I am sick to death of the argument that we don’t need regulation/legislation because of Ireland’s safety record re: pregnant women. In part that record has been achieved because, regularly, women are forced to go abroad, in circumstances of fetal abnormalities, potentially maternal life-threatening pregnancies etc.

Who runs this country, because it sure in heck is not The Irish people anymore. Europe calls the tune, we have no say anymore! And I am not anti abortion or pro life before anyone gets their knickers in a twist!

Richard they are telling the Irish government to listen to the will of people after 20 years of inaction on an issue that that we, the Irish people, decided on in 1992 and 2002.

@Richard Crompton

Yeah it’s a shame that Ireland lacks any basic leadership and has to wait for Europe to drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

If it weren’t for European intervention homosexuality would still be illegal here FFS and we’d be operating under Rome rule.

Cal1 I’m a non Catholic who enjoys choice as much as the next woman. I am not anti- choice, I am anti unborn baby killing.

Simon I’m talking about right wing religious groups like Life House Ireland.

Google them, they funnel American money to groups like Youth Defence and fund their campaigns. They’re just the tip of the iceberg.

Youth Defence and their many guises could be getting ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ in the near future from US donors.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/American-anti-abortion-group-raising-money-to-fund-abortion-fight–in-Ireland-182800861.html#ixzz2Ekr21O1I
Also, I’ve read reports that YD used to have the donation form of their site in dollars (they changed it once somebody pointed it out to them), a tad unusual for an Irish site.
Also the majority of their FB/Twitter followers are American (bit.ly/RXbUGyl bit.ly/O9A6Hg and bit.ly/MUaokz) unlike Irish pro-choice groups whose followers are primarily from Ireland.

Woops, first of the shortened links should be: bit.ly/RXbUGy

1. Yes I have. 2. Your religion shouldn’t preclude you from having a say. 3. Being pro-life can be incidental to Catholicism; plenty of pro-life Catholics are pro-divorce, pro- contraception etc. 4. The most blatant enforcement of beliefs I’ve seen on here is where anti- Catholic pro-choicers seem to believe Catholicism disqualifies you from having an opinion based on their ideology. For the record, I’m atheist and tired of the pro-abortion lobby dismissing pro-life as religious zealots. There are zealots in our ranks for sure, but then ye have Clare Daly & Ivana Bakic.

I haven’t (seen any so called pro life rallies without religious symbolism).

At the risk of sounding like an utter fascist I must admit that I do not take seriously the options of religious people. Irrational beliefs in the supernatural to me is not the sign of an healthy mind.

The so called pro life movement is heavily identified and infected with religious groups and that is actually a great shame. Without their wooden headness and poor understanding of reality this debate could as a whole could potentially be less emotive and even productive.

In broad strokes then the fears of the so called pro life movement is abortion becoming almost a casual event.

The fears of the pro choice movement is that people will be forced into having children that (for whatever reason) they either dont want to carry to full term or have at all.

Where does the middle ground exist? Is it something that a middle ground can be found?

#Geoff- it’s life or death; the ultimate black or white issue. There is no grey. That’s what makes it so emotive and it’s why there’s no room for compromise on either side. If you believe an unborn baby is life, as many do, there are no circumstances under which you could sanction termination other than to save the mother. You mentioned a woman not wanting a baby- well plenty of things happen in life that we don’t want but society expects us to take responsibility for our actions. A man may not want to pay maintenance for a child, but society insists that he does. The principle is the same. And you’re very hard on religious people. They’re entitled to their beliefs. Faith’s not necessarily stupidity.

Pure bull simon! Never should be that easy ave an abortion! Ul have women say then Ah I was taking the pill but it failed, when she wasnt on contraception at all!They can lie as well as anybody

It is not relevant whether they lie or tell the truth about their choice for an abortion. It should be, and will be, their choice what they want to do with their bodies as it is in countries with a modern abortion policy.

