Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SEVERAL TDS AND abortion rights activists intend to campaign for a referendum that would repeal the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution – which gives equal right to life to a mother and her unborn baby – in the autumn.
The amendment, passed by 66 to 33 per cent in a referendum in 1983, has provoked considerable controversy in Irish politics and society over the last three decades leading to the X Case judgement that permits abortion where the life of a mother is at risk including from suicide.
United Left TD Joan Collins said that from September onwards, the repeal of the amendment, also known as Article 40.3.3, will be raised by her and other TDs as part of an active campaign.
“We will be raising it in the Dáil, the need to repeal it, have a referendum on it, which needs to happen,” she told TheJournal.ie this week. Independent TD John Halligan also said repeal “needs to happen”.
Those working with various abortion rights groups have also indicated their intention to be part of a campaign but the government is unlikely to push for any referendum in the wake of the difficulties faced getting the X Case legislated for in recent weeks.
However, the Labour Party leader and Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore has acknowledged that the current legislation is not perfect and falls short in the case of women who are the victims of rape or incest.
“The people voted in 1983 to insert an equal right to life of a mother and her unborn child into our Constitution, and now, thirty years later, we giving effect to that right. Nothing more. But nothing less either,” he told the Dáil during the recent lengthy debate.
Article 40.3.3 reads as follows:
“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”
Recently released State papers have shown how the government was warned internally that the 1983 amendment could in fact allow a constitutional right to abortion as opposed to prohibiting it as campaigners for it had intended.
This transpired when the Supreme Court verdict in the case of X, a 14-year-old girl who was suicidal as a result being raped and becoming pregnant, gave an explicit right to a woman to have an abortion in circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to her life, including risk of suicide.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Poll after poll consistently show that the vast majority of people want more liberal abortion laws than what is in this new legislation. Until the 8th Amendment is repealed nothing will change for victims of rape, incest and in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities, they will continue to be punished and sent packing to foreign lands to seek terminations!! This is a crime in itself and must be corrected. Thankfully Ireland is no longer under the thumb of the Catholic church and its cruel teachings especially where women are concerned. The minority must no longer be allowed to dictate to the majority. Human rights are being violated every day when at least 11 women are forced to travel when they should be able to access safe and legal terminations in Ireland….
Human rights are being violated every day when at least 11 women are forced to travel…
A good percentage of them aren’t legal either
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9161735/One-in-five-abortion-clinics-breaks-law.html
No one is putting a gun to heir head and forcing them to go to the UK? Because a forced pregnancy is just dandy, yeah?
So Aindriu, all ~4000 women UK bound for abortions every year were raped?
Daniel and Chuck, lockin’ and loadin’ for another day of trollin’
you dont know what the word trolling means
Apparently, it means disagreeing with the consensus of the all-knowing contributors to this site
Daniel, do you believe an unborn child has a right to be safe and not harmed in anyway that will either harm its life or health (e.g.be born with a disability, etc? )
Daniel.
Denying a woman autonomy over her own body is the same core issue as rape, so being pregnant when you don’t want to be is a rape of sorts..
And yes – there could well be a large percentage of those abortions being carried out following a rape, not sure if you are aware but it’s a grossly under reported problem – probably because the way it is handled in the courts is appalling. Estimates are that 1 in 5 women have been raped.. And what’s that statistic Vincent and yourselves like to trot out 1 in 5 pregnancies ending in abortion? Hmmm, might be a larger percentage of abortions due to rape than you think..
I firmly believe that to force anyone to carry a child conceived by incest or rape is a second rape, a rape of the soul and that forcing a baby to have a baby tells the brutalized child quite graphically that they are worthless, and unworthy of protection……… I believe that anyone who wishes to force a rape victim to go through a pregnancy that will only cause distress to the woman or child involved is a SADIST!!
@Mary Costello…it is you who is the sadist baying for the blood of innocent little babies. Shameful…along with the rest of the Atheist brigade that regularly post on here.
@Shanti Om…can I have autonomy over my own body too please and shoot up on heroin or get high on crack cocaine??? If a woman is freely allowed to murder and extract a viable, living human being (albeit at an early stage of development, it is still a human being) from her body surely it’s no one elses business what I put in to my body. Autonomy my @rse…laws are there for the protection of the individual and society as a whole. If we allow the Atheists have their way we are headed for moral bankruptcy within the next decade.
Frank Moynihan you religious fanatics are the sadists!! I have more humanity in my little finger than you have in your entire body!!!
@Mary…you don’t know me from Adam yet you declare that I am a religious fanatic and I have no humanity. We’re you gifted with some sort of super powers that allows you to judge people’s characters based on a few posts on a web site??? You know nothing about me you sad, bitter little woman.
Frank Moynihan who were you accusing of being atheists? Are you accusing anyone who is pro choice of being atheist? You are the one who made a judgement based on comments here just because they oppose your narrow religious views!! You sound extremely bitter for a man who will NEVER find himself with a crisis pregnancy and will NEVER know what these women go through. Your narrow view would force these same women to give birth no matter the circumstances!! I know who the sadist is and it certainly isn’t me. You bitter little man….
Frank if you want to do heroin or crack then be my guest. It’s not my place to tell you how to live your life. It’s not my place to make your decisions for you. I would hope that you would make an informed decision and consider it carefully beforehand – but I can’t compel you to do that either. If you want to do heroin or crack then you are going to do it anyway, regardless of what I say.. I do think it’s a pity that you will be forced to seek out a dealer who may not give quality control or hygiene much consideration, and that as a result you may end up obtaining a tainted product which could end up killing you.. For this reason I would prefer to see drugs legal, regulated and safe. I would like there to be adequate, non biased and evidence based education on the matter in our schools so that future generations may make more informed decisions about what they do with their bodies.
But hey, I’m pro choice on more than just abortion..
@Mary…oh you’re right of course…ah what a lovely little old lady!
Frank bitterness gets you nowhere!! Why don’t you trot off with yourself now and calm down, you can’t be doing your blood pressure any good….
Here here. All of you males getting hot and bothered on a topic that is of no relevance to you what so ever. Women get raped, women get pregnant. WOMEN need to decide what to do with their bodies and their lives. All of you men can get down off your high horses, this is NOT your issue.
poll after biased poll you mean,the lies told by proaborts beggars belief Mary Costello and you damn well know .You are in the minority and whatever your beef is with religion that’s your problem but don’t make unborn babies suffer for your peevishness because that’s what it is vicious peevishness .Human rights ARE being violated every day when 11 unborn babies are suctioned ,dismembered and barbarously killed by women in this country.You don’t like my views ? Tough .
