We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
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.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE GOVERNMENT IS to pass legislation which will introduce minimum sentencing for repeat sex offenders, it emerged today.
It was announced that a private member’s bill brought in by Minister of State Kevin ‘Boxer’ Moran will be adopted by the Government.
The new law will only apply when an offender is convicted of and is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of at least five years. If that person commits another sex offence within a seven-year period, then a tougher minimum sentence will be imposed.
Under the draft laws, the minimum period of prison time will three-quarters of the maximum term of imprisonment allowed for that crime.
In cases where the maximum imprisonment for that crime is life, then minimum sentencing of 10 years will apply.
The laws surrounding incest are also to be changed. As things stand, the punishment for incest by a man carries a sentence of up to life imprisonment whereas incest by a woman carries a maximum seven years imprisonment. The new law will aim to increase the maximum sentencing for women who commit this crime.
Moran said he was delighted that his private member’s bill is to be adopted by the Government and said that it should help protect families.
“Both issues will be contained in a Government Bill which Minister Flanagan will seek Cabinet approval for in the Autumn,” said Moran.
“I am truly delighted that my original Bill’s proposals are now being taken on by Government.
“I am absolutely delighted that I have been in a position to effect change and the fact that this Bill is now becoming part of Government legislation programme reflects the change that can happen from the Independent Alliance.”
“It’s women who let down other women.” For her to say that is amusing to me considering her public stance. And that fact that she is apparently the only Irish woman on the list is extremely disappointing. There are far better women, who better represent the women of Ireland that could have been put on that list.
Couldn’t have said it better myself Louise. Very disappointed in this choice as she does not represent me or any of the women I know
Well done to Cora and to the BBC for such an excellent choice.
A bit pathetic that people who want abortion under all circumstances and can’t see how destructive that is can’t celebrate an honor given to an opponent.
It’s not like Sherlock used the opportunity to slag you off.
You’re a nobody, nobody, nobody and Cora Sherlock got chosen, it’s bitterness all round.
She is the only Irish woman chosen and so it will appear that she represents irish women which is incorrect
In relation to the rest of your post you seem to have some pent up anger in relation to the word nobody (although maybe it’s just an echo in the batcave)
How on earth could I celebrate Coras listing when she is hellbent on stopping Irish women from accessing the healthcare that they require? How can I celebrate a woman who believes that not only I, but herself in turn, is a second class citizen by trying to deny women full bodily autonomy?
I also don’t see where I slagged her off in my comment above. I stated opinion. I can’t agree with her listing. It’s not bitterness. It’s honesty. But like I expect from your type, you love to paint people with my point of view as bitter and hysterical. It just makes you look bad. It’s been done, and it’s tired at this stage.
Cora , ignore them Ireland is an island of begrudgers and you get it on the double if you are a successful woman.
It’s ok Diorai, we already know Cora ignores us. She ignore stories of women who have no regrets about their abortion, she ignores opinion polls, she ignores medical experts, she ignores results of democratic referendums, she ignores requests for straight answers to simple questions. Wait was it her expertise at ignoring stuff that got her on the list?
As I said Ireland is a nation of Ireland is an island of begrudgers.
‘Backlash from Ireland’ – surely it should read backlash from the groupthink trolls on the Journal because the rest of the country including the Irish Times thinks it is great and she is great.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/cora-sherlock-named-one-of-bbc-s-100-women-of-2014-1.1979717
Homophobic, transphobic and anti-choice. What a cocktail.
ps No-one here has called for Cora to be censored.
Excuse me, not to go off topic, but how are all of those people that you’ve listed messed up?
And also, why bring it up? What has my being tolerant of the LGBTQ community got to do with this story?
@Heather Pender
The BBC probably didn’t give the issue of whether or not she represents Irish women a moment’s thought.
@Louise Coffey
What evidence is there that Cora is hell-bent on preventing Irish women from getting the health care that they need? She’s not like Mena Bean Uí Chribín, you know.