@Shane, been reading all your comments down the thread. You realise that if a woman wants an abortion she’ll go to England to get one anyway. The legislation will be for limited medical situations in Ireland. People will still travel though. Not legislating won’t stop that.

Actually it’s extremely difficult to lie about being on the pill, a simple hormone blood test will tell whether or not the pill is being taken.
Your arguments are by and large sensationalist, and typically prolife, anti-woman.

@penguinnation yes the immediate legislation will be limited to risks to the life of the mother, but I believe full choice will come to Ireland, as it has done in other countries. Re the UK it’s even easier now they only have to travel up to Belfast, so the choice is already here on this island.

Penguin the majority of young girls who fall preg here have their kid they don’t go to england! Do u think they would have that kid if abortion was as easy in Ireland?

“the majority of young girls who fall preg here have their kid they don’t go to england! Do u think they would have that kid if abortion was as easy in Ireland?”

Shane, what are you talking about. Girls and women who want their babies will have their babies. Those who don’t, wont. It’s as simple as that. There should be a full facility in Ireland for women to avail of abortion if that is their wish.

Also shane, you seem to think that abortion is as easy as buying stamps in the post office. Abortion is incredibly expensive, and invasive and not at all easy. You can’t just go pick up a load of abortions down at the shops.

#Penguin- 1 in 5 pregnancies in the UK are aborted. It’s obviously not that difficult.

Oh I dunno Vincent.. Given the choice between using protection and having an abortion any woman would choose the former..
An abortion is a horrible experience. Ask any woman who has had one. It’s NOT an easy experience, for you to claim it is based on nothing more than a statistic is despicable.

Source? And by source I mean a direct source ie from whoever carried out the research and with methodology and sample size information.

#Shanti- my point had two elements. 1). was to contradict the assertion that its difficult nature is detergent enough. A 21% abortion rate suggests strongly that it isn’t. That’s not to say its anything other than horrific. 2). was to highlight what we’re talking about here- an Ireland where only 79% of pregnancies are fulfilled.

Geoff- it was actually Gavan from the Journal who provided it. It was based on Dept. of Health data in the UK.

What’s your obsession with pregnancies being carried to term? Do you have problems with miscarriages too?
Not all pregnancies make it. That’s a fact of life. Unless its your partner, what business is it of yours?

#Shanti- yes…And people die in car crashes too. It doesn’t mean you’re allowed to deliberately drive in to them. Why do I care? Because society has a duty to protect the defenceless. And it could be my child that relies on our anti-abortion law.

Vincent.
There is no consensus upon the determination for when “life” begins. This is why death in utero is called abortion and not murder. YOU believe it’s life from one point, another person believes it begins later. You may not be religious, but you are attempting to force YOUR morals universally – when they are not universal.

#Shanti- no morals are universal. The law does not work off the principle that people can abide by their own conscience and beliefs alone. Society dictates what is permissable in all sorts of areas. For example, some people believe its perfectly legitimate for the state to put to death a criminal found guilty of murder. In Ireland we don’t agree. So we wouldn’t allow them to do that here. Euthanasia is a principle many agree with. Very few countries allow it. For me, I have no interest in dictating to others how they live their lives. Except where their decision impacts on others.

@vincent you are misrepresenting your stats. You haven’t factored in that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage (which is 1 in 5 known pregnancies as many happen before the woman knows she is pregnant).

#Zed- only slightly. Gavan extracted miscarriages in the UK from the stats he had provided (same source) and the Abortion only rate fell to 18.5% from 21%. So my 1 in 5 is still correct (ish).

Vincent.
While we all agree that murder is wrong, we do not all agree that abortion is murder. Different people have different views on when life begins. Therefore, this is not something that there *can* be a universal viewpoint on.

You ascribe life to the foetus before another group does. That’s where the moral fails to be universal and starts becoming more grey. You and other anti choicers refuse to accept that others see this differently to you and expect them all to live according to *your* views. It’s not as black and white as you wish to see it, no matter how much you try to twist things.

