Paddy

    Not “undifferentiated” as in non-human, it’s in the genetic sense.

    28
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Conor Buggy
    Favourite Conor Buggy
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:30 PM

    Indoctrinated indeed. But I just like to point it out anyway. The “righteous” rarely like to hear science thrown back at their weak emotionally based opinions.

    21
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Reality Cheque
    Favourite Reality Cheque
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:31 PM

    Paddy,

    If a woman has been raped and impregnated against her will then two crimes have already been committed against her sovereign integrity. If you force that woman to carry that pregnancy, which she does not want, to full term, her bodily integrity is contravened yet again. In sum, she is being punished three times for the crimes of the person who raped her. As Mary, and many others including myself have pointed out to you, not everyone agrees with you that a pregnancy has the same degree of life as a living, sentient, conscious woman who can make choices for herself. To a certain point of development a zygote/embryo/foetus is non-conscious and non-sentient. Also as Mary has pointed out to you we share a large amount of our DNA with other natural forms in the world and yet we do not accord them the status of human. Why should we make an exception for a non-conscious, non-sentient embryo just because you believe this life form to be more valuable than other natural life forms that we share so much DNA with? Especially when the embryo/foetus is dependent upon the woman for its progression into independent life? The argument regularly trotted out is that an infant is dependent upon the mother too. But that is not a reasonable argument as in the absence of the mother another carer can provide for the needs of the infant. There are varying degrees of dependency but the dependency of the embryo/foetus upon the body of the mother is absolute. And that woman is being treated as nothing more than a vassal if she does not with to continue with a pregnancy that was forced upon her against her will in the first place.

    30
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:39 PM

    @ Mary Doherty
    And that Mary is where I believe you move from being a biologist to an advocate for abortion. The DNA of the child is set from day 1. It won’t become another internal organ, it won’t become a horse, it can only continue to be the unique, gendered, person that has been created. All that is added is time. All that is at risk is its life.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:55 PM

    @ Conor Buggy
    I agree Conor, but not in the way you mean.
    @ Reality Cheque
    Yes indeed many of her rights and hopes have been violated. I do not see the child as been guilty of violating “her bodily integrity”. The child is pure innocence. All of the crimes you see are assigned to the rapist. Punish the rapist.
    And so we move onto the usual armour for justifying the killing, ability to feel pain etc.Bla, bla,bla. The human you are targeting is 1) Innocent, 2) Human, 3) Alive. Now rhetoric your way around those facts.
    We share our DNA with other forms of life, because we all share the same creator. But, excluding myself, there are no other monkeys replying to you online. We do have a gift for rationalizing, but i9ts a shame the way we use it sometimes.

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 5:56 PM

    At what point would you set a time limit on an abortion for a woman that was raped RC?

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Reality Cheque
    Favourite Reality Cheque
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 6:04 PM

    Yes, Paddy, and the embryo/foetus that has been implanted in that woman against her will and is dependent upon her for its progression into life cannot reply to me or you online either. Do you not see the complete logical inconsistency in your article?

    Also, I simply do not agree with your argument for design: ie a higher intelligence (God) created us and so on.

    My rationalisation allows me to have empathy for a woman who no longer wishes to be pregnant against against her will. By all means punish the rapist, but do not punish the woman twice. None of this is rhetoric Paddy, is logical and sustained argument against your beliefs which are not backed up by facts: “we all share the same creator” is not a fact, simply what you wish to believe in.

    25
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Reality Cheque
    Favourite Reality Cheque
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 6:08 PM

    Niall,

    I think time limits are extremely different as I do think the issues of dependency and viability are important. Let me put it to you this way, I would wish that any abortion, for whatever reason, should happen as quickly as possible (we know that in countries where abortion is safe and legal this accounts for by far the large majority of procedures). Time limits may change as science and medical equipment become increasingly significant. If there is any chance of viability I think the pregnancy should be delivered). I imagine, speaking of the case of a rape victim, that she will know quite quickly that she does not wish to continue with the pregnancy, it would not usually be an arbitrary whim that arises later in the pregnancy. There is still much to be discussed and debated in this area, but I hope this gives you some idea of where I stand Niall.

    15
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Reality Cheque
    Favourite Reality Cheque
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 6:14 PM

    *different should read “difficult”

    10
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 6:21 PM

    When you say if there is a chance of viability it should be delivered, can I take it from that you would be prepared to permit an abortion beyond the 21-22 week mark under such circumstances?

    Btw, I’m genuinely curious, not looking for a debate on it.

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 6:25 PM

    @ Reality Cheque
    No RC, the whole discussion is about whether or not she has the choice to kill the new life in her, so please don’t state as fact that which is been debated. The inconsistency you experience in what I uphold, is merely the fact that your view is not acceptable to all. Shock horror.
    I agree your rationalization leads you to facilitate abortion, my rationalization leads me to save the life of the child, and not add killing to lessen the rape.
    My beliefs are solidly grounded in logic, and the facts are evident to those who have eyes to see.