Glad to hear it. The 8th amendment needs to go, it’s been a badly-worded own-goal. In fact, the entire constitution could do with an overhaul, not this piecemeal approach.
Will more US$ pour in to protect 40.3.3 and to fight against upcoming issues like marriage equality?
Article 40.3.3, the Eight Amendment, was achieved in 1983 through the Roman Catholic Church’s direction of its large flock. The Roman Catholic Church sponsored, supported and pressurised for this amendment introduced by PLAC. The flock was compliant and obedient back in 1983.
Thirty years later, even conscientious Roman Catholics are capable of making up their own minds on civil matters such as the Constitution and legislation. The Roman Catholic Church no longer rules in the public area of life. There are a lot of factors behind this loss of authority. Not least of these reasons is the planned, intentional and elaborate methods by which all levels of the Roman Catholic Church sought to suppress the reality if child sexual abuse.
Thirty years ago, values and attitudes were different. Today, the reality of Article 40.3.3′ , the tragedies of Halappanvar, Harte and others are now realised and the electorate are more factually informed.
The politicians in FG and FG will not want to allow the people the people to have their democratic say but the time has come for the people to have the opportunity of repealing a pernicious, dangerous and obnoxious Constitutional provision which equates the right to life of a pregnant woman with a foetus.
It will take commitment to get a Referendum held. The outcome of the Referendum is assured but elected politicians should bend to the will of the people and press the Government to have a Referendum. The fundamentalists have had their day.
I have written to all of the TDs at their Oireachtas email addresses seeking a Referendum. The email addresses are available from the Oireachtas website. Write politely, rationally and respectfully but firmly.
Many TDs are now disgusted by the type of communication they received from pro-life dictorial bullies. They are more open to the persuasion and rationality of the pro-choice, pro-repeal side.
It is time for the Savita amendment to the Constitution.
“Thirty years later, even conscientious Roman Catholics are capable of making up their own minds on civil matters such as the Constitution and legislation. The Roman Catholic Church no longer rules in the public area of life. There are a lot of factors behind this loss of authority. Not least of these reasons is the planned, intentional and elaborate methods by which all levels of the Roman Catholic Church sought to suppress the reality if child sexual abuse.”
Nothing there about a dirty protest, Tony is simply pointing out the fact that due to the catholic churches lack of moral authority, as a result of their continuous abuse of their “flock” people are more willing to make up their own minds, and less willing to fall for the catholic churches “moral” stance on things like this.
@ Daniel, not as a protest vote but as a free choice no longer dictated by the Roman Catholic Church which, for many reasons, not just the concealment of clerical child abuse, no longer holds sway over the more independent electorate in 2013. By the actions of the Institutional Roman Catholic Church, we truly know it.
The reason for the repeal of Article 40.3.3 is to respect the dignity of the lives and health of pregnant women.
Nicely articulated point Tony, hopefully what should logically follow will, I do think FG will be loath to have a referendum, too much hard work for the salaries they’re on
@ Gaius, unfortunately a Referendum is the last thing that FG wants, it’s a political time bomb for the party, but many people have detected a sea change of views on he topic of abortion. There is a more nuanced and circumstance specific assessment at the moment.
On this topic, I suspect that politicians are far behind public opinion.
The challenge, as you suggest, us to get our well paid TDs to match up to their democratic challenge to allow the people to have their vote on this issue.
A simple Referendum to repeal or not to repeal Article 40.3.3 would be a great start. The challenge will be immense and it will be a long haul.
It’s a pity all the people who have emigrated recently won’t be able to vote from overseas in the case of a referendum. Considering the majority of emigrants are young, this could be a big factor in what way the vote goes. I’m not saying that age is a definitive indication of how you vote, but I would wager a guess that it’s a factor. If there’s a referendum I’ll fly home for it, but I live relatively close to Ireland.
@ Kate, that is a good point. Our emigrants represent the best of us who have received the least. Emigrants have get up and go, a wider perspective and are less subject to the insularity of attitude on this island.
I don’t think the Aussie media think the same Tony…
The small minority is not representative of the standards of our excellent emigrants. It is sad to see a few drunkards bring the rest of the responsible and hard working Irish abroad into disrepute.
I doubt a referendum will be called as FG have only ever wanted to do the bare minimum enforced by the X case, otherwise there would have been one called before the recent legislation and sad and tragic cases like Fatal Foetal abnormalities, rape and incest would have been included, they won’t want another controversy in their timeline & will leave it for the next (or one after that etc) to deal with
hotHanneke, this is WHY we must keep the pressure up and demand a referendum!!
referendum on demand
abortion on demand
Ironically you sound like a child stomping their feet looking for sweets… yet you seek to destroy its life before it gets to be that child. Sad.
Grown ups are talking Daniel.
Daniel – if your human rights were being suppressed by a mere potentiality then I think you would be looking for a referendum to change it too..
Give in order of Savita in death what sadly she was not allowed in life.
This may be a Roman Catholic country but let not the Vatican rule the public life of this nation.
Separate Church and State.
You’re obsessed with religion
Tony, you are preaching to the wrong crowd about the RCC… they are all at Mass (11.10am now), but if you hurry, you will meet them coming out the gates in half an hour or so and you can tell them directly to their faces… hurry now… don’t fall going over the front door step…
I am focused on the authoritarian and the former controlling influence of Roman Catholicism on aspects of Irish law. I have explained why Article 40.3.3 came into effect and why a Church ridden nation did what it was told in 1983 but will not do so again in 2013.
Fortunately, this time, people will make up their own minds.
@ Daniel, thankfully, Church attendance is way down and most people are not at Church.
Daniel and Chuck, for two fellas who constantly claim they aren’t religious you’re both always very quick to jump to the defence of the RCC, and calling Tony obsessed with religion when the two of you are like drooling hounds attacking every comment on every abortion-related story is quite amusing, why are you both so obsessed with the private decision a woman you will never meet makes about HER body? It’s like a wind-up toy in a high-pitched voice ’1 in 5′ ’1 in 5′ ’1 in 5′ ‘UK’ ‘UK’ ‘UK’ ’1 in 5′ ’1 in 5′, change the record lads
Daniel and Chuck you both really have some serious issues when it comes to women’s rights. Why is that? I think there is some underline issues that you need to address.
The family have spoken in favour of the legislation. This surprised me.