Well done Cora. Very proud of you.
@Ciarán. Her ‘Pro Life’ sentiment. Any woman that would deny another woman an abortion is denying that woman adequate healthcare.
Surprised and disappointed? I think the word you’re looking for Ms. Sherlock is deluded. Your opinion is that the choices and decisions of other women shouldn’t matter when it comes to their bodies and would gladly rob them of that choice. Yours is the only opinion that you believe matters.
@Graham Kavanagh
And what choice does the unborn child have?
two different strands of DNA and two different heartbeats are not the same body.
So you’re saying that when a women gets pregnant she has absolutely no rights with what’s happening in her own body?? Drag yourself into the 21st century. P.S love the way it’s mostly men saying abortion is wrong. They don’t have a clue.
No I’m saying she hasn’t or shouldn’t have the right to kill another innocent human life. My sons are dependent on their mother to feed and clothe them as they grow, that doesn’t give her the right to kill them at any given time. Children are always dependent on the more responsible adult from day one this doesn’t give us the right to kill them regardless of whether we want to look after them or not. We are dealing with two human lives and bodies in a pregnancy not just one.
They’re not dependent on their mother. They’re dependent on any responsible person capable of providing food and clothing. The state could do it, a relative could do it, a charity could do it. If she doesn’t want to feed and clothe them there are many options. For a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant there is one.
Furthermore in the case of organ donation you are dealing with two lives, with two bodies. The life and body of the donor and the life and body of the recipient. I’m on the international bone marrow registry. If someone needs my bone marrow I’ll get a letter in the post. If that was to happen it would be up to me whether or not to give that person bone marrow, regardless of whether that person’s life was at stake. Yet if I fell pregnant tomorrow I’d have that right instantly stripped from me.
If I didn’t carry an organ donor card (which I do) and was to die in a car crash they’d still be unable to take my organs, corneas, skin, joints etc. without permission. A corpse has more rights in Ireland than a person with a uterus does.
But Stephen the women in that situation should be able to make their own choices and what’s best for them. It really shouldn’t concern anybody else.
Yes but you have not intentionally killed another person by not giving your bone marrow and its easy to find someone who will say yes, I know because my wife was in need of one and they have worldwide banks with millions of donors everyday so I’ll doubt your marrow would be missed. Even though they are not dependent upon their mother after birth this still does not give anyone, mother or otherwise the right to terminate them at any given time before or after birth. Human life should be cared for and respected at all stages from beginning to end.
Hear, hear Stephanie
Man telling woman not to have an opinion about destruction of unborn human beings because those unborn human beings are part of another person’s body.
Don’t know where to start with that deluded mess of an argument Graham.
Actually it’s not easy to find someone who will say yes Stephen. Not if you have a rare tissue markers.
It’s also hard to find liver donors as it’s a far more invasive surgery and again requires a close match. Still has less of a physical impact than pregnancy though. So if you needed my liver in the morning should I be held down and forced to give a piece to you?
Wow what ignorance. The specialist told me there are tonnes of matches all over the world for my wife and not to worry should her sister refuse. Who should I believe, Stephanie or cancer specialist ? Hmm that’s a tough one. If only the specialist had consulted you Stephanie he’d know a lot more wouldn’t he? Oh you’ve failed at that and now your on to liver transplants. Doctor Stephanie is gonna give us all a lecture now. So Stephanie with that logic my two year old is dependent upon my body every day to wipe his nose and put food on the table, can I just abort him and discard of him how I please because after all it’s my body and I should be allowed to just kill him shouldn’t i just so I can get back into “shape”. Human life is human life and nobody should be given the right to intentionally kill another innocent human life at any stage.
That’s a delightful string of sarcastic strawmen there stephen but I’ll address them this time.
1. I specified rare tissue markers. Does your wife have rare tissue markers?
2. You haven’t addressed liver transplants I note.
3. I addressed your toddler argument already. Your toddler is dependent on any responsible adult. Anyone can do it. Tons of options. Women who don’t want to be pregnant have but one. When you invent foetus transplants come straight back to me. I’m sure Cora will be head of the line to volunteer.