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Reality Cheque
    Favourite Reality Cheque
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 6:32 PM

    Niall,

    I understand you are curious and my thoughts are by no means definitive, even to myself, in this area. I would say that a 20-22 week cut off point seems reasonable. I should have stated this in my first response to you, instead of taking it as a given, my apologies. However, I do honestly think in most cases a woman who was pregnant as a result of rape and who did not wish to continue with that pregnancy would access a medical procedure as soon as she possibly could, given that she would be suffering trauma for the incident in the first place. What do you think?

    15
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Reality Cheque
    Favourite Reality Cheque
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 6:39 PM

    See Paddy, you use all of these emotive words, such as “innocent”, “human”, “alive”, “new life”. You refuse to listen to people who do not conform with your belief in these words. You are according values and concepts that we can conceive of, precisely because we are independent, conscious, sentient beings, to a foetus/embryo who cannot conceive of these concepts and cannot debate them.

    My rationalisation allows me to uphold the dignity of a living, sentient, conscious woman whose body has been violated in the most base way. It do not think a non-sentient, non-conscious embryo/foetus is a child. On that we disagree, and science would seem to be on my side, not yours. This, I repeat, is your belief.

    Your beliefs are based upon your faith which has no grounding in logic. You are perfectly entitled to them, but you cannot force your beliefs on people that do not hold them. You have not provided one logical argument for your position as I have consistently pointed out, and as have many other commentators too.

    24
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 6:48 PM

    I find it a particularly disturbing and perturbing question to even contemplate. I would vote in favour of abortion in cases of FFA, rape, and incest. But I remain, and have been either on the fence for a period of time, or against abortion on demand for many years now. Oddly, in my 20′s I would have been in favour of abortion on demand, but I find myself primarily against it last 10 years or so. As things stand I would vote no to abortion on demand, but yes to rape, incest, and ffa.Yet, I would also welcome a referendum too across the board so as to see exactly what it is the people want as a nation, and what they don’t.

    I’m certainly open to the idea of abortifacients in some respects. I think I could definitely see myself moving toward the centre somewhat on that front.

    Anyway, I thought it was only fair to let you know where I stood on abortion as often I fall in and out on both sides of the debate.

    Back to the question. I would find the thought or action of an abortion at 20+ weeks or anywhere near viability horrendous.

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 6:54 PM

    @Niall and Paddy

    Terribly sorry, phone call.

    @Niall
    You seem to think I have an opinion on what characterises life from a philosophical perspective. I don’t, I, like every other scientist defines life by 7 main characteristics (complexity, metabolism, responsiveness, growth, reproduction, evolution, ecology) Now, a deciding, cellular mass in the womb does not exhibit many of these traits (factually, not opinion) and therefore my view is that the foetus is human when it DOES fit this criteria. Before that, it is not life. I have not said that it is “valueless” because it technically is not life rather it as not as valuable AS life which you yourself have outlined the importance of.

    Yes, scientists (most of them/us) believe in foetal humanity upon exhibiting the characteristics of life and philosophers (largely) believe it occurs with consciousness. Theology, really is not justification for anything as it is based merely on beliefs and if a woman is religious and decides an abortion is not for her, fine, she should not have an abortion. That is we’re the scope of theology should stop. If science calls abortions “undesirable” which it doesn’t, then that’s because it has legitimate evidence that it has a negative impact on “life” and is not theoretical or based on opinion like theology, of which it’s opinions are inconsequential. Not to insult anyone’s religion but keep it at home.

    And so this, “However, they also found that as the foetus was not actually a person at the time it was injured it couldn’t be murder!” Effectively verifies exactly my opinion unless you have made a mistake?

    24
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 6:58 PM

    @Paddy

    No, I am biologist period. It is your personal convictions that assign me otherwise. Everything I’ve said is purely factual and such is the way of science. You need to stop talking about DNA, you clearly don’t understand anymore than those 3 letters. I’ve clearly put that DNA argument of yours to rest, it has no inherent value.
    You can’t just say “In, time, in time.” Reality is the present and “ifs” are useless. In this reality, the non-child is not a human being. End of definition. Nobody aborts it “in time” and do not call me an abortionist. Choice for all, shame for none.

    24
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Beabad Bishop
    Favourite Beabad Bishop
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 7:15 PM

    So logically the poster Paddy Scully would support the birth of the anti -Christ which according to the bible will lead to untold human suffering.

    21
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Reality Cheque
    Favourite Reality Cheque
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 7:21 PM

    Niall,

    I would welcome a referendum also as I think it is important to take all views into account at this time in our history. I am pro-choice because I am aware that abortions will happen whether they are legal or not, legality goes some way to ensuring safety. Abortifacients administered without the supervision of a medical practitioner can result in complications. Hence, I think legalisation is safer and in most countries where abortion is legal, the procedure is carried out by way of drugs rather than an interventionist procedure anyway. I really can appreciate the ambiguity and complexity of feeling people experience with regards this issue. My stance on this is that pragmatism should prevail, with proper regulation and safeguards in place. Thanks for your honesty in laying out where you are situated with regards to this debate and these very important issues.

    16
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Catherine Mill
    Favourite Catherine Mill
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 8:04 PM

    ” My instinctive understanding would expect exactly the opposite”

    How would you work that out then as you are not a woman and do not have female instincts.

    Is it womb envy you suffer from?