My position favours best medical practice. I would hope that this is the legacy attributed to the outcome of the Galway tragedy.
Tony, who will you blame when the people don’t vote in favour of abortion on demand?
Can I have a go off your crystal ball?
It never takes long for the personal abuse to start
Can’t ANY of you debate an issue instead of attacking someone on a personal level?
Gaius, show me where I defended the Roman Catholic Church? The only time I referred to religion at all was in reference to Tony’s disproportionately high number of posts about the RCC
In fact, never mind defending them. Show me where I even mentioned them
Mr. Jingles, so be it, if that is the outcome of a fair referendum, I accept that massive US financial support, the remaining might if the Roman Catholic Church, the bullying of the extremist elements in the pro-life lobbies and the emotive and irrational language of the pro-life lobby will be a formidable challenge.
It is easier, intellectually speaking, to start from the easy absolutism and simplification of the pro-life stance but rationality and compassion will eventually prevail.
It was the Roman Catholic Church and its agent, PLAC, which procured Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. Article 40.3.3 is what compels the impregnated female victims of rape and incest to go to full term in Ireland.
It is Article 40.3.3 which prevents the early termination of a foetus with a fatal foetal condition.
It is Article 40.3.3 which imperils the lives of some pregnant women by requiring the attending clinicians to give equal attention to the interests of the foetus as to the live of the mother and which can produce a medical and legal stalemate situation, the effect of which may be to allow the death of both the pregnant woman and of the foetus.
Let me be clear. I prefer that priority be given to the life, health, welfare and dignity of the pregnant woman, each and all in priority to the interests of the foetus. That is my value judgement arrived at in good conscience.
Laws do not and cannot adequately address the complexity and multi-faced nature of this issue.
My experience of life is that women can be trusted but the real problem is the socio-economic circumstances which by force of circumstance compel some women, sadly, reluctantly and almost despairingly to have to resort to abortion.
Address the root causes of the need fir abortion and do not permit our laws or our Constitution to imperil either the lives or health of pregnant women at a time when they are most vulnerable.
A pregnant woman is an autonomous, responsible and moral being. Please do not victimise a woman who is too indigent or too I’ll to travel for life and health saving medical care abroad.
A referendum to remove the 8th amendment has nothing to do with abortion on demand, at least it won’t do initially, the majority of people in this country, according to every poll in the last 6 months, overwhelmingly agree with abortion in the cases of fatal foetal abnormality, rape/incest and health (over 80%). None of these can be legislated for unless the amendment is repealed. After a referendum to repeal the amendment which is very likely to pass, then these areas could be legislated for, it’s doubtful that abortion on demand would even come into it, that said, almost 40% agree with abortion on demand so it’s probably only a matter of time before that becomes available too, at least for the first 12 weeks. However, legislating for abortion in the cases of rape/ incest will most likely lead to abortion on demand/request up to 12 weeks since most rape cases are never reported to the police and even if they were a court case could take a long time making the availability of abortion in the case of rape pointless.
Since it would be inhumane after the repeal of the 8th amendment to not legislate for rape survivors, I would think that abortion on demand up to 12 weeks would be the solution. That would be great as then all women would have the opportunity to terminate up to 12 weeks, 90% of abortions happen by the 12 week point anyway and there is absolutely no chance of sentience in the embryo. Later than this would hopefully be available for health reasons and fatal foetal abnormality.
A referendum on the 8th will be a long hard journey but those of us with compassion for women with crisis pregnancies are not going away.
Hear Hear to Tony, Gaius and Kelly.
Some people really do have major issues with the meaning of equality..
It means equal. It doesn’t mean “equal but”, it means equal.
An embryo or foetus cannot be equal no matter how hard you try to argue it, if it were, then a woman could give birth at 9 weeks and pass the embryo on to another to care for. They can’t, up until nearly 24 weeks that foetus cannot survive outside of the womb, and that womb belongs to a woman who should have a say in who gets to use her body – she is autonomous, the foetus is not.
By giving that potential life more rights over the woman’s body than her then you make a mockery of equality, even her corpse has more say in who gets to use her body parts. You give a potential life more rights than an already living person – and yet pro lifers still try to claim that this is equality?
No. There’s nothing equal about it. This is about controlling women now that the uppity b*tches have the vote and think that they are equal.. Anyone who can’t see that is either blind or wilfully ignorant. Not even nature tries to preserve life in the womb for the first stages of pregnancy.
Hopefully this campaign will be successful and it will allow this backward country move on and move forward on the road to women having the right to choose and follow up in Ireland.
Didn’t take long to move in to stage two in their quest for abortion on demand. The pro life cause will be proved right in their analysis that this horrible grotesque masquerade will not end until the pro-murder folk have cheapened the life of the unborn to the level of disposable rubbish.
“It’s solely about saving women’s lives, no-one is arguing for abortion on demand”
Liars
Exactly Chuck and Ferg, “give them an inch and they take a mile” never rang so true. But let them bang on about it, the vast majority of the Irish public have no appetite what-so-ever for abortion on request.
The more they bang on looking for abortion on request the more they will distance themselves from the electorate which will be no bad move at all. As others have said, the bill passed this week ensures that the subject will not be touched by any government again for a generation… and hopefully longer.
Keep a keen watch on future health ministers over the coming years and see if they keep check on the rates of terminations arising from this week’s bill – any signs of abuse and the whole thing will be pulled, which is what I feel will happen before the close of this decade.
What a ridiculous, ignorant comment. I can recall no one calling for abortion on demand… Only for a humane option for women who find themselves in the inconceivably horrid situation of pregnancy following rape/incest or the already heartbreaking situation of being told your baby has an incompatibility with life. I’ll take a punt you’re not a woman who would ever have to face the possibility of carrying a child to full term in such circumstances. Im sure plenty would have the fortitude to carry the child to term, but that doesn’t change the fact women should have choices when faced with such situations!
Wait, you’re STILL saying that no-one is arguing for abortion on demand??
I’m arguing for abortion on demand.
It’s none of your business whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion or not, maybe if your the father you should have some say in certain circumstances.
Samantha, listen to the Labour TDs and what they say behind closed doors… they are using these isolated arguments to achieve their real goal… abortion on request ala UK and California.
I am personally strongly opposed to abortion on demand but I respect the right of each pregnant to make her own choice unconstrained by blunt and unrestrictive law.
It would be more practically effective to provide the social, education, economic and health supports which would help to avoid in some cases the need for a pregnant woman to resort to abortion.