Lastly I’d love to know more about your reference to getting back into shape. Is that supposed to mean something?
Stephen.
If a foetus is removed from the womb at 8 weeks, what happens?
If it’s removed at 16 weeks, what happens?
The reason there’s a 24 week limit is because when you remove a foetus at 24 weeks it’s possible for the baby to be cared for outside of the womb. Prior to this, and at the other two stages I asked you about removal means certain death.
A woman who wants an abortion simply wants the foetus removed from her body because of the effects of will have on her, the death is an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect – so comparing it to a toddler is highly dishonest.
Anyone can care for a born child.
But pregnancy is unique to the toddler argument or any argument you make so your fallacious analysis is useless. With pregnancy there should only ever be one option promoted and that’s to let the baby live and then offer it up for adoption. To teach mothers to value human life, to choose life for their babies not death. It’s an awful poverty that people would murder a child just so they may live as they wish. I just could never comprehend a woman looking at her unique baby on the monitor kicking around and sucking his/her thumb and thinking “nah I still wanna kill “it” as I’m just not quite ready yet” and see that as a good “choice” I say killing another human being should never be a choice we should advocate and we should do everything to protect life in all its stages. I was pro life before I became a Christian, I remember my ex girlfriend wanting an abortion, until she saw the baby on the monitor kicking around full of life and then she saw the light, but to think there are some people out there who would murder all the way up to 9monthd without a care in the world and even seeing them on the screen and still wanting to kill the child inside them makes me sick and realise some people are so evil they are beyond redemption . I’m sorry I’m off now because I feel really sick thinking about this stuff it’s hard for me.
You’re not comparing like with like. Choosing not to save a persons life, and intentionally ending their life, are two different things.
Forcing a person to give their body for the life of another against their will is what we’re talking about.
Stephen.
I find your assumptions on the reasons women choose abortion to be grossly offensive.
There are many health conditions for which pregnancy acts as an accelerant. Pregnancy itself also comes with a list of risks which vary from woman to woman. The fact that you think the only option should be for a woman to have to take on all of these risks – in spite of her best efforts to avoid getting pregnant to start with (yes, contraception fails, no – women who do not wish to parent should not have to remain celibate their entire lives) simply because of YOUR feelings on the subject is sickening.
Women are more than just baby makers. We are human beings too, and your need control over our bodies is not welcome.
@stephen judging by that deluge of sanctimonious & patronising drivel you have just spewed onto this forum, it would appear that as you point out, thinking about stuff is indeed difficult for you
Give their body? What does that mean?
That’s just 9 months of the equation. There are years after that.
And it’s nature that has imposed that, not any state or government.
If you want to compare pregnancy to organ donation them think of it this way.
You have a medical condition called pregnancy…..The state not providing an abortion is akin to you not donating bone marrow. Correct ?
The reason a lot of men are anti choice is because they have no legal recourse in a pro choice country.so a woman they may not even know would be able to unilaterally murder thier son or daughter regardless of thier wishes.in an anti choice country if they dont wantba child they can chose to wear a condom if they do they can choose not to wear one.so from a mans perspective pro choice is taking thier ability to choose and handing it over entirely to women.It may be selfish but no more selfish pro choice is for women.oh and im pro choice by the way so dont insta bash me just pointing out the fact men have a lot more than a clue.
So a father shouldnt be concerned for his kids?
There’s the problem your Christian, the most backward religion. Down trodding women for centuries as were still not seen as equal in there eyes!!
Everyone holds personal opinion based on our own experiences, thoughts, biases, and influences but I don’t believe that our personal opinion should form the basis of laws which have implications for women. I fully support Cora’s right to her opinion but I do not believe that her opinion, or those like her, are more important than my own. I am a smart woman who makes good choices. I believe in women, support women, trust women to make decisions for themselves.