    15
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute coolioboi
    Favourite coolioboi
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 8:13 PM

    Paddy I know what you’re saying
    She’s been raped and you’re praying
    That she goes ahead with the full pregnancy
    And gives birth and everyone will be happy
    You’ll just torture her more as her life is decaying

    16
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Beabad Bishop
    Favourite Beabad Bishop
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 10:36 PM

    You know Paddy Scully there are places on this earth where a young girl or woman could be stoned to death for being pregnant out of wedlock. Even if that pregnancy was a result of rape. Would you support abortion in such cases to protect the life of the girl/woman ? Answer that question if your brave enough.

    18
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 10:43 PM

    @ Mary Doherty
    Well Mary I’m glad you recognise the child’s humanity. But by your criterion I’d hate to meet you if I happened to be a simple dwarf in a coma, who happens to be a eunuch.
    Even if we consider that a persons heart stopping constitutes death, can we not accept that the heart starting at 18 days constitutes life. As I’ve already said, the rest is just a matter of growth.
    Complexity, it qualifies. Metabolism, well yes in a form through the placenta. Are intravenous feeders at risk? Responsiveness, the child will certainly respond to the prodding of the abortionist, as many videos testify. Growth well that’s impressive by any standard, but I feel a little vulnerable myself as age has knocked a centimetre from my height. But what I lost in height, my girth more than compensated for. Phew! Reproduction, well a baby girl is born with all of the eggs she will ever possess. Do men with a vasectomy, or women past menopause find themselves at risk of not been alive or human. Evolution, perhaps the whole human race fails this test, because instead of procreating, we now destroy our young, not a step towards evolutionary success. Ecology, the industry (abortion) showed its nature in the incineration scandal in the UK. Not very ecological.
    My point is you are still trying to rationalise the life out of a living, growing, human being. Just like the law, any science can be used in a way that makes an ass out of itself.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 10:53 PM

    @ Mary Doherty
    So DNA is excluded because it give too strong an indication of the uniqueness and nature of the foetus. Sounds selective to me. Of course it has just been revealed that there are several other complexities in DNA that weren’t even recognised until recently. You trash the role of what you call theology and then come up with criterion you believe define humanity and life, sounds arbitrary to me. There are just as many scientists who believe life starts at conception, as otherwise. To hear a biologist saying DNA has no inherent value, puzzles me. End of definition, not. Mega denial, yes.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 10:55 PM

    @ Beabad Bishop
    You do get yourself in knots.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 11:00 PM

    @ Reality Cheque
    Nice to see you get to the point. Your interest here is repeal of the constitution so that all value for the pre born is removed, and the liberal nirvana can gallop on unabated. So much for your interest in those who have experienced rape.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 11:16 PM

    @ Catherine Mill
    No Cathetine, I don’t believe I suffer from womb envy, whatever that construct really means. But I have had an interest in natural forms of birth spacing, which involves an understanding of the cycle. And lo and behold, ovulation is the peak time of attraction between a husband and his wife. Of course many women on oral contraception today, fooling their bodies to believe they are pregnant, to halt ovulation, don’t experience the peaks and troughs of attraction and desire. So husbands and wives have more intimacy near ovulation, unless they are deliberately avoiding pregnancy. Something the raping individual is not privy to, or concerned about. That is the instinct I was referring to, but it’s just deduction. I’ve been wrong before, and I will be again.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 12:11 AM

    @Paddy

    Just stop right there. My “criterion” is the basis of biology, now if you are seriously taking steps here to discredit the basis of biology I’ll let the council know but they’ll likely be less impressed than me. Which is, incidentally, quite unimpressed. It’s not a matter that the heart simply starts, it’s that other functions are not underway what-so-ever. Similarly, death is not strictly measured by a lack of heart beat. Brain function, or lack of, is also needed to be described as “dead”.
    Complexity: No, the initial entity is not complex, merely cells with no tissues nor organs nor systems.
    Metabolism: Needs the mother for sustenance (dependant)
    Responsiveness: No actual brain function or neural pathways.
    Growth: Needs mother (dependant)
    Reproduction: a baby girl born with her eggs is long past the abortion period. A bundle of cells in a womb has no differentiated genitals or gametes. Can not replicate.
    Evolution: Needs mother to survive, could not possibly undergo species evolution without mother. (Dependant)
    Ecology: Only viable ecology is parent (dependant) parasitic, like viruses.

    Let me just say I think it’s truly laughable you would attempt to take on a biologist in biology. And poorly. From reading that I get the impression you feel you’ve made some profound points there despite the fact it is widely acknowledged foetuses, however much you would like them to, do not exhibit these characteristics. The only one to be laughed at is you, what an absurd and poorly understood post.

    No, that is not why I rationalised DNA is not as indicative as you think. The DNA specifies uniqueness but it is YOU who attributes value to that, not nature. DNA complexities which you refer to (likely epigenetic) is vague at the best of times and still has no baring to this discussion what-so-ever.
    Stop talking about DNA, you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge.
    I don’t “believe” these things define life, science does. If you don’t believe in science you have a whole other issue. These were observed in EVERY living organism ever recorded and that is “arbitrary”? Ridiculous assertion. You are persistently demonstrating a lack of understanding. I never said DNA has no inherent value. That is incredibly out of context. I said you attribute value to human DNA which in itself has no more inherent value than any other and only differs in minute ways. Human DNA, in isolation is meaningless. You are puzzled due to a lack of cognitive ability. You honestly sound so absurd and way out of your depth.