Laws are inappropriate in this complex medical, social and moral area. The pregnant woman is best positioned to balance up the precise circumstances of her own life and her ability or inability to go to full term.
I don’t see it as appropriate for me to dictate by law the choice to be made by a woman.
Mal,
Abortion on demand subject to the fathers approval in certain circumstances?
You’ll be rewarded with green thumbs by those who can’t see beyond your initial stance.
I’m arguing for abortion on demand too and I have no qualms about saying it. However even if that isn’t an option Article 43.3 does need to be looked at as provisions for TFMR couldn’t be included in the legislation because of this restrictive clause. Most reasonable people did want to see TFMR included so a referendum makes sense.
Im arguing for abortion on request. So much for those who thought it would be off table for a generation :)
To be fair I don’t like the uk model of 24 weeks. But say up north the pill option is available up to 11 weeks and I think that’s a great model to adopt. If there was no rigmarole involved id be quite happy allowing woman to have abortion pill.
Like I said the bill was first step. Keep pushing
@Paul, you’re right, it was a silly thing to say. I retract that last bit.
When I said I hadn’t seen anyone calling for “abortion on demand” I meant in the context which that phrase is being used as though women will begin running along willy nilly to use abortion as a method of contraception, or for no valid reason. Ill admit I haven’t spent time watching what is going on with TD’s behind closed doors, but as a woman and as someone who grew up in a country with more liberal abortion laws (yet still with sensible constraints) I simply can’t see the humanity in denying women the choice if they do find themselves in such situations. I also find it sad that there is obviously such an inherent distrust in women to feel that there would be more than a very small handful who would abuse the right in case of rape/incest (and hence needing to have court cases involved). Yes, there will always be a percentage of people of any walk of life who take the piss, but to take away the choice of the vast majority who would only resort to making use of abortion in the very worst of situations is really backwards and distrustful.
In this case “take the piss” means killing people
I don’t support killing people and I have never met a pro-choice supporter who advocates for that.
I don’t support killing people either. Nor do I support
-women being compelled to either carry a baby with a fatal foetal abnormality to full term or to leave the country to terminate and be denied adequate and safe follow up care (both physical and psychological)
-women to be compelled to carry a child to term after the trauma of rape or incest. Pregnancy in many many cases ain’t a walk in the park and to have a daily reminder of your abuse for a minimum of 9 months is, to my kind, inhumane. I know many very brave strong women who choose to continue their pregnancy regardless and FairPlay to them. I’m not sure I’d have the same strength so feel strongly about the right to make a choice.
Finally, and probably to throw the most cats amongst the pigeons – how many children are born to women who might have otherwise terminated who then subject said child to a childhood of neglect, abuse and general sufferance? Maybe I have too much faith in humankind but I strongly feel the choice to abort would never be an easy one, and certainly not something I’d imagine woman making lightly. I still feel a woman should have the right to choose in regards something which is so undeniably life altering.
@ samantha, I agree.
I cannot match your sincerity, your compassion or your awareness of the real life circumstances which compel some pregnant women to travel to avail of terminations.
Post natal abuse, often due to poverty, deprivation and inability to manage in desperately difficult circumstances is a sad reality.
Samantha, I asked you above how would you make law in the rape/incest situations… what you have responded with is a load of waffle.
I have seen women’s lives ruined by rape and equally I have seen men’s lives ruined by false accusations of rape.
Allowing a woman to abort the child on the grounds of unproven rape is flinging the doors wide open to abuse.
Picture a 18 or 19 year old woman still living at home… she has a boyfriend of only a few weeks and becomes pregnant for him. Accusing him of rape in order to acquire an abortion is far too easy in this case.
You may counter-act that with “sure she will go to the UK anyway” – which is true, but does not make it right. Other countries have laws that we find horrific but we are in no position to do anything about it, it is up for the citizens of other countries to look after their own laws, like we are doing here.
In the USA, the very liberal abortion laws are being reeled in as they have woken up to the blatant abuse of the laws there.
Why do we have to go the same path? All we require here is that at every turn the life of the mother and the baby are protected.
There is plenty of contraception available – though I would love the Govt tackle the high prices – to prevent pregnancy in the first place there is no need to make abortion a contraceptive.
And at the end of the day Daniel, who is the one who has the lifelong responsibility for the financial and every other form of support for the child? You? The government? No.. The woman, and hopefully an equally responsible man. Ultimately, the woman. Hence, I just can’t see it’s anyone’s right to choose except he woman.
As for woman accusing a man of rape to get an abortion…. Seriously, you must have a very low opinion of women.
As for how to construct laws – I’m no lawyer and no notion of such things, but how has every other country with limited legal abortion done so? Australia? UK? Both very civilised countries with healthy birth rates and at least one of which I can safely say having been born and bred in, doesn’t have a population of women rampantly abusing abortion laws…
Of course, I’m just a woman waffling on… Off you go on your crusade to deny me and other woman who could be directly impacted by this whole debate a right to choose what happens to us and our bodies/life.
Never heard of adoption then Samantha?
Simple answer to the problem of pregnancy resulting from rape.
Abortion on request for the first trimester.
If you take issue with a woman taking a pill and inducing a miscarriage then that’s your problem, because there’s many things women do each day that cause miscarriages whether intentional or not.
Who are you to take ownership of a woman’s body? Who are you to start making proclamations about a “right to life” that nature isn’t even providing? Who are you to claim that your belief (and it is a belief, not a fact) deserves more credence than another?
You are free to remain “pro life”, no one is arguing for you to undergo abortion against your will – but you argue for women being forced to remain pregnant against their will. You choose to ignore the many valid reasons for a woman to wish to terminate, preferring to pass judgement upon them without walking in their shoes.
Pro life isn’t about protecting life, it’s about exerting dominance over women. We may have a vote, but we don’t have bodily autonomy.. So much for equal rights..
The UK may have abortion available up to 24 weeks but that is largely to cover fatal foetal abnormality and risk to the health of the woman. According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists London, 90% of abortions happen before 13 weeks, 78% before 10 weeks. Only 2% of abortions happen between 20 and 24 weeks and they are almost always for health reasons or fatal foetal abnormalities, after 24 weeks the foetus is possibly viable and would be delivered if the pregnancy was causing a threat to the woman’s health or life. The RCOG also did several years of research into foetal awareness and pain and found that the necessary brain connections to feel these things do not even start to join up until about 24 weeks and the foetus is in an unconscious ‘sleep state’ until birth.