Those who campaign on repealing the 8th Amendment do so for the right for women to make the best decision for her in her circumstances.
I do not believe that campaigning to prevent women from making her own decisions is ‘supporting women’.
The 8th Amendment affects many areas of maternal health. For women to have the freedom to make the decision to have a safe and legal abortion but also the freedom to continue her pregnancy. It also affects decisions on care she receives in pregnancy, labour and birth.
40.3.3 not only affects abortion but women’s right to informed consent in her maternity care. The Irish National Consent Policy directly cites article 40.3.3 – eroding informed consent, informed refusal of medical treatments and also women’s care options on where/how/with whom they give birth.
Hear, hear. IMO people who oppose abortion under all circumstances but do support a woman’s right to choose how she gives birth should also be campaigning to repeal the 8th.
Bit of a non story but it is great to see human rights campaigners like Cora acknowledged .
Wow Jene, you got to say “women” seven times in one comment. I always believed it takes two to tango. A wise woman once said to me “it takes a man to make a woman”.
Jene, look at the plight of many single mums – their choice was not intelligent. Poverty and a life of disadvantage and more relationships with men who depart once baby is on the way.
Not fair on childrens given the social and financial problems that follow. No intelligence about relationships and many relationships they do enter become abusive and that is bad for the children.
Such women should use contraceptives given their promiscuous life style choice. Men just exploit such loose women.
1953 called, they want their opinions back.
Double standards there CMac, it takes two to tango. Why are the women who are bringing up their children ‘loose’ for having sex but the men who get them pregnant and sometimes leave them are not? How on earth do you know anything about the choices or lives of single parents? What about the single parents who are men? Do you judge them by the same standards? Guaranteed just as you condemn single mothers as ‘loose’ you would also condemn them if they chose to have an abortion. All you are really interested in doing is controlling the sex lives and choices of women.
Green eyed monster brigade out in strength.
Cmac,
Are you sure they weren’t using contraception? It can fail you know.
I’ve always found the negativity around single mums quite ironic given that they actually gave birth – they didn’t abort, they kept the baby like the good little pro life country wanted them to – so why are they vilified for doing so?
Almost seems as though they’re pro life, until the baby is born.. Then they’re judgemental and harsh toward those who don’t have the means to raise the baby they kept.
“Men just exploit such loose women”…-and therein lies the problem surely….’intelligent’ men. Hrmph, I rest my case.
Idiotic and abusive to women comment. Typical Christian.
My observation was true. The Childrens’ court is full of children brought up without a father figure. I accept there are single fathers but the issue is that women get pregnant men don’t; those who father children should support them. But that hope is Utopian.
Some single mothers have children from a variety of fathers. This is not good for the family unit and the stability children need. Best if they had taken contraception.
Cmac
With respect, that’s a rather large assumption you are making there.
Yes, sometimes women and men forget to use contraception, but if a child was not desired it’s a mistake no one with adequate brain capacity makes more than once.
Has it ever occurred to you that some of those women with children from different partners actually planned the child with the father and then the relationship broke down?
When you enter a relationship you don’t have a magic way of knowing what the future holds. Relationships break down, you start anew with fresh hope and it breaks down again. You wind up with children by different partners.. It’s because we don’t force people to marry when they get pregnant and then trap them in unworkable relationships anymore.
There’s nothing to say that all lone parents are raising children from an unintended pregnancy. Our even that a majority are, aside from assumption that is.
I do agree though, there are some cases where a parent deserts the person they made plans to raise children with – in those cases yes, they should pay.
And until we give women the option to terminate a pregnancy in this country, then no man should be able to walk away from his responsibilities either.
You should have asked her about her opinions of the amazing woman who was also listed, Dr. Rebecca Gomperts founder of Women on Waves who provides safe abortions to thousands of women worldwide. A service necessitated by bans that Cora supports, bans that kill hundreds of thousands of women worldwide every year.