    21
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 12:18 AM

    @Paddy

    And by the logic of your ovulation b*llocks, couples on the pill and gay couples could not possibly love each other or desire each other as much as heterosexuals (which you probably, ridiculously believe actually) despite the fact the religious accuse gay men of their excessively lustful and promiscuous lifestyles. Wait a minute, is this a contradiction? In religion? Never….

    20
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Kavanagh
    Favourite Mary Kavanagh
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 12:28 AM

    Mary, is it not somethhing to do with the violence of rape stimulating the production of the egg outside of the normal cycle? I seem to remember that vaguely from somewhere.

    10
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 12:41 AM

    @Mary Kavanagh

    We’re genuinely not that sure. There a couple of things to consider like, the fact “attractive” women under 25 are reportedly the most likely to be raped and also the group most likely to conceive, but also the fact the semen of rapists seems to contain high levels of hormones which act on the ovaries, and also that certain rapists are typically highly, HIGHLY aroused by the imagination and fantasy of the rape which also alters semen content. There are a few theories but maybe yours is correct to, perhaps cortisol or something similar also takes effect.

    17
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 4:25 AM

    @Beabad.

    You seem to appear on every article where the mere sniff of religion – particularly Catholicism – is concerned,

    Though I’m atheist myself – and a pretty staunch one, I’m not agnostic that’s for sure. But I find your constant dismissal of anyone beliefs extremely intolerant. I’d go so far as to say you are up in the top 2 or 3 most intolerant posters I’ve seen on the Journal at any point.

    Whatever anyone can say about Paddy, and many more on here like him or not, I believe his position is held honestly. I cannot say the same of you.

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 6:53 AM

    @ Mary Doherty
    Well Mary I shudder at the prospect of appearing in front of the biology inquisition. But it’s not a bad example of where science, on its own, is insufficient in coming to describe what humanity is. Science cannot explain the transcendent, including life itself. That is why science cannot make life from scratch; and why theology has a role.
    I mocked the criterion on which you exclusively rely, not because there is anything wrong with those criterion in and off themselves, but because they are insufficient in determining the existence of life; or having mastered these criterion one could not make life.
    It is so vital to your argument that the child can be killed; that the child is not a living human being; you are quite happy to theorise your science into a corner, rather than concede its alive, sentient, demanding dignity, beautiful even. Oh what a tangled web we weave indeed, all to rid us of the guilt of killing.
    Your criterion are not the basis of biology, I would suggest; the existence of life is the basis of biology. Your criterion are merely tools us non gods use to measure aspects, expressions, of that life. You are of course part right, brain function is considered the measured entity today, but the doctor at the side of the street knows brain function is gone when the heart has stopped for so long.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 6:55 AM

    @ Mary Doherty
    Likewise the heart of the baby beats because of its primitive, but valid, neurological stimuli. Cells, clumped or otherwise, do not have a heartbeat by themselves.
    As I’ve said before Mary, there are plenty of professors of biology who believe life starts at conception. Google it. If biology has no more to understand about life, might I suggest there is going to be a dirth of PhDs in the future, no more need for research, but wait I forgot about disease, you’re ok.
    The idea that the science of biology has grasped the full understanding of life, is as arrogant as the engineer who believes that his structure is indestructible to nature. That is why science on its own without theology or philosophy is an ass.
    I am very aware of my personal shortcomings as a human, not alone as a biologist. But might I suggest that leaving the definition of life, exclusively to biologists, without other inputs; is as naive as believing that only architects are responsible for the environment. One could for instance argue that life should be determined by chemists, not biologists, but perhaps we shouldn’t mention the war.
    To me cells appear complex, indeed that is also true to cellular microbiologists, but you are so keen to dismiss life. Then you fall back on the old “dependency” criterion. As I have often said a child of two is dependant, is it not alive. The story of Romulus and Remus, is just that, a story.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 6:56 AM

    @ Mary Dohertyo
    The child at two is dependant and will die without care. You choose to rely on a set of characteristics, which when you fully grasp them, are insufficient to generate life. Yes, it’s the great failure of biology, despite centuries of magic, and decades of minute unravelling, it cannot generate life. Perhaps, as an outsider, might I suggest your professions criterion are insufficient to master life. But I love your profession and admire it, it was after all given a riddle (life) that is beyond human comprehension to fully unravel. Am I stupid or arrogant towards your science, I hope not. Is it ok for a non biologist to have a view on it, I hope so.
    Of course I believe in science. God gave us the rational gifts after all with which to grapple with life, the universe, and everything. One of the great signs of our significance in nature is that the god who made it, gave us the intellect to unwrap so much of it. But don’t let my mention of god throw you. Science on its own however is insufficient. It will not supply us with the moral and ethical guides we need for civilisation. That is where your arguments will always fall short, we need more than biology to define life. The fertilised egg, has that life, it just doesn’t suit your arguments to accept that. But denial is not just a river.
    Live long and prosper.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 7:12 AM

    @ Mary Doherty
    Well Mary, it is your science, biology, that has helped in the understanding of what happens during ovulation. The chemistry, the pheromones, the changes in physiology and psychology. A woman’s chemistry is different every day of her cycle. Men are just flatlined comparatively. Desire changes, even when love stays constant.
    You may believe this is “b*llocks”, but I’m quite thankful to your profession for helping us men to understand our loved ones a little better.
    As for homosexuals, well I’m not going there today.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John Everyman
    Favourite John Everyman
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 7:59 AM

    Anyone else find it a bit ridiculous that Paddy, who as a devout catholic places unquestioning faith in stories which violate every natural law, would presume to take on a biologist like Mary on matters of biology?