#Shanti- you’re deliberately skirting around my point. With the death penalty, some people believe its absolutely right and just to kill a murderer. They’ll tell you it is important for the victim and their family and for justice to be served. Others disagree. In Ireland, society disagrees and prohibits the death penalty, irrespective of the feelings of the victim. It errs on the side of preserving life. Abortion is the same. You’re right. Some agree. Some don’t. At the moment in Ireland, society disagrees and prohibits it, erring on the side of life. You argue that by my wanting abortion to remain banned I am imposing my beliefs on you. I would argue that by seeking to legalise it, you are seeking to impose your belief on me. As in any democracy, majority will rule. It’s a founding principle of society.

1. We can all agree that the murderer was alive. Therefore to kill them is further murder. There is no consensus on the beginning of life – so really your example is in no way comparable.
2. The majority have spoken Vincent. We have had two referendums that tried to remove suicide as an option in the space of a decade and they both failed. We have only voted once on the 8th amendment, before most women of child bearing age today were old enough to vote.
We have never had a referendum asking us to widen availability for abortion. But this far we have not narrowed the scope of the X case. Successive governments have tried to avoid legislating to give this effect. Europe is now breathing down their neck to make them respect that democracy.
I fail to see where your comment about letting the people decide backs up your opinion. We already have the results, it does not.

#Shanti- 63% in the Sunday Business Post poll wanted suicide NOT to be included as a reason for Abortion here. The jury is still very much out with the public.

Many areas of morality are not appropriate to normative treatment. Laws prohibiting and criminalising abortion are ineffective, far too blunt, ambiguous in application and risk preventing life or health saving medical treatment . It is perfectly acceptable for the self professed and self described pro-life lobby to preach and promote the position that abortion is always immoral, even to contend that the preservation of the foetus is paramount in all circumstances or even the rather inhumane attitude that a pregnant woman is merely equal to a foetus.

Morality is morality but laws should only apply where there is a compelling need in the public interest and the regulation of an orderly society to control such conduct. This need has not been established in relation to the protection of a foetus.

The existing laws prohibiting abortion are circumvented in most instances by Irish women who need abortions availing of that service in England or elsewhere. So, in most cases, except for immobility due to serious illness and significant poverty, abortions can be legally obtained, underlining the irrelevance of Irish law on this matter except in a small minority of especially vulnerable cases.

Put simply, a right wing, reactionary and repressive group, funded from outside of Ireland and inspired by the hard liners in the Roman Catholic Church wish to preserve at all costs, even at the expense of the lives and health of some pregnant women, the support for a particular moral position by force of law. It means that some Roman Catholics and their ardent supporters have foisted their moral notions on the rest of us by the support of largely symbolic legal prohibition.

The rather perverted notion that is being sold to us is that the pregnant women of Ireland are only itching to obtain abortions and only the law impedes them from so doing. This is a denial that women only resort to abortions for good and compelling reasons.

The problem in debating directly with pro lifers is that they are dogmatic, doctrinal and absolutist. They are not open to a real dialogue because their a priori position is that abortion is wrong and must be legally prohibited, even if there are horrendous circumstances present. Some of these horrendous circumstances are due to male misconduct.

If one observes the often verbally abusive, tyrannical and accusatory arguments presented by the more hard line pro-life proponents, they simply don’t trust women to decide for themselves. They ignore that liberal legal systems often coincide with a lower incidence of abortion. They are various effective ways of reducing the incidence of abortion and ensuring earlier term abortions but the law is not one of those ways or methods.

The reason why the pro-life lobby wish to preserve largely ineffective laws is to stigmatise abortion and the women who avail of abortion services. It is a condemnatory attitude, an assumption of moral superiority and an presumptuous abrogation of the right to decide for the rest of us what is right and wrong. It is a wish to preserve a relic of a more religiously and morally authoritarian period in Ireland, a period during which the institution of the Roman Catholic Church because of the privilege of its power was able consciously, ruthlessly and aggressively to suppress the knowledge of child abuse by Roman Catholic priests.