@Stephanie Fleming
Pro-life campaigners such as Cora Sherlock don’t oppose life-saving treatment for a pregnant woman even if it happens to cause the death of the unborn child because the aim of the treatment is to save, not take, lives, i.e. the principle of double-effect. For goodness sake, Ireland is not like El Salvador, Nicaragua or Chile. Furthermore, it is possible to end pregnancy early without killing the unborn child, i.e. Caesarean section.
So they do support abortion in certain circumstances?
Administering life-saving treatment where the death of the unborn child is incidental is not abortion. If you study the principle of double-effect you’ll understand.
I don’t study the principles of 13th century theologians when studying best medical practice. It’s called a therapeutic abortion. Is that what pro-life campaigners support?
“The principle of double-effect” is a theological distinction coming from Thomas Aquinas not a medical definition. The medical definition of what you’re talking about is a termination of pregnancy or an abortion.
Termination of pregnancy is not the same as abortion Sinead. I had to have a termination of pregnancy to save my life back in 2005. She nearly died due to complications of prematurity. But she rallied and is a healthy nine year old today. Had she died it still would not have been an abortion.
Incidentially I have had six terminations of pregnancy since and all but one have resulted in a life birth.
Termination of pregnancy does not mean terminating a babies life!
It’s like proteins and enzymes Maria. Not all proteins are enzymes but all enzymes are proteins. Not all pregnancy terminations are abortions but all abortions are terminations.
I think you are all missing the point of the article… Twitter victim brigade’s daily outrage. Wait until tomorrow until they find someone else to wag their fingers at.
Stephanie, I was responding to Sinead’s comment “termination of pregnant or abortion” implying they are the same thing.
Aaah, Stephanie, just deal with it, you weren’t chosen, you never will be chosen. The BBC don’t care what you think, they do care what Cora thinks.
I’m aware of that. That’s not what she was implying. She was referencing the same thing I said in my comment.
Nice to see the Theophobes out tonight, you love abortion so much you want to call something that clearly and logically isn’t an abortion … an abortion. How disturbed must you be to be out worshiping abortion at that level.
You are wrong there because you forget the intention is all important. More likely you don’t forget rather it just doesn’t suit our preconceived notions.
Actually it doesn’t suit standard medical practice. Medical definitions do not change with intention. It’s not “logically” an abortion – it is factually an abortion. If you care to show me a medical text that says it’s not an abortion I’ll certainly take a look.
And I’m not a theophobe, take care with your assumptions.
Actually – if you present at the maternity hospital with a miscarriage the medical term is “spontaneous abortion”
The term “termination” merely means end – the point in gestation would determine whether or not it resulted in a live birth.
The offence of procuring an abortion doesn’t require intent (otherwise any woman who believes a foetus has no personhood would be immune), nor does the medical definition of an abortion.
So legally an intent is irrelevant and medically intent is irrelevant. Theologically, it does, but why should anyone but the devoutly religious (like Cora) care?
Actually the offense of abortion does require intent. Otherwise all those life saving interventions that resulted in the death of the unborn (4 in 2012 in the Rotunda according to Sam Coulter smith) would have fell foul of the law.
It does, if you ever read the Offences Against the Person Act. There’s just a general decision never to prosecute such cases. Did you even bother to read the legislation to inform yourself? It’s a strict liability offence.
There is a general decision not to prosecute precisely because intention is the issue.
“Just because you have a difference of opinion, that opinion shouldn’t be stifled.”
Funny, I thought that’s exactly what the 8th Amendment is for??
Nailed it
Exactly what I was thinking. Yet another example of contradictory logic.
Funny, you’d be very wrong. Have you ever tried reading what it says?
‘Just because you have a difference of opinion, that opinion shouldn’t be stifled.’
Finally admitted that her opinion is just that, and not that other stuff from the heavens …
If anything this shows the appetite for a proper change and the introduction of pro choice. She might not want to accept it but there it is
Well done to Ms. Sherlock on being named one of BBC’s 100 Women of 2014.