    19
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 8:35 AM

    @ John Everyman
    Anyone find it strange, that John Everyman, a catholic despising commentator, should deny Paddy the right to question, when all of science is based on our nature to question and interpret results.
    I don’t consider myself “taking on” Mary. Mary and myself are having a discussion. All of those who disagree with you John, are not eternal enemies. I even like Mary, she is honest in her beliefs and what she says. You are more the sniping kind of commentator yourself. Your fixation with Catholicism, clouds your reason, and therefore your science.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Beabad Bishop
    Favourite Beabad Bishop
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 8:48 AM

    I’m not surprised that the poster Scully would shy away from answering the hard questions. I wouldn’t expect anything less from an individual who represents an organisation that preys on women and children.

    14
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Beabad Bishop
    Favourite Beabad Bishop
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 9:14 AM

    Niall your making up Sh!t now. I don’t appear on every religous article . I do my best however to take pot shots at the Catholic Church and its apologists at every opportunity. Why ? Because its personal and also because of the crimes that organisation had committed against humanity . Paddy and the particular group of which he is a spokesman has a history of attempting to minimise and deny the crimes of the Catholic Church in this country and internationally . I don’t consider that honest. The same group is funded and trained by the church to do that. As for your claims of being a staunch atheist I sincerely doubt your convictions. I am only intolerant of B€$tards that rape , tortured , abuse , enslaved and trafficked women and children and their facilitators and protectors and those that also defend those facilitators and protectors. If that is Paddy Scully and his cohorts in the “catholic comment” so be it. By the way look back over my previous posts on this article and tell me which ones are unreasonable ? I feel You protest to much , sure your not part of the Jesuit propaganda troll machine up to mischief.

    13
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Beabad Bishop
    Favourite Beabad Bishop
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 9:17 AM

    Niall cared to tell us who the other intolerant posters are on the journal ? I suppose you won’t be including Daddy Scully in the list.

    10
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Conor Buggy
    Favourite Conor Buggy
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 10:32 AM

    Two quotes from Paddy in the last few hours:

    “Well Mary I shudder at the prospect of appearing in front of the biology inquisition.”
    “Anyone find it strange, that John Everyman, a catholic despising commentator, should deny Paddy the right to question, when all of science is based on our nature to question and interpret results.”

    How ironic that you come from an organisation that actually had an inquisition to suppress science and anyone that questioned the Magesterium. Your organisation must absolutely hate that they do not have that control over humanity anymore! And I thank “God” for that!

    The ages of Pisces (i.e. mass organised religion) is over! The age of Aquarius (personal belief and the exploration of science) is here! Your organisation and hopefully most organised religions will fade into obsolesence in the next few centuries, provided mankind can actually survive the wars brought about by religion.

    17
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 10:33 AM

    @Paddy

    Don’t worry about the Biology Inquisition. Never had a patch on the Spanish one.
    No, I’m sorry. I’ve laid out why it’s certainly not an example of science being unable to define life. And if we want to get a bit more depth, science can certainly account for say, our movement and animation, all this is is ATP (energy molecules) fuelling extremely complex cellular networks (where our need for water and oxygen can be traced to) and conferring our cells with each of their functions. We age due to our telomeres shorting via telomerase and we have neurotransmitters and a brain to give us responsiveness and consciousness. This is not transcendental, this is electron/sub-atomic particle movement at its very core. Science makes life all the time. The fusion of the male and female gamete? That’s science? Cloning a sheep? That’s science. Constructing whole cells, synthetically? That’s science. You are just stating a “God of the gaps” kind of theory there. Just because it hasn’t been fully elucidated does not mean it won’t be.

    The criterion is based is perfectly able to describe aspects of life, it is in fact theologians who would speculate that there is “more to it” when in fact, there is not. That is again, down to your personal perspectives of the world, based on faith that you are perfectly entitled to but which are oftentimes, inappropriately used to dictate to others what they can and can not do with their own lives. And life CAN and is being made. Hence the field of synthetic biology. A eukaryotic yeast was entirely synthesised recently. We WILL one day be able to synthesis much more complex organisms than that.
    I’m not trying to rid any guilt. I am perfectly happy that a women who decides the bundle of cells in her womb (which is all it is) is not something she wishes to have in her, already established life and she is entitled to that view.
    No, along with the Central Dogma, it IS the cornerstone of biology. If you assume “everything” exists and your field (biology) is regarding life then you have to be able to differentiate what constitutes life first (the 7 characteristics) before you can hope to study it. That point is just stupid. And again, no Paddy. Brain function is not gone the second the heart is or vice versa, that can take time and again, death is not in fac analogous to the very beginnings of life as for many biochemical reasons the heart and brain must be operational in a person but not in a bunch of cells with no neural pathways and no need for high ATP turnover. Again, you attribute special status to a heartbeat which in itself is nothing more than a muscle contracting via electrical impulses to distribute oxygen to cells. This has no inherent “meaning” unless you attribute it to it via your own religious/spiritual perspective.