The law and Constitutional Articles such as Article 40.3.3 simply have no business intruding into this area. It is sad to see Ms. Simons knowingly misrepresent the true implications of the current legal position. As a solicitor she actually knows the correct legal position but she distorts the lack of clarity in order to serve her dogmatic position.

Vincent.
TWO REFERENDUMS. I think you will find that this has far more authority than a business post opinion poll.
Hence why we find ourselves obliged to legislate. I doubt the business post poll overrides that in any way.

#Peter- a couple of things. 1). In all the debates I have seen on here over the last couple of weeks I have not seen one pro-life advocate suggest that the life of the mother does not supercede that of the baby. 2). I’ve yet to see any pro-life advocate on here say Abortion is wrong because Jesus said so. The only time religion has been brought up it has been by the pro-abortionists who seek to characterise all pro-lifers as religious zealots in a rather desperate attempt to harness anti-Catholic sentiment prevalent in the country at the moment, which brings me neatly to point 3). You say pro-life advocates do not trust women. I say pro-abortionist don’t trust their own argument. They lack the courage of their own convictions- which is presumably why so rarely you see pro-abortionists say: I’m in favour of Abortion on demand for all. Instead, they leverage exceptions, they use victims. They hide behind rape victims and people like Savita in Galway, using tragedies such as those to further their agenda. It’s politics of the most reprehensible kind. What’s hardest to fathom is the moral superiority which they deign to assume. Pro-life advocates seek to preserve life. Pro-abortionists seek to end it. There’s little room for the likes of you, Peter on the moral high ground.

Well Vincent, the major pro life rally had bishops and a guy with a massive crucifix. If you have issues with people equating the pro life movement with religion then perhaps you should take this up with the pro life side.

Also, people tend to think a religious motivation exists when anti choicers attempt to ascribe personhood to a foetus. One who’s brain has not yet fully developed to feel pain and could not sustain itself even with medical intervention outside of the womb.

Any woman should be able to end an unwanted pregnancy within the first trimester. It’s highly unlikely that they would choose to remain pregnant any longer. If there’s an issue discovered with the foetus in the second trimester or there’s a complication, then abortion should be available. If there’s any possibility that the baby can survive outside the womb with Neo natal care – then that’s what should happen and not abortion.

The hard line pro-lifers invest terms such as unborn babies, unborn child, not yet born human, etc. The hard line pro-lifers assert that the foetus is fully human, on a par with the pregnant woman carrying the foetus and that consequently abortion Is murder, even genocide.

Then some pro-lifers, while asserting that the foetus is fully human put forward the extraordinary proposition that the foetus can be sacrificed if the life of the mother is threatened and if the death of the foetus is incidental to the medical treatment, the purpose of which is to preserve the life of the mother.

That is internally illogical. If one subscribes to the unreal notion that a foetus is fully human, then if the extinction of the foetus is truly murder, medical treatment which in saving the life of the pregnant woman, kills the foetus is logically and legally indefensible and inexcusable. Morality and law coincide in one area. Killing one innocent human, even a human which is near death, to save the life of another human is murder. It’s the marooned people in a boat quandary. Even if one is near death it is not permissible to hasten death or to terminate the life of one to save the rations and to save the lives of others.

If the foetus is recognised as fully human and equal to a woman, a rather eccentric notion, it should never be sacrificed.

I have read posts from a few pro-lifers which, however horribly and reprehensible in humane, are at least internally logical by adopting the position that medical treatment which imperils the foetus or has the potential to cause its miscarriage is impermissible even if the purpose is to save the pregnant woman from imminent risk of death.

All of this demonstrates the absurdity of seeking to legislate at all for these situations, still less to lay down simplistic and unreal Constitutional provisions which incorporate religious dogma.

@Sharrow

This is the first time I’ve ever seen some one bring up the reproductive rights of transmen in the comment section of one of these articles. Well done.

Actually, no, Shane, unfortunately under Irish law, her boyfriend has no right to discuss and input into a decision to have an abortion. That seems a little unfair to men who make this decision with their partners, don’t you think?

not being smart but even if the baby is born the BF has no rights in Ireland…

#Elaine- you seem to have an insight no one else has here. Nothing has been published publicly proving that poor woman would have lived if the child had been terminated earlier. So what are you basing your assumption on?

Of course it’s not right! He helped put the child there in the first place

But if he and his partner decide to access an abortion, suddenly you don’t think he should have any rights at all in whether to continue the pregnancy? That doesn’t make it seem like you have a lot of concern for his rights.

#Nick , 2 things: 1. No one had the right to end a life. My reference to fathers is by way of refuting the “it’s her body” argument. 2. You bored the arse off me the other night and I’ve no intention of wasting more hours of my life that I’ll never get back responding to your made up statistics (remind me again how a full 50% of women are raped?!?!). So I’ll not be responding to any further points you make.

Then why don’t you make the unborn child’s rights arguement instead? It’s dishonest to claim you care about protecting men’s decision process – you have no interest if men make a decision you disagree with.

Hurrah for the EU courts, with out which we would not have the equal pay act and homosexuality would still be illegal and a criminal offense.

How messed up is it that the same Offences against the Person Act 1861 which makes an abortion illegal was the same one used to prosecute Oscar Wilde.

If you read the comment again you’ll notice that he did not mention fathers, he mentioned so called pro lifers.

#Shanti- A vasectomy does not entail the death of an innocent third party.

Well, there’s no direct comparison so I felt I would make it relevant to reproduction.
Most of those abortions take place at a point in time where miscarriage is pretty common. There’s no baby. There’s a heavy period, a lot of cramping and crying and feeling physically awful.

It’s the ending of the *potential* for life. It’s not alive yet.

I don’t think you understand what a foetus is during the first trimester. It’s a bundle of cells, not a human being. It has none of the defining characteristics of human life. It sounds like you don’t understand the science behind pregnancy.

Also, calling people ‘pro-aborts’ is hyperbolic. I could as easily call you ‘pro-repression of women’ or ‘pro-radical fundamentalist christian picking bits of the bible to support his cause but completely misunderstanding the fundamental principles of christianity’.

In my experience, neither side has an open and transparent view to termination. Pro-life views seem to be largely (largely – not completely) from a religious standing, holding that all life is sacred and anyone who engages with termination is a murderer. Pro-choice views seem to be largely from a liberal standing, holding that the mother and only the mother is the last point of call on carrying through a pregnancy – this sometimes is not the case, sometimes medical opinion over-rides this and can recommend or not that termination be carried out.
The fact is that this debate is sadly lacking the call of those of us who are more likely to come into contact with termination than many readers here.
This debate needs information on a factual, statistical and experienced basis, not an emotive basis – this serves to help both the yes/no campaigns, not the two campaigns that matter – that of mothers who will come in contact with the service, and that of those of us who have to work in the area.
The fact is that you can be both pro-life and pro-choice, many midwives and doctors are – we don’t particularly like seeing lives being lost, considering that our jobs are to save lives, not lose them.
The fact is that Termination is a full and proper surgical/medical procedure when it is carried out in the appropriate setting, with appropriate personnel and appropriate checklists. If you presume that, then why does termination arise in the constitution when no other surgical/medical procedure does?
The views need not be so polar, but sadly that is what happens when a topic has been allowed fester for generations.

The goal of the “pro-life” movement is to terrorize women and enforce their personal views on morality. They are totally oblivious to anything but their own limited version of reality. This is what the “pro-life” movement is. Threats. Intimidation. Manipulation. Moral superiority. They offer no practical solutions for preventing abortions, only ways to make it harder for women in a desperate situation to receive the medical care they need!!