It was a real achievement and well deserved.
How clueless is the tweet from “Siobhan”? She is outraged because Sherlock “does not represent me”. Who gave her the idea that *any* of the women on BBC’s list were meant to represent her? Furthermore, it would be impossible for all of the women on the list to represent her (or any individual), given that they deliberately pick people with a range of views – some of which directly conflict with each other.
I am not opposed to abortion (within appropriate limits), but “pro choice” campaigners really need to take a look at themselves. It’s got to the stage where they seem to think that no one is allowed to disagree with them. Ironically, they want to deny women (and men) the right to choose what opinion to hold on this issue.
She is going to the only woman from Ireland
……. And her view is that women in Ireland should not have the same choice that the rest of the western world has. She tries to help the unborn but not the woman so why is she on this list. I’m sure she believe 100% that not letting woman have a choice is best for them
No least likely of all the possible reasons …..Why would BBC want publicity in Ireland when it is in virtually every house in Ireland already maith an fear PP
The fact that she’s the only woman from Ireland doesn’t mean she’s been selected to “represent” Ireland! It’s not the Olympic Games! It’s just a selection of influential women.
Why is she on the list? Because she’s influential, on one of the most topical and polarising issues out there right now.
Why do you think she shouldn’t be on the list? Because you disagree with her? If so, you don’t actually understand what the purpose of the list is!
I am baffled as to how Niamh Puirséil (see tweet above) thinks that deliberately causing the death of unborn children is progressive.
How could it be greeted with anything other than disbelief and derision.? “other women ” have not let her down. She has let down other women.
Congrats Cora. Your views and hard work is appreciated by many, including the many who have life in this country because of you, and your compatriats. I wonder how many of those slagging you here would themselves have been aborted, had 40.03.03 not been enacted.
We were always good at begrudgery as a nation, only the targets and modus operandi change.
Dunno who cora and she is not the reason why im here!! is im here because my parents wanted an off spring , my mother was ready and they planned!
We were much better at putting guilt on a person ..One of the great ones that were recited on us as kids was :”You’ll spend an eternity in hell!” . lol
The funny thing about choice is… You can choose whether you do something or not.
Abortion doesn’t force anyone to do anything that that woman doesn’t want to do, for whatever reason she wishes to.
This is becoming a tired argument between two polar-opposite campaigns.
At the end of the day, if I needed an abortion, for whatever reason, I can legally travel to the UK.
The difference is, I won’t shove it in anyone’s face as propaganda or scaremongering when I come home.
It’s great that you can travel but it’s important to remember that many can’t.
And that’s wrong.. Women should be afforded the right to choice in their own area, especially in medical emergencies.
Forcing women to travel causes problems with safety.
1. Having to save up necessitates later term abortions which come with more complications.
2. Even if she has an emergency fund and gets there early, if the medical abortion is incomplete, then her ability to return to have it completed is impeded by her need to return home, this can lead to women bleeding out in taxis or on the plane, or even sepsis.
If the woman could access abortion quickly and easily here, then she would also have access to maternal health care should something go wrong (as rare as it may be, nothing is 100% safe).
That is an excellent honour that is not overshadowed by the shrill Hallow’een shrieks of synthetic anger drifting from the pill-popping miserable sisterhood of perpetual frustration. Take a bow! The tail never wags the dog.
I couldn’t be more surprised if Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi made it onto the BBC’s list, thankfully it means nothing, nice on the CV though.
Congratulations on your accolades Cora – please, enjoy them.
I would however like to ask a question.
As a solicitor, who has more training on legalese than myself – how was it that in spite of all us pro choicers explaining to you ad infinitum here that the Protection of life in Pregnancy Act would not mean terminations up until 9 months, and that the 8th amendment meant that once the foetus was viable it would be delivered rather than aborted – why did the organization you represent and advise think it prudent to display the following lie to as many people as they could?
http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/90348563.jpg
We know for a fact this is not how the law works. We always knew, but the Miss Y case merely proved what those on the pro choice side kept telling you all along.. Why was it that you did not point out to your organisation that they had misinterpreted the law and were in fact lying to make their case?