    And again, I have said these professors exist. They are however, strongly in the minority and do not represent the biological consensus. I’ve met a creationist who was a biochemist, are most biochemists creationists? Absolutely not. They are mostly athiest (statistically). Biology understands what DEFINES life, and that is the point. Mapping a single gene or studying polymorphisms or epigenetics, as you vaguely reffered to are unrelated to the abortion debate and so I think PhDs will be plenty.

    No, a biologist defining life is more like an engineer discussing general the properties of say, metals which, although differse, are finite. These characteristics can be discerned. Science does not need theology. Philosophy? Absolutely. Not theology.
    The decision isn’t made by biologists, we merely state that this bundle of cells does not exhibit traits of life as we define them and you, the general public, may take that as you like. And generally, considering science has never been more prominent as it is right now, I think that will carry a lot of weight. Why would you leave it to chemists? Particularly organic chemists! they are even less likely to agree with you given the actual arbitrary nature of something like DNA. And I think you’ll find that biochemists could still fulfill that role nicely.

    I’m a molecular/cellular genetic microbiologist, my work is on genome proteins which appears complex but in actuality is not. You can take my word for it, bacteria are simple organisms. And so as one of those microbiologists you refer, I will tell you you are incorrect. To me” basically summarises the type of vanity of your stance. You see something as complex, mostly due to a lack of understanding and make your snap judgements.

    A child at 2 does not have a “parasitic” (just a term, don’t lose your sh!t) nature like a 2 year old. Any body could replace the mother caring for a 2 year old but the bundle of cells can not be looked after by just anyone. This is not the same.

    I will just say, you are obviously unaware of the field of synthetic biology. I think we’re doing OK with the “magic” thing. Never heard it called that in a lab though, is that the technical term? And as a non biologist, no you may not make recommendations. Seriously. It is perfectly OK for you to have an opinion on it but don’t assume having an opinion on biology makes your opinion equal to a biologist. No more than my opinion, knowing a few ailments, has as much credibility as that of a doctor.

    Science can certainly explain morality Paddy. It’s basis is the zoological concept of “altruism” which is essentially 21st century, evolved morality and if you’re really fascinated I know an excellent zoologist who can discuss it with you. As a species, we would do just fine without a moral code such as the bible as morality serves us as a species. Anyway, this post is already too long to discuss this more.
    It is you in denial Paddy, that much is clear.

    Yes, ovulation brings changes to women. Men are attracted to this. That’s really it. Nobody in the history of research has ever attributed this fact special value other than “people are more likely to get pregnant here”. They certainly have never used ovulation to suggest heterosexual relationships were somehow better. This is actually kind of funny. Imagine if someone actually said “I don’t like gays cause ovulation.” In fairness I probably wouldn’t respond, if that was your goal.

    16
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 10:48 AM

    Also “to me” should be with quotation marks

    A child at age 2 isn’t parasitic like cells in the womb I mean.

    13
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Beabad Bishop
    Favourite Beabad Bishop
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 3:36 PM

    Mary I for one definitely feel more informed by your posts. Thank you for that.

    10
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 3:51 PM

    @Beabad

    Thank you :)
    Sorry about the length!

    8
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Beabad Bishop
    Favourite Beabad Bishop
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 4:35 PM

    Its hilarious John Everyman the Kanturk Taliban are the best weapon the church have…against themselves. Fancy scoring own goals day after day. I love it . The more he posts the more he frightens the moderates off . Poor Paddies a dying breed . With priest and nuns in Ireland on the verge of extinction (church’s words not mine) little diehards like paddy are fighting a losing battle.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Beabad Bishop
    Favourite Beabad Bishop
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 4:43 PM

    Not at all I find all the sciences absolutely fascinating. Not a day goes by where I don’t learn something new. I wish there was more emphasis on it from national schools up. I feel we do the children of this nation a great disservice by not introducing them to science at an earlier age.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John Everyman
    Favourite John Everyman
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 5:30 PM

    Number of points Paddy lad:

    First off I do not despise Catholics, my grandmother considers herself a catholic, though I think she would be appalled to find someone like you in the same grouping. I will admit that I have a disdain for your church; but that disdain is completely rational.

    I have a fixation with a number of things, history, film, hurling, etc, but Catholicism is not one of them. I have knowledge of your church, more so than you it seems, and that knowledge does not cloud my judgment, it informs my opinion.

    Quite interesting as well that you now refer to me as a “sniping kind of commentator”. Seems you have a short memory lad because not so long ago you and me engaged many a time in the type of running debate you just had with Mary. These days though you seem to vanish when I pose a question, or else just ignore the question altogether while spouting rhetoric. Not that I should be surprised I suppose since in all the time you’ve been here you have never won a debate, be the topic abortion, marriage equality or pre marital sex.