It’s extremely unlikely that a woman with a crisis pregnancy would wait until close to the third trimester to terminate when abortion is safe and legal and in the case of the UK, free on the NHS, most women would want it done as soon as possible after they find out, hence the 90% figure for abortions before 13 weeks.
http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance
http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf
Abortion on request??? Hahaha.. like the the pro murder brigade behave like decent mannerly rational human beings. It’s abortion on demand with that shower ya eejit.
Pro murder brigade?? Seriously listen to yourself and the way you speak about women in horrific situations, its a disgrace-furthermore its NONE of your business -until you have a womb and are able to carry a child-no womb = no say.
here here susan :) women should have the say not the bigoted people like ferg
Guardian you need to read up about abortion in the north. It is just as restrictive up north as it is down south. Thousands of women travel to the UK from Northern Ireland to procure an abortion every year as they do not qualify to recieve one in N.I.
Yes Susan. Pro murder brigade. Seems like a prefect apt description of those seeking the direct and intentional killing of another unique individual.
And you, ferg, are a walking advertisement for why abortion SHOULD be legalised. End of conversation.
Not so long ago we were asked by the government to vote yes for children’s rights. Now they legislate for abortion and wish to take away the right to life of the unborn.
So a zygote or fetus regardless of how old it is is equal to say a 6 year old child in your eyes I take it?
If that’s the case then surely you also believe life starts at conception and any women or girl that uses that morning after pill should be jailed for murder.
Doesnt the morning after pill prevent conception?
No Barry, implantation, not conception. That’s the law
Stiofan,
Let’s not forget taking away their automatic right to citizenship…
Barry who are you to determine the value of any human life
That sentiment belongs the 1930s Germany
Whether you choose to believe it or not novel human life begins at conception
60% – 80% of conceptions are ‘terminated’ naturally by menstruation… All part of god’s plan and the sacred nature of life?
Well if ever there was a comment lacking in understanding its that one
1) Menstruation is not an abortion its shedding of the endometrium
2) natural death is very different from the unnatural death of killing
3) Why bring god into this are you making some kind of assumption about my religious beliefs because I expressed a pro life sentiment if so you are a bigot think about before you continue to use the term liberal to label yourself
I find it offensive that our constitution considers the women in this country to be no more important than a fertilized ovum.
why do believe a fertlised ovum is not important ???
I never said I don’t consider it to be important.
What I said is that I find it offensive that a sentient, breathing woman is considered by our constitution to be no more important than a fertilised ovum.
Call me weird, but I think women in this country are worth more than that.
so whats your problem then practically??
Do you have a problem with an equal right to not be killed becuase it prevents abortion on demand????
No I have a problem with a constitution which lowers the importance of pregnant women to that of a fertilised ovum. If you can’t see why people would consider that offensive I think you should read more biology.
As for what you call “abortion on demand”, I would submit that it is ridiculous to assign a fertilised ovum any rights which out weight the wishes, let alone the well-being, of the woman carrying it.
Sorry mate I know a hell of alot of human embryology, biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, pathology and I dont see your point. Actually I suspect you dont understand biology at all from your comment
Surely it is a noble undertaking to prevent their slaughter of human fetus that occurs throughout the world
As for assigning rights based on the wishes of another well that is a belief that should be rejected by any freethinking person. You know there is no such thing as immaculate conception don’t you??
Well if you know as much about biology as you claim to my point should be all the more obvious; that a fertilised ovum, which is incapable of cognitive thought or independent existence is considered by our constitution to be as important as the sentient woman carrying it. That is grossly offensive. It’s really quite simple.
I suspect you are operating on the assumption that personhood begins at conception. I don’t, and as such for me it’s not a case of stripping “another” of rights because of the wishes of the mother; I don’t believe an embryo is a person.
@ John – ignore kkiljhythg – it a troll with a brand new twitter account.
Just in case you haven’t noticed I dont respect imaginary beliefs especially ones created to deny certain biological humans the most basic right that of not being killed at will by that arbitrarily assigned to be of more importance vis a vie the concept of personhood.
You clearly dont understand that those with the ability to decide and make independent thoughts ie those who are sentient have a duty to take responsibility for their own actions and not kill another human beings for what ever reason they see fit
My suspicion that you dont understand biology has proved to be correct see the ability for conscious thought is not a prerequisite for life. See the human life cycle is very well defined and all humans undergo a parasitic phase. This dosent make those humans any less human. However, you could use your personhood concept but it is very similar to concepts used in apartheid and nazi germany
nice argument
is that a get out clause for liberals when they are getting destroyed in a debate
A number of points:
First, what you call “imaginary beliefs others would call a scientific position. It is not accepted as a fact that an embryo is a person as you seem to assert, so don’t try muddy the waters by assuming we all share your unfounded view that a fertilised ovum is a human being.
Second, continuing on from the first point, simply because all humans share the same same life cycle, does not mean that human beings exist in every point of that cycle.
Third, Godwin’s law. Comparisons to the Nazis have no place in this debate and only undermine your own argument.
Fourth, a quick glance at our respective Red thumb/Green thumb ratios gives a pretty clear indication of who is being “destroyed” in this debate.
1: personhood is a philosphical concept like Nazism and apartheid. Not an objective scientific position
2: a fertilised ovum is part of the human life cycle and is a member of the species human being THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE FACT
3:You dont get biology at all – a human fetus or embryo is a human
4: Using godwin law to dismiss my point shows a clear lack of understanding of ethics. The events that occurred in Nazi Germany form the basis of medical ethics today. To suggest that someone cannot make an anology using the events id both stupid and childish.
5: Democracy does not determine right and wrong nor does it determine logic using democracy. if we all vote 2+2=6 that doesnt make it so> Especially if the vote is taken on a very liberal news site
“a fertilised ovum is part of the human life cycle and is a member of the species human being THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE FACT”
First off, I am not stating that an ovum is not part of the human life cycle. I am stating that society is divided on whether or not if at every point of that cycle human rights are an issue. Second, calm down, you don’t need to yell.
“stupid and childish”
What is stupid and childish is comparing the viewpoints of others to those of the Nazis simply because they don’t fit in to your particular, narrow world view. That is why Godwin’s law was invoked.
I did not try to argue that right and wrong (abstract, subjective issues) are determined by democracy. I drew attention to our respective Red thumb/Green thumb ratios to debunk your assessment that I am being “destroyed” in this debate.
Clearly I do need to yell you dont seem to get the difference between concept and objective fact
and again you seem to ignore what °I clearly siad to you and you just throw it back at you
Let me explain again – deep breath
Again assigning rights based on imaginary concepts so that others can benefit is a moral wrong. It is fair to use similar anaologies such as apartheid and nazism to demonstrate why this is worng. I suggest you look up Godwins law and understand the concept correctly or you can use your own versions and I suggest you email the world medical organisation and carbon copy every medical ethicist and doctor to demand they stop using such anologies.
You are losing the debate because you are not refuting what I am saying rather going in circles – see you dont understand thats how a debate works
Red Thumb/Green Thumb means nothing on this website. If you are prolife you get Red Thumbs, if you are Catholic or Christian you get Red Thumbs, if you are pro FG you get Red Thumbs, etc. It is all so predictable.
People have the right to bodily autonomy. I have the right to decide who uses my body, for what and for how long. That is – unless I become pregnant, in which case my right to bodily autonomy is thrown out the window because of some people’s beliefs that an embryo deserves equal rights.. Effectively – you give a woman less rights over her body than a corpse, while granting an embryo rights over and above what any other human is granted – the right to use another persons body without their consent. I can’t use you as a human dialysis machine – so how come a foetus can do it to a woman? That’s not equal, that’s preferential..
If you think that an embryo or as yet unviable foetus is equal to a living, breathing woman then you must have a very low opinion of women..
And I forgot! You also get red thumbs if somebody suspects that you have morals and beliefs that you believe in but which offend their view of reality. Their philosophy is “be reasonable, see it my way or shut up”.
The most common emergency contraception in this country is Levonelle it works by either preventing conception or preventing the fertilised ovum from implanting, the law only applies from implantation. Emergency contraception has a failure rate like any form of contraception.
A fertilised ovum is human just like skin cells are, it is not a person, only a potential person, it cannot think or feel and is not sentient like a girl or a woman.
No Ray. It’s that your beliefs are like a penis, it’s fine to have one, it’s fine to be proud of it – but shoving it down other people’s throats is unacceptable.
Having the option of abortion there doesn’t mean it will be compulsory, no one is advocating forced abortion. Your beliefs and morals expect that women be denied bodily autonomy and remain pregnant contrary to their wishes.
Who is being more respectful of others beliefs?
No a fertilised ovum is not like your skin cell as your skin cells are part of you a mutlicellular organism a fertilised ovum is a distinct human with a future akin to you as a whole multicellular organism
t’s that your beliefs are like a penis, it’s fine to have one, it’s fine to be proud of it – but shoving it down other people’s throats is unacceptable.
Maybe Shanti can take her own advice and stop advocating for the death of the unborn human
Having an abortion shanti will force death upon another person all in the name of bodily autonomy well done
I’m not advocating for the death of anyone, I’m advocating that the option be there for those who need it. It’s their lives and their consciences that ultimately have to deal with the consequences so let them arrive at the decision that they are comfortable with.
Shanti. Weasel words. “No one is advocating forced abortion” is repeated like a mantra. There is a big difference between the view that except on exceptional cases absorption should not be allowed because it means the destruction of human life and the other view that such destruction should be allowed on request but people will not be forced to abort! Am I forcing this down your throat? Not at all. I couldn’t care less what decisions you take but just as I am not allowed end the life of my terminally ill uncle on the grounds of pity, frustration, etc. I believe that we should not be allowed to terminate the life of a developing human being because a pregnant woman does not wish to be pregnant. Wilful termination of an unborn baby in my view is the same as murder. I don’t ask you to accept my view but would ask you not to be abusive. That is respect.
Weasel words Ray?
You’re the one saying that in certain cases murder is acceptable..
I don’t consider it murder, in fact – there are many who disagree with you on this point. This is because while you consider something that is incapable of autonomy to be a person, others do not. Murder has a generally accepted definition – and it applies after birth, not before.
And please, point out where exactly I have been abusive?
Her body, her life – and the baby’s life is exclusively hers to dispose of too? An intensely private decision – yes – but also one involving a third party – another life. Abusive in the sense of language used – accusation of forcing beliefs, etc.
Ray.
That third life cannot exist without the womb of the woman. It needs her permission to be there. If your kidneys failed you couldn’t legally compel me to donate mine or to hook you up to me so my kidneys could filter your blood for you, even if you were going to die. So how come a foetus can legally compel a woman to donate her womb to it when it was not invited in the first place?
And please don’t fall into the implied consent trap, that’s like claiming marriage implies consent to sex.
I’m afraid the woman’s willingness to participate in the pregnancy cannot be overlooked. And if she does not wish to be pregnant and is refused an abortion, then what exactly is happening? You may wish to take issue with the word “force” but how would you describe it?
As regards beliefs, as your beliefs are not universal – why should everyone have to live by them?
Hey Shanti can we apply the same sentiment ot the homophobic and racists
I’m not advocating for the death of anyone, I’m advocating that the option be there for those who need it. It’s their lives and their consciences that ultimately have to deal with the consequences so let them arrive at the decision that they are comfortable with.
Ours choices have consequences I think a society should aim to protect the those who make a choice that will harm others and I cant see a bigger example than abortion in the western world
Shanti consent to sex is consent to the risk of prehnancy and allowing another human to use your body> like consent to kidney donation is consent to risk of decreased kidney fucntion you cannot ask for your kidney back once you donated it like a woman should kill a fetus to gain bodily autonomy
This is a tired and very flawed agrument please refrainn from repeating it dogmatically
Shanti. You are not donating your womb to a baby for its use. Your womb and reproductive system have actively created that life. This is not a case of renting out a uterus and your argument is facile . I won’t repeat my previous points regarding personal choices and consequences of behaviour but they are still valid.
@ kkijhythg
1) What about people who are told that the contraception they are on are 100% protective but are lied to?
2) What about women who are raped and get pregnant? they don’t consent to sex so they don’t necessarily allow another human to use their body.
1. No one should be told contraception is 100 percent effective. If they were and got pregnant then they have a very strong medical negilence case
2. I think you know the answer to what I believe by you asking the question. I believe abortion should be an option for any woman who was raped and became pregnant as a result. It is a difficult situation.
Consent to sex is consent to sex. It does not imply consent to pregnancy.
Ps, you can donate one kidney and do just fine, but they can’t take it out of you just because you have a donor card in your wallet. Consents are explicit..
No Shanti consent to a course of action is consent to that course of action plus the direct consequences of undertaking such an action this is a basic tennant of medical ethics and law
It is horrifically disrespectful and dishonest to suggest that this is akin to rape. If you took 5 seconds to think you will realise that marriage and rape are 2 separate actions undertaken byu people not a direct consequence of one action.
I will not debate you in medical practiculars such as the risk of kidney donation. I suggest you contact your doctor for that
That is how it is seen now. There was a time when marriage was seen as consent to sex and there are still some young men around today who seem to think that their girlfriend is obliged whenever the mood takes them as well. It is only quite recently that spousal rape is accepted as existing.
Shanti please stop pontificating I am well aware of that situation. How dare you accuse me of being a rapist not only because it incredibly insulting but also very stupid
No Shanti I know you are not very clever but I do hope you understand that having sex can lead to pregnancy AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THIS ACTION. In order to change that you must kill another human being. I see your action of lack of responsibility as akin to using another human by killing them so you can avoid the consequences of your own action.
You do not have any special right to irrational dictate that you excercising your bodily autonomy by killing another human and me objecting to these horrific act makes me a rapist it doesnt. So you are free to comment but you are wrong by all objective standards and very rude and insulting
As for risk of pregnancy and contraception I suggest you look up the pearl index of your choosen method and if you cannot accept this risk of pregnancy then avoid intercourse because killing a human is a terribly fascist way of exercising your ”right” to bodily autonomy
Excuse me, where did I accuse you of being a rapist? And there really is no need to resort to ad hominem attacks now is there?
Ireland is one of the few places where I don’t have the right to bodily autonomy by virtue of pregnancy actually, and this campaign seeks to repeal the article of the constitution that denies me that right. As a woman in a long term committed relationship your assertion that I should stop having sex is ludicrous. I am a grown woman capable of making my own decisions, if my contraception were to fail the UK would honour my right to avoid the health complications pregnancy would cause for me. I do have the right not to become a mother.
It’s you who is failing to understand. Consent to one action does not imply consent to another – even if it is a logical step further (up to 80% of fertilised eggs flushed out in the next menses – the odds aren’t exactly that high now are they). And I made no accusations of you raping another. Or was that a desperate attempt to make me look bad so you could deem the argument won?
Clearly that was implied
Shanti, if you believe that killing another human when you know the direct results of your action thjen you are aselfish fascist willing to kill others so that you can do what you want like a rock star killing another to get their liver after drinking away their own liver.
Abortion violates another humans right to bodily autonomy and the basic right of not being killed
Please re-read what I have written as you see you have just repeated 2 myth I have debunked above
80% percent of humans dont live to see their 85 birthday is it ok therefore to kill those of that age??
consent to a course of action is consent to that course of action plus the direct consequences of undertaking such an action this is a basic tennant of medical ethics and law
In closing you are a selfish human who is willing to kill so that she can do whatever she wants
People like you make me lose faith in humanity
It most certainly was not implied. I said that people used to think that spousal rape was nonsense and it is only recently that attitudes have changed on this – do you deny this?
I said that some young men seem to think that a relationship implies consent to sex – I was referring to my life experience which to the best of my knowledge, doesn’t include you.
The person using my body without my consent would be the foetus I used contraception to prevent forming so where exactly did I accuse you of anything?
On the flip side, you have judged me as unintelligent, fascist, selfish, have I left anything out? As I said to you, there’s no need for the ad hominem attacks, I most certainly have not used them against you, can we not debate as adults and leave the childish mudslinging in the playground where it belongs?
Yo guys – you’ve been at this now for over 13 hours – time to shake hands and say goodnight :)
The 8th Amendment is sickeningly degrading to women. It’s existence is astonishing. Here’s hope for real progress in the future.
For close on a year now this grotesque excuse for a government has used every opportunity it could find to tell the people of this country that they are irrelevant, and that the confines of Leinster House has provided them with a unique knowledge on what is best for us all when it comes to legislating for abortion.
If they feel so secure in their omnipotent wisdom then a referendum such as suggested in this article will be a piece of cake.
On the other hand maybe only one of the coalition partners, much like the abortion debate just finished, truly supports such an argument.
It would be gas to watch Kenny, Hogan and the rest of the lordly Fine Gael sheep traversing the country in its aftermath, like some latterday Inquisition, trying to tell all the No voters that they are all being expelled from the party.
Bring it on.
I distinctly recall voting on this already, please accept the wishes of the Irish people and take your american money on some other campaign.
If you have any American money about you, send it on or send it to the charity of your choice. Either way it will make no difference to me because it is a currency I haven’t seen for donkeys years.
You speak of referendums of bygone years as a justification for this weeks legislation, what a joke. Those referendums were held to try and avoid it happening, not to promote it.
This article is an attempt to generate another referendum. I hope those behind it are successful because afterwards, when the proposal is rejected, they will no longer be able to rewrite history to suit their own agenda.
You’re right, the bygone referendum to add the 8th amendment was a joke and needs to be put to the people of a new less Catholic Church dominated generation to be repealed, which it will be.
At the risk of attracting more invective from a vocal minority, please consider this quiz. What is the religious composition of the following groups?
1. The TDs who voted against the Bill
2. Catholic Comment
3. Youth Defence
4. The Iona Institute
5. Youth Defence
6. The umbrella group of the various pro-life groups.
7. The Life Institute.
The opposition to the right to choose is largely dependent on the institutional Roman Catholic Church financially supported by extremist fundamentalist pro-life groups in the USA.
I think that the role of religion is relevant. Examine the history of the involvement and direction of the Roman Catholic Church in the 1983 Referendum and in the political interference during the legislative process of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill.
The Roman Catholic Church (intentionally involved in the concealment of clerical child abuse) is the most powerfully influential group in the resistance to the movement for the rights of pregnant women.
You haven’t been on the receiving end of any invective on this thread
I read a few days ago about a TD having his house picketed by pro-life demonstrators who banged on his windows and doors and shouted threatening slogans. A few days before that, a huge pro-life rally backed by the Catholic Church attracted huge support, with tens of thousands of people turning out to show their abhorrence of abortion.
I can’t help but reflect on the contrast between this outpouring of support for the “unborn” and the stony silence that for decades greeted rampant institutional abuse and the scandal of the Magdalene punishment centres.
Children were flogged and sexually abused in centres run by religious orders and funded by the State, and women were routinely enslaved for conceiving “out of wedlock”. Throughout all that dark period of our history, the religious orders from whose ranks so many abusers materialised did not have their homes or headquarters picketed by “pro-life” demonstrators.
Neither did the lynchpins of the political establishment, that failed to challenge the gulag conditions and horrific ill-treatment of children in industrial schools; ever face pickets outside their homes or constituency offices.
When the Ryan Report was launched in 2009, the numbers that turned out in Dublin to mark that milestone expose of unspeakable crimes against children were miniscule compared to the recent mass rallies in defence of the “unborn”.
Isn’t it strange…that in all those years of abuse, terror, and predation behind the walls of industrial schools like Artane and Letterfrack, not even a token picket was organised by anyone? Where were the long lines of kneeling protesters, fingering rosary beads, when men in black cassocks were flogging children naked for offences such as “speaking during meals” or “having a boot lace open” or “confusing a saint with an angel”, to quote some of the excuses given. Where were the midnight picketers when women guilty of no crime were scrubbing corridors and washing society’s dirty laundry day and night under non-stop intimidating supervision?
The pro-life ethos was unheard of throughout those nightmare years, when it might have made a difference. Then again, the thousands of enslaved women and abused children were punished for a unique offence: That of being born into a country that elevated the love of power over the power of love; that placed a greater value on the “unborn” than on the lives of fully formed women and children.
As right as you are John, I don’t expect any of them to see your point..
Magdalene Survivors could carry their own placards. The significance of that may be lost on you.
Children didn’t vote for their rights last year. Something else you might have missed.
I’m not opposing your viewpoint. Just commenting that you made it very poorly.
Well said John, that’s exactly it, they are obsessed with non-sentient foetuses and have little compassion for living women and children.
Pro-lifers wanting to re-run a 1992 referendum = disgusting, anti-democratic fascists who won’t accept an issue that was decided long ago
Pro-choicers wanting to re-run a 1983 referendum = forward thinking, compassionate, admirable people who are trying to make sure the constitution is as representative as possible
I wonder, if the 8th amendment were repealed, would the pro-choice movement support a campaign to have a third referendum in a few years to see if the population had changed its mind again? Followed by a fourth, fifth etc?
Exactly Chuck… double-standards.
I’m pro choice and would not have a problem revisiting the 92 referendum. I’d be confident of a similar result.
Chuck,
That is not to deny that attitudes change. Nor that the constitution is a useful tool for the legislature to avoid having to take intelligent action.
Oireachtas enquiries?
Would you be in favour of having a referendum on allowing same sex marriage, the abolition of the Seanad, etc considering same sex marriage was not in the constitution because the makers of the constitution never put it in and the people who voted for the constitution didn’t want it in and the Seanad was voted in.
Do you want to go against those people?
Excuse me..
Most of the pro choice lobby were happy to hold a referendum, we have called for article 40.3.3 to be put before the people again all along.
The only objection to putting X before the people again was that essentially we had two referendums addressing the suicide issue and they were both rejected – the Supreme Court ruling was left without legislation for 21 years, essentially those two referendums were ignored.
So, unlike the pro life tactic – which appears to be “attack the symptom and ignore the cause”, we wish to go back to the root of the issue.
The Pro Life Campaign swore blind that the 8th amendment would never put a woman’s life in danger – but it has. It has killed a few, and left others permanently damaged.
We wish to weed out this pernicious amendment so that women can receive the healthcare that they need whether they are pregnant or not. If you would rather deny a woman her right to bodily autonomy then I guess we can safely say your idea of equal rights is pretty darn skewed..
We have spent far too much time on this matter already. Let’s move on.
We are only at the start of the debate.
The matter of women’s rights, welfare and lives Ray?
That is the depressing thing. Hopefully the Government will ignore the zealots on both sides and get on with returning this country to economic stability.
The matter of more than three hundred and fifty thousand people unemployed Paul?
Abortion is a massive economic issue for a lot of women – how are low income women who are trying to feed their children going to pay for another child in daycare, another mouth to feed?
yes the reason abortion is freely available around the world is not because it is a human right. Its because it is an economic gold mine. Socialise women into thinking that they shouldnt continue a pregnancy because they wont be able to afford a child. That way we have to pay less for school childcare and social services.
Pro choice = no choice
Nick. Good to hear that absorption is an excellent way of ensuring that families remain viable economic units. Just kill any new babies that happen to come along. Something very clinical and fascistic about that! A human life? Apparently not relevant if it is inconvenient. Same thinking went into Hitler’s Final Solution.
* abortion (not absorption)
Godwins Law..
Predictable reply. Just because there is a reference to Hitler does not invalidate the point. There is a clear link in logic – undesirable = dispose of. Dehumanise the problem so there is no guilt.
No, you believe that that is the thought process that leads to the decision. It’s not what actually happens, but you wish to make it look that way so you make comparisons to the Nazis.
Godwins Law stands.
But Godwin means nothing at the end of the day Shanti. I was referring to the chilling point raised by Nick i.e. abortion is an economic solution. Leave sentiment out if it – there is none in her argument. Oh dear, another bloody sprog – let’s get rid. It’s only a bunch of bloody non sentient cells anyway. Not capable of cognitive thought either. Useless bloody thing. Certainly can’t be human. Not a living loving caring person like me – let’s get rid! Good – one less mouth to feed.
Only down to your assumption. You are judging without actually being in that situation yourself. You are making light of a situation that that woman agonises over and comparing her to a Nazi.
Shanti. Again your sole focus is on the situation of the woman. The baby is irrelevant. If the woman agonises it is the least one would expect. Otherwise it would represent a serious case of emotional underdevelopment and being sub human. I am not likening the woman to a Nazi – that is a misrepresentation. I clearly compared the logic and dehumanisation to that of the Final Solution and I still maintain that position. If the cap fits any particular woman then that is a matter for her.
All this talk of killing…….does the woman have the right to decide she wants the baby taken out of her body without any direct killing? i.e. withdraw her “consent” to be used as incubator for this new human? After all….at what point did she “consent” to another human living inside her for 9 months? If her consent is not needed how did babies get the absolute “right” to live inside another human being against that person’s wishes? Reframing: I have the right not to be killed-so should an unborn baby. I have no right to live at the expense of another person’s rights-neither should an unborn baby…….
Thank you thank you thank you Journal, for describing the activists as ‘abortion rights’ activists. This is a much clearer and more accurately term than ‘pro-choice’. I hope this reflects an editorial stance which will be evident in future articles on the debate.
Now if you could only fix it so I don’t have to ‘Authorise app’ each time I want to comment with my Twitter a/c.
have your say