Most sensible comment I’ve read to date. #james Connolly

Really Vincent.. What about ectopic pregnancy.. Is there a better option than abortion for an ectopic pregnancy?

#Shanti- I’ve yet to hear ANYBODY on here argue that when the mothers life is at genuine risk, a termination is wrong. So don’t be facetious. I was referring to examples given above, such as financial constraints which quite frankly sound ridiculous when balanced against the life of an unborn child.

And you wish to assume that that is the primary reason abortion is sought. While it may be one, it is by no means all. There are many reasons women have abortions, after all – how many rapes go unreported? 1 in 5 women have been sexually assaulted – how many of those sexual assaults involved rape and a resulting pregnancy? And even that would only make up a section of the 1 in 5 abortions you are talking about. There’s medical reasons too. And there’s incest, and domestic violence, and addicts..
Some are women who already have families and cannot support another. Some are women for whom pregnancy would adversely affect her health..
You can never assume that one group makes up the entire statistic, and your willingness to prohibit suggests that you are inherently mistrustful of women.

#Shanti- if you look at the stats provided you’ll see Rape & Medical conditions hardly feature. So I do not for one minute believe your 1in 5 stat. It’s typical crap wheeled out by pro-abortionists because its more palatable to a sceptical electorate than many of the real reasons.

Right Vincent.. Do you reckon if she’s your partner and she’s not in the mood it’s ok to pressure her into it? Maybe do it while she’s asleep? Maybe start a fight with her until she gives in just to shut you up?
Because THAT is rape too. And there’s a large number of guys out there who don’t seem to realise this.

But by all means, deny what women actually experience.. We’re all liars after all aren’t we?

The practical solution is young kids need to be taught more deeply in school then they are, learning from a young age

The practical solution is that women should be able to make the decision for themselves regardless of their reasons. Otherwise they’ll just keep going to the UK. I don’t know why the statistics are but I bet the majority of women that travel for abortions aren’t doing so on on medical grounds! I know two people that got abortions abroad, a long time ago when they were quite young. They didn’t make the decision lightly (and incidentally it was decided mutually between them and their partners) but what made it harder still was having to make a weekend of it to travel!

And I guarentee if u saw statistics that many women who fall pregnant here naturally have their kids and DON’T go to the uk for abortion! Legalise abortion here under all circumstances and that will change

Shane the right to choose is a fundamental liberty!!! It is obvious you will NEVER find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy, so WHY are you so determined to impress your rigid belief system on women who seek the basic human right to choose???

Shane, don’t know how familiar you are with the procedure but ‘easy’ is not generally a term I’d use to describe it at any stage of the game.

Sorry Sarah wrong choice of word but fully stick by only in certain circumstances

And why only in certain circumstances? Ever hear of unplanned pregnancy? Contraception is not infallible and forcing a woman to be pregnant when she does not want to be is wrong.

Oxymoron much?

Unplanned pregnancy comes from carelessness mate!
Not a reason for killing the life of a child

Not necessarily. Pregnancy can occur when using contraception. No method is 100% effective.

Shane this is taken from Durex’s own website:

“Clinical trials have shown that correct and consistent use of latex condoms results in contraceptive efficacy rates of 95-98%.”

So what happens to the girl who falls into that 2-5%?

“Not a reason for killing the life of a child”

No children are killed during abortion. Please purchase a biology book at your nearest book store.

Talk about a limited view on things. Typical single minded attitude which unfortunately is shared by many.

It’s not a life. It’s a bundle of cells. It’s not alive, no more than your sperm or ovum are.

Never knew that young girls could get pregnant all on their own ! What about the carelessness of the men involved !

Sure wasn’t that how Jesus was born? It’s never the father’s fault Mary.

@Kevin O’Brien if only Mary had had an abortion then we wouldn’t have to put with this nonsense in the first place.