    Oh and by the way, it’s nice to see that you “even like Mary”. Quite the flip flop since only on Tuesday you belittled her education. Here’s the link in case you accuse me of fibbing:

    http://www.thejournal.ie/profile/76014/mary-dohertyit-amaze-passes-education-times-2681932/

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 18th 2014, 8:43 PM

    @Beabad

    I totally agree. I think too, people mention science sometimes and it almost alienates people and puts them on the defensive. Its OK with Paddy though, he’s an engineer.I think it was Dara O’Briein who said something like “the minute you mention you’re a scientist or a mathematician people put that on some kind of pedestal” and I think it really shouldn’t be that way at all. But studying science isn’t something as clean cut as “physics” or “chemistry” it’s also a degree in logic and contemplation and that’s the best part. I particularly wish the female uptake was higher because while women on here and other places are excellent at debating this I always find the technical information like “life” etc. is left to the boys to explain and contend and it shouldn’t be that way either. It’s ridiculous, I think I did more religious education in primary school than science.

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Beabad Bishop
    Favourite Beabad Bishop
    Report
    Jul 19th 2014, 1:23 AM

    Your doing a good job with your posts Mary they’re very educational. So refreshing to have someone posting who actually knows what their talking about. The problem with debating with the likes of Paddy is that your debating someone who is representing the views of a “religious” organisation . As house said “if you could reason with religous people there would be no religous people” . Paddy and his cohorts choose to be wilfully ignorant and no amount of evidence will sway them from their faith based beliefs or opinions , nevertheless we should endeavour to challenge them every step of the way and call them out when they try to peddle their faith based ill informed opinions as facts. Such people are mere mountebanks and should be exposed as such. You did a fine job of proving your points and your expertise and knowledge in the sphere of biology is excellent . I for one am grateful for your contribution and quite frankly relished witnessing Scullys defeat by your vastly superior knowledge and intellect. I look forward to reading more of your posts …respect from a real engineer.

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 19th 2014, 2:19 AM

    @Beabad

    When it comes to arguments that essentiall boil down to Religion VS The World, I have totally changed my “strategy” for better word. I will say I try to be as tolerant as possible to somebody’s faith but the second it imposes on somebody else’s life I take great offence, as anyone should. Anyway, as I was saying (and being an engineer you can no doubt do this with your knowledge of natural laws and such) when it comes to debating the religious I never do it as if I’m trying to change their minds (c’est imposible) but instead publicise the facts I put to the religious and I hope that others who are more on the fence see the thought process or for those not on the fence, they are at least provided with scientific, heavy, artillery to argue their cases. I too look forward to your posts and I will certainly be following threads on the abortion issue along with gay marriage and the like. You know I could tolerate them more if they didnt act so damn egoistically. I mean, how can you be so conceited as to actually believe you perceptions make something factual. Talk about a god complex, no pun intended. What branch of engineering are you?

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 19th 2014, 2:49 AM

    On a lighter note…
    Given I’m 21 this probably reflects even more poorly on Paddy

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Elaine Moriarty
    Favourite Elaine Moriarty
    Report
    Jul 19th 2014, 3:24 AM

    Paddy we don’t not live in an ideal world, should someone have to pay the price for crimes committed by their ‘father’, probably not, but then again should a woman have to pay the price for being forced into sex with some monster not only that but she be forced to pay the price by carrying the child of this monster for nine months being reminded of her horrific rape every day and be forced to give birth, from the moment shes raped she has no control over her own body, as ive ,mentioned earlier Paddy, no one has the right to force a rape victim to abort but surely you must have enough compassion to understand that many women who go through that horrible ordeal should at least be entitled to get back some control over their bodies with the choice there of termination at least. Id imagine most rape victims who do become pregnant should they feel termination is best for them would be keen to carry out the procedure in the early stages of pregnancy, so in that case I find it quite sad that that you and people like you really genuinely favour a bunch of cells which is all they are at this point over a grown woman, extremely misogynistic and disapointing

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Beabad Bishop
    Favourite Beabad Bishop
    Report
    Jul 19th 2014, 8:42 PM

    Aeronautical

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paddy Scully
    Favourite Paddy Scully
    Report
    Jul 20th 2014, 10:47 AM

    @ Elaine Moriarty
    No Elaine, I don’t accept it is compassionate to kill the child. I accept it is asking a lot of an abused mom, to keep the child until birth at least; but that is the only solution that doesn’t kill the innocent.
    @ Mary Doherty
    Mary, despite what others say, I’m not questioning your education, I’m questioning your interpretation of life, and I’d simply ask you, are all the biologists who believe life and humanity starts at conception deliberately abusing their science?
    I was unable to reply yesterday, so sorry for vanishing off of the scene. This thread is now old, so until we thread again!

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Alan O'connor
    Favourite Alan O'connor
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:08 PM

    I find it very hard to be lectures on human rights by an organisation that sat on its hands while maybe a million people were slaughtered in Rwanda. And then there was the Balkan war.

    Forgive me if I don’t doff my cap and beg their forgiveness.

    25
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute CAK
    Favourite CAK
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:13 PM

    Luckily for you Alan, as a man, what he is saying does not and will never effect you, therefore although you find it hard to be lectured on human rights by the UN what they are saying is a real issue effecting Irish women and it needs to be addressed – Ireland has a history of burying its head in the sand over any issue that is difficult to deal with.