As for abortion not curing suicidal feelings, please point out where anyone other than the pro life lobby has ever asserted anything of the sort. If a woman is suicidal because she is pregnant then the law applies to her. If she’s suicidal for any other reason, it doesn’t.
Of course – you’re the one with the qualifications, which is why I find it so unusual that you of all people would need this explained to you, one would almost think it was done on purpose to manipulate the agreement of those with less understanding of the subject..
Congratulations Cora! An award well deserved.
Pro choice = pro slaughter of innocent stomach babies
Stomach babies sound creepy =o
I think pro life people should offer to adopt the babies of women who plan to go to England for an abortion
You mean put them up for adoption, loads of couples crying out for adopting children
No they should adopt them they themselves or foster them
I would love to adopt another child.
You mean force a woman to continue a pregnancy when she does not want to be pregnant?
Interesting the number of people who are happy to end the life of a defenceless child.
More horrifying than interesting. Baying for blood.
Adoption isn’t about the couples who want babies.
And yes – there are loads crying out for babies, but the older children in care and in orphanages, well.. they’re not so interested in them are they?
Adoption is carried out with the best interest of the child at the centre. So first refusal always goes to the immediate family. This, coupled with all the checks and balances prospective parents must satisfy is why they don’t tend to get babies that often.
This is not a reason to force women who do not wish to remain pregnant to do so.
Funny thing about most members of the pro-life lobby is that they are big advocates of adoption yet few if any of them are willing to adopt and most are opposed to allowing gay people to adopt, even in allegedly secular groups like Pro-Life Campaign.
I am pro life David and I would love if Gay people were allowed to adopt as I find they are some of the most caring people I have come across!
And there’s loads of young girls/women who don’t want to carry on with a pregnancy .. Their body which equals their choice . Whether you agree with it or not .
As soon as this country pulls itself out of the dark ages the pro choice and pro life campaigners will disappear just like what happened when divorce was passed in the country. I cannot for the life of me think that there will ever be a very casual and lax abortion on demand scenario in this country nor do I see a complete ban on abortion. Realistically the 8th will be repealed and women will be treated correctly in this country and do not have to travel to the uk. I do not think it’s helpful to place either a pro choice or pro life campaigner in a top 100 as it does not help the situation that women face in this country. There will be a referendum eventually and unfortunately the battle lines are drawn at the extremes of each campaign
PP we have abortion here except it takes place in the UK
Congratulations Cora, an excellent choice made by BBC. Nice to see so many supportive messages all though the day also. Well deserved!!!
Are you related to Cora, by any chance?
Thanks for taking an interest in who I may be related to Nicky☺️however It’s not relevant and with the greatest respect none of your business.. As I said excellent choice by the BBC.
That’s a yes then.
It strikes me as a bit sad if the only people she can get who agree with her are fringe Youth Defenders and her siblings…
That’s a ‘none of your business’ Alison, with the greatest respect of course. Nicolette don’t be bitter now. Be happy. Don’t worry, I’m sure the BBC can find something for you to talk about if they look really hard. Ladies the BBC made the best choice and you are all about choice right??? I guess you’re just going to have to deal with it. Have a super day ☺️
It is your democratic CHOICE & right not to disclose if you’re related to Cora or not but unfortunately pro-aborts only respect CHOICES they deem worthy & nobody dare make a CHOICE that opposes their agenda. A de ja vu of the communists in the USSR.
Please please please only pick a woman that agrees with me
Is that not basically the problem here ? She who i do not agree with is picked….like does it really matter if someone of a contrary opinion is picked ? surely this is what debate is about or am I missing something ?
Pontius Pilate Maria Cahill was in the IRA. She supported their kangaroo courts against others. She would have done as told by the IRA and I doubt if she cited democracy. Her assailants were put on trial but she refused to testify. There is apolitical opportunism in all of this though I feel sorry for her. But the crime was done in another jurisdiction. We should focus on crime in our state which is endemic.
PP you are the bot…this is a post about Cora Sherlock and you bring in a different issue
By the way are you still calling people names when they disagree with you ? Pontius you must be feeling a bit insecure that this is not going the way you would have liked..
PP there is a Prosecution Service review in the North into the police investigation into Maria’s claims which Sinn Fein welcomed and that was announced earlier today..so you are a wee bit behind, nothing new there i guess you been behind that is nothing new
The reason why feminism isn’t taken seriously today in the 21st century is because of sheer begrudgery. So the only women who deserve to be awarded in the eyes of ALLEGED liberals are only delusional leftie pro-aborts. Pro-aborts who are continuously ignore how abortion has been used & continues to be used as the ideal weapon for covering-up sex abuse & rape in the UK by the likes of the notorious Jimmy Savile, Dr. Salmon & others involved in the Rotherham scandal.
You know Cora Sherlock calls herself a feminist right?
ps Pro-choice people are against forced abortion and are pro-adoption, birth, abortion or a fourth option no-one has thought of. The hint is in the word “choice”.
Cora Sherlock is unique in ref to true feminism. It was under the banner of choice in the UK that abortion was introduced but realistically it is frequently FORCED. I am pro-choice when choosing a career in life, choosing to marry or purchasing a car but am opposed to people havinng the freedom of choice to sexually abuse, rape, abort a human being in utero. Favouring the passing of the Lisbon Treaty was defined as pro-Lisbon just as favouring the passing of abortion legislation is pro-abortion.
A woman of huge drive and success! Realistically she has mobilised a unit which could see the repeal of abortion legislation in Ireland that would leave the country standing alone from it Western European counterparts! No small feat and she deserves the recognition.
And all done with zero funding from outside interested parties or dodgy religious groups!
How come no one had asked what the criteria was for this list – tweets, nominations, mentions in the paper?
You realise that abortion is only legal here to save the woman’s life – right?
And you want that to be repealed?
As for the suicide provision, I’m afraid that’s constitutional, and we are obliged to legislate for our own constitution as per A,B & C vs Ireland
The X Case ruling is binding on all courts, not just that – but the people were asked to remove this clause by referendum and 60% said no. They also voted to allow women access to information on abortion overseas as well as the right to travel.
The government stuck to the absolute letter of the law on this one. They wouldn’t even permit circumstances like Savita’s or TFMR in, in case the pro life lobby tried to challenge it, which it appears they are.. Just as well their American sponsors have deep pockets.
Mind you, you are arguing to return to a situation where ending a pregnancy to save the woman’s life is technically both legal and illegal at the same time. Which is appalling legal precedent that even a lay person can see. It’s doomed to failure, but by all means, waste as much money as you like at it..
I doubt the 12 women every day who are forced to leave their country to get an abortion they need would see her as fighting for equality. It’s disgusting she was even considered, especially after the events in Ireland over the last 2 years. Is the death of Savita Halappanavar and the utter violation of Miss Y (which happened because of anti choice campaigners along with the catholic church restricting reproductive rights) considered equality?
Twitter hashtag #100Irishwomen2014 to nominate or read about inspirational Irish women, some of whom are actually involved in advocacy, not just ridiculous sound bites that mean nothing such as our BBC representative!
She is the only Irish woman on the list, but there is another who is married to an Irishman i.e. me!
Well done nd good luck
Thank you!
She is obviously smarter than the people who oppose she knows the unorn is a human with an undeniable right to life. Roll on yere red thumbs. Congratulations BBC and Cora
It is a quality trolling from BBC, Brits are fed up with legions of Irish women taking up beds intended for Brits (even though it’s a paid service). I applaud BBC for it.
http://worldabortionlaws.com/map/ – we are aligned with with human rights champion – the continent of Africa.
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say