    99
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:56 PM

    ” Ireland has a history of burying its head in the sand over any issue that is difficult to deal with ” – so does the UN. That’s his point CAK.

    17
    See 1 more reply ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute CAK
    Favourite CAK
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:59 PM

    The UN may do so, but that does not make the points he made about Ireland any less valid. They are real issues that effect Irish women. So regardless of what else the UN do we should not dismiss them.

    61
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute peter
    Favourite peter
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:39 PM

    This is a terrible use by the media to sway people minds into voting yes to the abortion ref because not all women who become pregnant by rape would like to have an abortion. It shouldn’t be used to sway the dabate

    14
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Elaine Moriarty
    Favourite Elaine Moriarty
    Report
    Jul 19th 2014, 3:14 AM

    Peter its nothing of the sort, a woman who becomes pregnant through rape does not under any circumstances have to abort, when us pro choicers say pro choice we mean it, w oman should have a choice, not a woman SHOULD have an abortion! Some women however may not be able to handle becoming forcebly pregnant then have to forcebly give birth to her rapists child, if they feel strong enough and want to go ahead with the pregnancy no one says they cant but there should without a doubt be a choice provided!

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute thejournalvigilante
    Favourite thejournalvigilante
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:50 PM

    I feel for the rape victim and can understand why the options that may be taken, I would however say that the child produced by rape is innocent from the act, the child did not ask for it to happen. This is double jeopardy for me I see it from both sides but admitting I have not came to my own conclusion on the right course of action. But like I said double jeopardy.

    14
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 1:55 PM

    For some it is difficult to come to terms with. I made my mind up a long time ago on the rape and incest front. I do believe in such cases a legal remedy should be on the table for those in need to avail of.

    That’s just my 2 cent. At least you’re honest enough to say how you feel.

    43
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute insider.ie
    Favourite insider.ie
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:20 PM

    Yes a child produced by rape is innocent but a sperm and an egg that just collided in a tube and have no form or consciousness? For sure, very few are calling for late-term abortions but there has to be a way of addressing early unwanted pregnancies.

    49
    See 6 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute CAK
    Favourite CAK
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 2:20 PM

    The woman is also innocent from the act thejournalvigilante – she did not ask for it to happen either and carrying the child is something incredibly difficult to do. I know myself that if I was ever in that situation that I would not be able to go through with it, it would be all I could do to partly recover from the rape itself. It is such a violent and violating act. I’m afraid that you ‘feel for the rape victim’ does nothing to help the actual rape victim.

    57
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Munster2014
    Favourite Munster2014
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:08 PM

    The child is not even a child at that stage, it is a collection of cells and nothing more. It does not breathe, it does not think, it does not have a conscious self. Pregnancy that occurs from this violent act should be destroyed, along with the perpetrator of it but that’s an entirely different conversation. The Pro-Life side love to use emotive language to describe a foetus, attaching human significance to something that is no more human at that stage than a blood sample.

    47
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:22 PM

    And the pro side try to dehumanise and use a status based framed argument.

    A combination of the two is the very crux of a lack of progress on this issue. Neither are helpful.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Doherty
    Favourite Mary Doherty
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 3:40 PM

    @Niall

    Can you elaborate, please? I don’t quite follow.

    23
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall o' Sullivan
    Favourite Niall o' Sullivan
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 4:01 PM

    The framing of the abortion debate itself. If we want to make any sense of abortion ethics, we need to move firmly away from.

    The entire abortion debate is framed and presented as a contest – rights of the foetus vs right to bodily autonomy. The constitution itself presents an even narrower view and throws the foetus’ right to life against the woman’s.

    These are two areas that are afforded huge respect by wider society yet the way it is framed causes each side to come to extreme conclusions over the course of almost every debate I’ve seen on here and elsewhere. We get nowhere with that approach, and I think a radical change in thinking may be required.

    Even in countries where abortion has been legalised for decades the debate still rages on. Recent enough research in the US over the last few years showed the pro life and pro choice side don’t have much between them at all again. The debate doesn;t go away even after it is legalised and the battle is constant.

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michelle Mc Loughney
    Favourite Michelle Mc Loughney
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 8:28 PM

    But why is a fetus made from incest or rape less of a human than another fetus? Why agree with these abortions but not others? Surely if people are prolife they have to be prolife across the board? Just curious. I always find it strange that people are okay with one type of abortion but not other forms. I am prochoice, just to state my stance.

    17
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Catherine Mill
    Favourite Catherine Mill
    Report
    Jul 17th 2014, 8:10 PM

    A woman pregnant by rape is treated as ‘a vessel and nothing more’ by Irish law

    Well actually in law- maritime law that we use in court- dock in court etc.

    A woman is a vessel under maritime law and she births/berths her child through her waters.

    Most people are clueless to this law.

    In old sacred texts women were mere breeders for the patriarchal system- to produce the next generation of fodder for the system. Each time parents Reg ister the berth/birth the child is bonded and the parent named as Guardian- to raise the child on behalf of the state.

    So in law mother is a vessel.

    7
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds