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.
OVER HERE AT TheJournal.ie headquarters we get sent some really random stuff.
You see, our readers can send us news tips and pictures, and while for the most part they are perfectly relevant and useful, sometimes they are really not. Really, really not.
Since we started doing this post, you have all copped on and started sending in even more weird sh*te. So here’s a look at some of the surprises we got when we opened our inboxes this week:
Just three men on a tractor. At the same time. Having the LOLs. Nothing to see here garda. Nothing at all. (Derek Hano)
Dave Hammond noticed this rather unfortunate spelling mistake by protesters at the G8 summit. We have a feeling that they felt like a right t*t for not using spell check.
Because we seriously appreciate artistic talent:
“I saw a double rainbow in a field and took a picture of it, but it didn’t show up on my crappy phone,” said Calvin Cooke. “So I just drew it in on paint.”
A masterpiece Calvin, bravo.
Amr Dave sent us this picture of a few lads jump-starting a plane. Yes, really.
Advertisement
Ronan sent us this picture of a family of ducks crossing the road on Leeson St in Dublin. Too cute.
Why do we seem to have a craving for duck a l’orange all of a sudden?!
#ONLY IN IRELAND: Our ‘Only in Ireland Pic of the Day’, reminded Alan Shaw of this sign he spotted on the road to Knock in Co Mayo a few weeks ago.
Talk about stating the obvious.
Jay Sparrow spotted this on the road home from work. Why would anyone need half a VW van? Answers on a postcard or at least in the comments section please.
UPDATE: Daniel Downey emailed to explain: “The half Volkswagen car was for a play”. We’re having an Oprah ‘Aha! moment’.
“A snail piggy-back,” says Shane Barry. That it is Shane.
We have no words for this one. We’ll leave it up to your own interpretation.
If you’d like to send us some news tips or pictures email us at tips@thejournal.ie or pictures@thejournal.ie. However, if you have any images similar to the ones above, maybe you should keep them to yourself.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
@Brinster: If it’s a straight repeal or not vote I think a lot of people would vote to keep it out of fear of the legislation that would be brought in. Just my opinion, don’t know what way I will vote myself yet. Won’t know until I see what the referendum is for.
@Let free speech live: well of course legislation would need to be brought in. That would be the whole point.
But then again that’s what we elect TDs for. That’s their job and the function of the Dail.
Unfortunately we’ll get a lot of “I won’t decide until I know what the legislation will say” which is backwards. It’s the job of the Dail to debate and decide. Then the Dail changes and so does legislation. We are free to write to our TDs about our views on that so our vote should not be contingent on some rushed, poorly drafted, proposed legislation.
@Stephen Adam: Well insulting people is a great way to get people to vote your way. I think you are a bit backwards if you blindly vote not knowing what will happen after, plus you seem to trust politicians which is strange. I know what I am ok with and I know what I wouldn’t like. So knowing what legislation is coming if we repeal the 8th is very important.
@The Risen: accusations of bias are absolutely fair. Both sides have not been given equal airtime. The preponderance of submissions have been on the pro abortion side and even some international contributors have withdrawn upon realising this. It is quite clearly a vehicle for the political establishment to bring about a referendum at one step removed to avoid any potential electoral backlash.
@Misanthrope , public opinion surveys put majority sentiment in favour of abortion in defined and circumscribed circumstances. This outlook is increasingly reflected amongst public representatives.
The overall balance is shifting from the worship of the foetus to increasing respect for the decision entitlement of pregnant women.
Some favour the foetus; others favour the pregnant woman.
I don’t trust politicians at all. But that’s our fault. We vote for them. We elect them. If they’re not trustworthy what does that say about us? If they’re no good we need to do better next time. that’s no reason to keep outdated, incompetent and discriminatory provisions in the constitution.
The Dail is there to legislate. That’s it’s purpose. If the 8th were repealed tomorrow abortion would still be illegal by virtue of legislation. I would the expect mature and sensible debate in the Dail and a new piece of legislation enacted. If that doesn’t happen- well there’ll be an election soon enough.
@Misanthrope: The accusations of bias are laughable, there are simply more people in favour of repealing or amending the 8th, simple. The anti-choice side turned down their opportunity to attend, most likely because they knew they were way out of their depth with medical experts and to save face. If there was a committee set up to decide on burning The Book of Kells and only one small group was in favour of it, they couldn’t cry ‘bias!’ just because they didn’t get 50/50 representation.
@Fiona deFreyne: public opinion is hugely at variance with the pronouncements of the citizens assembly. Hardly suprising given the one sided evidence they’ve been spoonfed
@Stephen Adam: calling people backwards is hardly a compliment? You are right in all you say in theory but unfortunately the Dáil doesn’t do sensible debate. People are not going to vote to repeal and then sit back and wait to see what legislation will be drafted. What you are essentially saying is when a politician knocks on the door looking for a vote you don’t need to know their policies as you trust them.
@Misanthrope: I’ll agree that the recommendations of the Citizen’s Assembly were probably more liberal than the general consensus (although I whole-heartedly agree with them), however, equal time was alloted to both sides at the CA, I watched the entire debate, all research had to be sourced and given to the CA members, the only people who didn’t provide sources at one point was Maria Steen of the Anti-Choice side and she was called out on it. The Anti-Choice contributions were full of anecdotal and emotional stories about people with ‘regret’ and spurious scaremongering and logical fallacies, i.e. if you repeal the 8th X, Y & Z will happen just like it has happened in countries A, B & C.
@Misanthrope: On the other side there were contributions from medical experts and groups that work with women with crisis pregnancies every day, with facts and figures and black and white explanations. That is what matters, not the drama, hyperbole and toys out of the pram carry on by the likes of Mullen and McGrath.
@Stephen Adam: Again if people have a different option then the majority they are backwards. I taught this is a free country. Where people can make their own minds up without being called names and insulted. It’s what people died for . Did you ever read the Proclamation ??????
@Let free speech live: that’s not what I’m saying. Your elected representative can tell you what his position is at the door. The Dail however has to debate and decide on legislation which it cannot realistically do until after the referendum. The government can try and say “we’ll do x y z “ but they need support from FF and Independents.
The Dail doesn’t do rational debate. I agree. But that’s our fault for who we elect. We’re to blame.
@David: David – asking for unconstitutional legislation to be drafted in advance of a referendum which is, as yet, not drafted itself in order to decide what way you’d vote in said referendum is, as I said, backwards.
When the way is clear for the Dail to legislate it should legislate. The way is not clear for the Dail to legislate which is ridiculous for such a difficult issue.
@David: Irony much ? If people were allowed to make up their own minds we wouldn’t be forcing thousands of women abroad every year for a minor medical procedure…
@Jason: All I’m saying is the things people are calling other people for not following the majority is a disgrace. Just for having a difference of opinion.
@Stephen Adam: I actually agree with you in theory but the reality is different, when it comes to legislation the government only does what suits themselves and ignores the will of the people (look at water charges fiasco). We don’t have any proper opposition in the Dáil. I wish I had faith in the government to vote to repeal and know they will do what the people want but they don’t do that so I want to know the legislation before I vote. If you think that is backwards fair enough but I don’t think I am alone in my thinking.
@Cultural Marxist: the evidence offered by pro abortionists was not all “facts and figures” . Pro life professional medics/allied medical professionals talking about their experiences of post abortion cases are not hyperbole and waffle
@Let free speech live: first of all the Dail isn’t there to legislate for the “will of the people” – it’s there to do what’s best for the people. Those are often two different things. Water charges is a perfect example of what the country needed and what the people wanted being in conflict. The “People” won. Water charges were suspended.
If the Dail cannot be trusted that’s our fault. The fault of the People. Because we elect them.
You want to do things the wrong way round – only give the Dail power the power to legislate if they somehow come up with something in advance. But if we always do things the wrong way we’ll only ever get things right by accident. Give the Dail the power – then vote for someone responsible next time.
@Brinster: I hope not. Recent polls strongly indicate that most people are in favour of amending the 8th Amendment rather than repeal or retain. This should be offered as an option.
@Stephen Adam: ok how about this, we all know the government don’t do what they are supposed to do. If left to them they will legislate for who can make money from abortion. I want to know what will be legislated for if we repeal the 8th. I don’t know why you have an issue with this, is it because I don’t or won’t blindly support the repeal cause?
@Let free speech live: you know exactly what way you will vote. Everybody commenting knows what camp they lie in. The attempts to persuade you are neutral are obvious.
@WinSomeLoseSome: but that is it, I don’t know but people like yourself think it’s a black and white situation and everyone knows what way they will vote when it is clearly not the case.
@Let free speech live: I have an issue with it because, as I said, it’s doing things backwards. It’s a fine way of making bad policy.
We’re bedevilled in this country with stupid decisions, bad policies and sloppy work. Drafting legislation in order to pass a referendum means its being drafted for the wrong reasons. Not being drafted because it’s the right legislation, drafted because they don’t want to suffer a referendum defeat. So like I said – doing poor work for sloppy reasons.
And again — if you have a problem with your representatives vote for someone else. That’s on you.
@Misanthrope: ‘Pro-abortionist’, the use of that term would suggest an extremist viewpoint on your part so no point in continuing the discussion really. Although I’m happy to do so, in 20 years of following this debate from both vantage points I’ve never once heard a plausible argument against a woman being allowed decide to have an abortion, if I heard just one convincing argument it would make me pause for thought.
@Stephen Adam: that is grand but I’m not asking for the legislation to be drawn up, I want to know what they will be legislating for, I don’t need to know the ins and outs of the legislation just what they plan on legislating for. I don’t think that is backwards, we are being asked to change our constitution so we surely have the right to know what comes after the fact if we do vote for change.
@Let free speech live: aaaah look. The anti choice side just have no valid arguements. Scare mongering and lies and insults are not working any more. Now they resort to the ‘its not fair’ card.
Repeal. Its what most people want.
Face it
@Let free speech live: so let me ask you this – if you don’t like what they propose legislating for what is your response? I can only assume you’ll vote to keep the 8th? Otherwise why would you need to hear the legislative proposal?
So rather than telling your TD or guy at your door to legislate appropriately on the issue you’ll vote to retain an ineffectual, badly drafted and discriminatory constitutional clause?
@Stephen Adam: That is exactly it, if it’s a system like they have in the UK I would vote to keep it, no doubt, that is why I would like to know what comes after. If it’s something I am morally ok with I am happy to vote to repeal. I’m in the middle so if my choice is keep it or get rid and abortion for all, neither is what I want but keeping the 8th is morally better to me in that situation.
@The Risen: look at either in IT ones. But this is interpretation. You see any non pro life position as repeal. I don’r. Many other don’t. Amend is most definitely preferred.
@Dearbhla Russell: face what- you are asking people to repeal not knowing what the final situation is in a country notorious for small parties dictating policy individual matters. Seriously?
@Dearbhla Russell: what scaremongering and lies have I told? I have been straight up about where I stand which in case you missed it is no where at the moment. I want to see what I will be voting for before I vote. I haven’t urged anyone to vote for one side or the other so are you sure you meant to reply to me?
@Cultural Marxist: it boils down to two issues
1; is the unborn a human being, at any part of a pregnancy
2; if you believe it isn’t at conception but is at birth ie, crosses a threshold into humanity during pregnancy do you trust a political establishment not to further extend abortion beyond what u find ethical in the absence of a constitutional ban.
I don’t consider a fertilised egg a human being but it seems clear to me that in the second trimester and beyond a child is present. My vote will be more conservative than my view to protect what I would see as future babies from death.
@Let free speech live: and morals should have nothing to do with it. Because why should I have to live under your moral code? Or you under mine?
If you think the 8th works why would you vote to remove it?
If you think it doesn’t work why keep it??
The following legislation is easily changed. The constitution is not. It’s entirely inappropriate for this to be a constitutional provision – just as murder, assault and theft aren’t in the constitution.
@Misanthrope: I’m actually delighted to interact with you on this topic, you’ve clearly taken pause to think about it and rationalise it which is very refreshing. My answers may seem callous and cold but they are arrived it after many years’ consideration.
1) I don’t acknowledge the use of the word ‘unborn’, I don’t go around telling people I’m undead, you and I are human beings but not all stages of development are the same, premature babies have survived from a very early stage, and in most cases can survive from 6 months onwards where adequate medical care is at hand. Your argument would have held great weight 20 years ago, however, determination of pregnancy now happens very early thanks to advancements in both accuracy of pregnancy tests and blood testing.
@Misanthrope: that’s my view also – as any father who has been to their child’s scan at week 13 or thereabouts. And constitutionally protect above this is also important.
@Stephen Adam: Well I live by my morals, I’m just 1 person with 1 vote so you won’t be living under my morals, I will vote for what I feel is right and respect the majority result either way. Do you find something wrong with that? As a parent I can’t coldly go “it’s just a foetus” and shrug my shoulders. To me it is a baby and if it’s an inconvenience, you shouldn’t be allowed end it. Again I’m just 1 person and as I said the majority will decide not my morals.
@Misanthrope: I’m actually delighted to interact with you on this topic, you’ve clearly taken pause to think about it and rationalise it which is very refreshing. My answers may seem callous and cold but they are arrived it after many years’ consideration.
1) It is incredibly rare that a pregnancy is terminated after 12 weeks unless there are complications.
2) No, I 100% do not trust the political establishment and most of the opposition (particularly Sinn Féin), however, I absolutely trust my sister, wife and friends who may find themselves in a position they wished they’d never been.
@Let free speech live: that’s simply not true. Youre voting for morals you agree with to be the unchangeable law of the land. And that’s the problem – we are living under the morals of the people from 30 years ago.
Do you think condoms should be banned? They were. That’s someone’s moral code inflicted on everyone else.
What about making homosexuality illegal? Not marriage. Just being gay. That was illegal too. Someone’s morals at play again.
Your moral outlook is yours to decide and live by and I respect that. But you should under no circumstances be in a position to have that enshrined in the constitution and inflicted on my and everyone else.
@Cultural Marxist: and our few comments demonstrate the importance of the question asked. Both of us are pro abortion but to different degrees I suspect
@Cultural Marxist: As you followed the work of the Citizen’s Assembly you will know that the 99 members of the Citizen’s Assembly were required to publicly declare and put in writing their opinion on the Eighth Amendment at only the second meeting before they had an opportunity to hear even one third of the invited ‘experts’. Psychologists will tell you that when required to give an opinion on something publicly in front of others or to put their opinion in writing most people will not change that opinion even if their opinion changes for fear of appearing weak or prone to change their mind. Countless experiments show this but doubtless you would dismiss them as anecdotal.
@Cultural Marxist: I have an ethical objection to supporting a change in the law that would give people the choice to take what I consider to be a human life during the middle/later stages of a pregnancy. I see no difference between a more relaxed abortion regime and allowing people to kill a born child if they so wish, both being human beings in my estimation. I feel aggrieved that I can’t vote for the abortion regime that would be of great value to women out of fear or its future abuse causing more harm than the distress it would relieve.
@Cultural Marxist: would the fact that abortion kills a human being and has been responsible for not allowing 8million people to be born in the UK over the past 50 years give you pause for thought. Even if you reject scientific opinion worldwide that the life of every human being begins at conception accept the view of leading abortionists like Dr Guttmacher, a president of Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider in the world ‘ Let’s not pretend that it (abortion) is not killing.’ Leading abortionists like Guttmacher today admit that life begins at the moment of conception. No one today is hiding under the pretence that a foetus is only tissue. You and I are also tissue and cells just like the foetus but no one is disputing our right to life.
Mullen, McGrath and Fitzpatrick, the three unwise men who are unable to recognise the rights of and respect the bodily integrity and autonomy of pregnant women.
So sad to see how this biased committee is conducting business.
Whatever way they dress it up the hard fact is that a little baby will die and their heart will cease beating.
I would urge all readers to research how an abortion of a baby is performed before they make up their mind on this referendum.
Also channel 4 Dispatches program did a behind the scenes on abortion clinics some years ago. It showed Gender selection abortion of perfectly healthy babies was common place in the UK.
If you want the facts please research and watch this program.
@Pconor: I’d urge quite the contrary as that is a matter for individual TDs in the Dail.
Keeping the 8th won’t prevent abortions. It’ll just further divide society and discriminate against the poor. This is a matter for the Dail to legislate on. It’s not appropriate to have an unwieldy poorly drafted ban in the Constitution.
@Pconor: Facts and science that can be verified cannot be biased as that is their nature. The committee has sought out the facts from groups on both sides, if one side chooses to put forward the strongest facts with the most up to date thinkings of this evolving country, while the other side chooses by and large to not participate then it is not the committees fault. No body forced the pro-life groups not to turn up.
@Misanthrope ; i like to call it by the correct medical terminology, which would be ‘embryo’ or ‘foetus’…Why do you dehumanise it by calling it a “baby” when it clearly isn’t one ?
@Pconor: if you can see the heart beat on a monitor and the mother can feel it kicking it’s a living baby. I shouldn’t have to spell out the bleedin obvious but some of you are blinded by ideology. Or something else.
@Pconor: A wide range of professionals and intetest groups were called upon to give their opinions. It’s hardly the committee’s fault that most of the professionals leaned one way or another.
@Pconor: The point is people might listen if you weren’t labelling others pro abortionists. Let’s stick to pro life/pro choice and focus on the actual arguments being made
@Lavbeer- you’re like a dog with a bone on that one..which is funny because your personal opinion will not change that phrase..As for me,I am proudly pro choice.. I believe in giving the woman the choice of either giving birth or having an abortion…you can call me ‘pro abortion’ if you want…i’ll just keep on calling myself pro choice/s :-)
@lavbeer: pro life is bs … if you are pro life you are pro subjugation of women. I’m only saying that to make a point. So much arguing back and forth over the labels of the different sides that the real issues gets lost. The terms pro life and pro choice are the closest thing to an amicable consensus in this debate. Let’s just stick with them and stick to the real talking points while we’re at it
@Pconor: May I also recommend that voters read what Dr Nathanson the obstetrician who masterminded the campaign to legalise unrestricted abortion in the US said just a few short years later about that campaign. ‘We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty,a fabrication of statistics and figures. We fabricated polls which indicated that 85% of the public favoured unrestricted abortion when we knew it was only 5%.’ And ‘repeating the big lie enough convinces the public’. You can read the extraordinary life of this one time King of Abortion in the US by googling Dr Bernard Nathanson.
@Fiona deFreyne: Are you really saying that without natural death or killing the ‘child in the womb’ to use Dr Varadkar’s expression a baby will not be born circa 9 months after conception ? Why would any woman seek an abortion if she didn’t know that abortion kills the living human being in her womb?
@Choice2parentOrNot2: You obviously have not done much scientific research or even research of what leading pro-abortionists say. Scientists from the middle of the twentieth century are pretty much agreed that the life of every human being begins at conception. Dr Alan Guttmacher a president of Planned Parenthood which you probably know is the largest abortion provider in the world has said,’Let me say something shocking. I am perfectly willing to grant that life begins at conception. Let’s not pretend it (abortion) is not a form of killing ‘.
@Francis Mc Carthy: and that is your opinion – you are proudly pro abortion – fair play and you have been an honest commenter on it. But U just don’t agree . Two dogs- different bones I guess
@John Doe: pro life. Pro abortion in limited circumstances or pro abortion in all circumstances. Equating to no, limited or full protection of the unborn. Choice is a cop out and has different meanings to different people
@Anthony Gallagher: “Every unborn child deserves the right to life ,as a society we live collectively .” -
You and your partner/s can give whatever “right to life” to any “unborn child” that you want to…However,you cannot stop any other determined woman from not giving that “unborn child” that “right to life”
@Anthony Gallagher: and the tax payer will pay for forcing poor women into parenthood because women of means will still travel. Trapping them in poverty. Very nice of you.
@Seamus – can you actually listen to the expert that is on at the moment.It’s actually extremely educational..It will tell you that two doctors have to be in agreement before a woman can have a late term abortion..
@Anthony Gallagher: if you can see the heart beat on a monitor and the mother can feel it kicking it’s a living baby. I shouldn’t have to spell out the bleedin obvious but some of you are blinded by ideology.
I assume you yourself must have been one once.
@Anthony Gallagher: Do you really think that little of women that we’d go through 39 weeks of pregnancy and suddenly decide “naaah, fackit, gimme and abortion” What kind of atmosphere were you raised in that fostered such a hateful attitude to women and girls?
@Anthony Gallagher: We have a collective responsibility to protect our future ,destroying innocent children ,for economic purposes smacks of a society built round the selfish concept of looking after the self .its a cop out .
@Anthony Gallagher: you don’t know what people’s reasons are Anthony that’s the point.
If you’d like to “protect” our future you might try voting for a party that believes in affordable property prices, decent services and stable responsible taxation.
@Anthony Gallagher: Do you think it’s fair to force a woman carrying a child with a fatal foetal abnormality to go full term against her wishes? For her to be constantly asked how she is as her bump grows and to be subjected to the barage of good wishes and unsolicited advice that most women experience throughout their pregnancy, all the time knowing her child won’t live?
@Anthony Gallagher: I never claimed to be a mind reader like you ,the unborn child deserves dignity ,human dignity .how do you know which party i vote for ,your back to your silly mind reading again .
@Anthony Gallagher: A women introducing the word force ,the unborn child deserves to be treated with respect and human dignity inside and outside the womb .I cant force anyone to do anything but as a human being i believe all liife is sacred and we have a moral and ethical reponsibility to protect that which cant protect itself namely the unborn child .
@Anthony Gallagher: “destroying innocent children” – rubbish talk…What is happening at the moment is that nearly 4,000 determined Irish women are going to the UK every year to end their pregnancy…All that the 8th is doing is making those embryos develop into a foetus before they are removed from her womb…
@Francis Mc Carthy: How many determined Irish women do you think would have abortions if doing so was legal in Ireland? Based, say, on stats from other countries where abortion has legalised?
@John Doe ; We’ll never know unless those determined women were given that option to them..So at the moment we’ll just have to say that there ‘could’ be close to 4,000 a yr..
@Francis Mc Carthy: My point is that for better or worse the 8th does serve a purpose. When a country legalises abortion the number of procedures carried out inevitably increases. I think this is an important point for the pro life side
@Fiona deFreyne: The idea that a child is not a human being until it is born is discredited even by those who favour abortion. Move into the twentieth century Fiona. Dr Guttmacher,a president of Planned Parenthood which I don’t need to tell you is the biggest abortion provider in the world has said’ I am perfectly willing to grant that life begins at conception. Let’s not pretend that it (abortion) is not a form of killing’.
Only people on very low incomes are the ones really effected by not having a choice. Women who find themselves in this dire situation who can afford to travel do so & it’s their business & no one else’s. So yet again it’s the less well off who are effected. Repeal the 8th.
Want the Church ridden people misguidedly inserted into the Constitution back in 1983 can be removed in 2018 by people who know the real life implications of the 8th Amendment for pregnant women.
@Fiona deFreyne: abortion is an ethical issue not a moral one for most Irish people. The tired old lie of pro choice being religious zealots is trotted out every time. Athiest and pro life.
@Misanthrope – the majority of Irish people want terminations for cases of rape/incest/FFA .They also want women to be able to travel to the UK to end their pregnancies..
@Misanthrope: salt this is not the case for the people who vote for politicians, where they are having to decide on religious morals vs secular or personal ethics. I respect your decision to be areligious and pro life, but not areligious and removing that respect and choice for others.
@Misanthrope: Ethical. Do not kill innocent babies. This is so sad. Can we promote safe sex, and encourage people to give babies up for adoption if they do not want them. Can anyone who has had an abortion and regretted it come forward and share their story? People have a right to their bodies but so do the unborn child. It also has a right to live if it was brought here by the mother’s choice to have unprotected sex. I know there are variant reasons people want the amendment repealed but can we have a replacement that sets the circumstances? Let us have a conscience and save the many innocent blood that would be shed.
“do not kill innocent babies” -nobody is.
“promote safe sex” – listen to the experts
“adoption” -nothing to do with abortion
“regret abortion and share their story” -we have one
“innocent blood shed” – more rubbish.
@Choice2parentOrNot2: You have not given any reasons for your views. Rather than being so defensive, Kindly do expand on your point by point view. Educate me.
@Choice2parentOrNot2: I wasn’t aware the referendum had already taken place. I wouldn’t confuse the views of the so called ‘citizens assembly’ (100 people) with the views of millions of citizens who have yet to vote.
@Fiona deFreyne: nothing to do with the church. Any church. Not even your pet hatred. It’s a matter of morality and/or ethics.
Also – if you can see the heart beat on a monitor and the mother can feel it kicking it’s a living baby. Even you should be able to understand that. I assume you were one once.
@misanthrope – so what if there is a “liberal regime” like they have in the UK ?All your lot are doing is making Irish women have later abortions,and in the thousands..
@Fiona deFreyne: Young FG & FG generally are staunchly pro life but wont house and heal the existing pain and suffering to lives on the ever extending hospital & housing lists.
@ stefanovich ; nice input . We don’t deny that the embryo or the foetus is human..What a lot of people believe’ is that it is not a human being until it is born..We’re entitled to believe that just like you’re entitled to believe otherwise..We also know that if the human being’s life is in mortal danger then it is her life that is spared ..There is a reason for this..
If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. It’s as simple as that. The sooner the issue is resolved, the sooner we can move on to the next big issue, whatever it might be.
@Keith McDonagh: it really isn’t that simple – that’s a viewpoint that completely disregards the genuine views of anyone in the middle with concerns about abortion.
Trite, simplistic Views like that from both sides are the reason this debate is so poisonous.
@Stephen Adam: Would you accept me having input into your healthcare? What if you found a lump on your testicle and treatment now would give you a 90% chance of survival, but because of an amendment in the constitution protecting your reproductive organs, you have to wait until the chance of survival dips below 49%? If you wouldn’t accept it for yourself or your son, why do you accept it for your wife, daughter, mother etc?
@DaisyChainsaw: Jesus Daisy. I am pro choice and pro repeal and believe the 8th is a total joke.
But the comment “if you don’t want one don’t have one” is juvenile, and completely close minded – just like so many of the pro choice advocates who steadfastly refuse to accept why huge numbers have a problem with abortion.
The extremes on both sides of this argument, of which you are a member, do a wonderful job of putting the middle ground off listening to them. You’re Ronan Mullen – from the other side.
@Stephen Adam: no Stephen it’s generalising one’s views and imposing them on tbe rest of the world at large that makes these arguments so long winded and painfully drawn out. Ireland needs to deficate or get off the pot and let individuals decide or remain with the status quo soon. This is boring.
@Stephen Adams: Excellent comment. This is a complex, divisive and emotive subject. These glib soundbites like “abortion is murder”, “my body my choice”, “it’s going to happen anyway so make it legal” etc. sidetrack from the real underlying issues
@John Doe: For every Ronan Mullen there’s a Daisy chainsaw. Both equally offensive in their own ways.
The middle ground in Ireland, as polls show us, are in favour of some sort of change, recognising I suppose the terrible difficulty of the decision to have an abortion and the horrible journey that needs to be taken to UK.
Nevertheless these people still view the unborn as a child, at least a child in development. They don’t view it as a foetus or zygote however accurate those terms may be. And unceremoniously disposing of the unborn causes them grave disquiet.
Yet the current impasse obviously cannot continue. The debate will be won with sensitivity toward the human aspect and pragmatism and mature responsibility toward the choices of women.
@Stefanovich: ” if you dont want your child?ren just kill them. My body my choice right” – we’re talking about the woman’s reproductive rights or lack of in this country..if you yourself wants to actually kill children then there is a huge price to pay for doing that…seek help for those thoughts of yours…
@Richard Doherty: 100 people in a ‘citizens assembly’ who weren’t elected by anybody dont speak for over 4 million Irish people. Thats why we have referendums.
Fair play to Liz for giving evidence. Her story is compelling and authentic. She has some great ideas to help women that find themselves in her heartbreaking predicament that should be looked at. Nevertheless she still wants to make the choice she made mandatory for other women. That’s not a choice or fair. She’s done an amazing job and is obviously a great mother. I wish her and her family well.
@Deborah Behan: i was glad that Clare Daly intervened and told her that medical evidence shows that abortion is not “violent” & that the foetus doesn’t feel pain before 24 weeks.She needed to be put in her place..
@Fran Lonergan: that depends on whose “humanity” you’re referring to surely?
This comes down to a moral judgement. Yours is different to others. Which is why this shouldn’t be a constitutional provision. No one is in agreement.
Don’t write laws based on one small section of societies moral outlook. Write them based on objective fact. That at least will be reasonably unimpeachable.
Is there no standard by which morality can be measured ? Or is all morality subjective and relative? Under normal circumstances is it ever subjectively right to kill someone else?
@Fran Lonergan: Most morality is subjective Fran. There are very few moral absolutes. Which is why morality is a poor grounding for legislation. Nearly as poor as religious objection – which is why the 8th exists in the first place.
Murder is irrelevant to this issue because we all agree murder is immoral. But as has been seen for the last 30 years and in the Dail itself – there is no such consensus on abortion. Which makes it ludicrous to have a constitution clause on something so complex. And I’d point out that murder, sexual crime, theft, kidnapping – none of them are enshrined in the constitution.
Generally speaking I should not be bound by your moral code and you should not be bound by mine.
@Francis Mc Carthy: what’s humane about your stated position of allowing women to terminate life for any reason and at any time during pregnancy? How inhumane of you Francis. You should consider your own morals first before lecturing others on there’s.
@Sean – what’s humane about your views on pregnant women…sure,aren’t you lad that would be delighted that a pregnant woman threw herself off a tall building…and haven’t you also said that women were “too posh to push” so they were now ending their pregnancy through abortion..yikes!
I’m extremely happy to let the woman and the medical staff decide that one,Sean..You should try it sometime..
But how do we all agree murder is immoral. If we all agree that, there must be an objective moral standard that tells us that. Is it really intellectually sustainable to have a pick and mix moral standard?
So if I am not to be bound by your, or any other’s moral code, is it okay for me to murder because it is acceptable in my moral code?
Is it not strange that those who criticise the constitutional position in Ireland do not object to the constitutional interpretation of SCOTUS in the US which allows abortion, in direct conflict with legislation in many states at the time of Roe v Wade?
Is it “ok” for you to murder? An inane question but easily dismissed – Ok is just another word for “right” which is a subjective moral position. I don’t believe it’s right for you to do so. But I can’t decide that for you. Thats up to you. Maybe you feel it’s moral ok. It is however illegal. Rightly so. So you’ll get life in prison.
Should you be subject the morality of others? In the rare case of murder. Yes. Because it’s universally agreed.
Abortion on the the hand does not have universal acceptance. Far from it. In fact yours is a minority position.
SCOTUS: irrelevant. We don’t live there. I have nothing to say on the subject.
Well, it can’t be universally agreed, otherwise, it wouldn’t happen.
But why is it largely accepted if morality is subjective? Why do you not accept it is right for me to murder if morality is subjective?
And why should it be against the law if it is not based on morality or ethics? The law must have some foundations and those foundations must be based on something.
I don’t accept it is inane either.
“SCOTUS, irrelevant”, do you not accept it is a valid or useful comparison when the objection in Ireland is about a constitutional provision?
@Fran Lonergan: @Fran Lonergan: of course it can be universally agreed and still happen. That’s just flawed thinking. People do things they know to be wrong all the time which they fully condemn in others. Murderers don’t sit back when their loved ones are killed and go “that’s ok then cos I’m ok with murder.
These are ridiculous questions Fran. Totally inane. Do I really have to explain why murder is and should be against the law? You want to draw a comparison between abortion and murder – which is completely flawed because:
Ban murder: everyone agrees
Ban abortion: Societal unrest. Irreconcilable Debate. Hardship. Widespread disagreement. International condemnation. Protests.
SCOTUS: no I don’t accept it as a valid comparison. Totally irrelevant & flawed logic.
If you just keep saying an point is inane you are just being insulting and haughty. Try not to be high handed, that’s how you come across.
The point I am making is serious, not just being argumentative. The consensus on murder, or theft, or rape had to be arrived at. My question is about how we arrive at these judgments. Moralities if you like, because it seems they are not just arbitrary, there is an objectivity involved, moral objectivity.
Similarly, with abortion, there are those who instinctively know it is wrong, it is visceral and doesn’t need an internal moral debate.
If you don’t accept the SCOTUS example as a valid comparison, fair enough but it seems like parochialism to me. Constitutionality to support abortion, constitutionality to deny abortion, seems pretty similar to me. If one is valid, so is the other.
@Fran Lonergan: have you actually listened to the women who horribly came to this conclusion? Have you even tried or just jumped to the easy judgement? No woman comes to this decision easily. But you don’t trust that. Would you stop women from traveling? If you don’t then your problem is not with women aborting it’s with women having sex. Please listen to the evidence and the women/couples it’s affected. Please.
I am married to a woman who had an abortion, I had a girlfriend 20 odd years ago who had three abortions, I mixed with a lot of girls in the late 80s early 90s, most of whom had abortions. I’ve heard pretty much all of the arguments and the excuses. I have also seen the behaviours of the people I’m talking about, almost all university students living chaotically, thinking it was sophisticated. And many of them, DID come to the decision easily.
Where have I suggested I would stop anyone from travelling?
“If you don’t then your problem is not with women aborting it’s with women having sex.”
What a typically third wave feminist comment. You are smarter than that, you really shouldn’t borrow such nonsense. The fact is that probably a majority of men are in favour of abortion because it lets them off the hook, they can have the sex with the women they are glad to want to have sex, but without the responsibility.
@Fran Lonergan: it’s not serious Fran. It’s just argumentative unless you genuinely can’t see the difference between a law everyone supports and a law huge numbers of people fundamentally disagree with.
Whether people “instinctively” know its wrong or not is neither here nor there. I don’t want to live governed by their instincts thanks.
SCOTUS: typical straw man argument. You’ve arbitrarily decided what every PC person thinks of the US constitution which you can then call hypocritical or parochial or whatever. But literally no one is discussing it but you. So its pure conjecture based on your own ore conceived notions. It adds nothing to the debate.
Why can’t you see the point I am trying to get to which is why everyone supports a law. It does not spring out of nowhere, it is based on a concept of right and wrong, and that is an objective moral standard. So we must accept that in such a case there is a standard that is not subjective.
Those in favour of abortion who criticise a constitutional provision protecting the life of the unborn cannot then support the SCOTUS decision, that is hypocritical.
As Peter Singer has argued, it is no less ethical to kill a newborn baby as a 12-week foetus. Ethical, if you accept one as moral and ethical you should have no problem with the other. And he does so in support of such measures.
@Fran Lonergan: objective or subjective the prohibition on abortion does not enjoy widespread support. Quite the contrary.
SCOTUS: Pure strawman argument. What people are you talking about? Who supports that law ? You’re the only one talking about it. Have you asked them? They all have an agreed view? They all understand and have knowledge of the Us Constitution? You’ve just dreamt this all up so you can say “ahah you’re all hypocrites”.
I’d also add that while I have no position on the US I do not support any Irish constitutional provision which seeks to outline rules on abortion – prohibitively or permissibly. This is a matter for legislation and legislation alone.
Abortion advocates in the US have used the constitution to make abortion legal against the wishes, up until recently of more than half of the population and in direct conflict with State laws. Many supporters of abortion in Ireland support this stategy but criticise the Irish constitution for giving protection to the unborn.
@Fran Lonergan: “many supporters” “abortion advocates” – vague, unsubstantiated, and irrelevant. show me a specific argument by a specific person related to the Irish question and I’ll consider it. But lots and lots of pro choice arguments are spurious nonsense – just as lots of pro-life arguments are spurious nonsense.
It’s totally pointless Fran. You’re an extreme keep the 8th supporter. You support poor laws written for politically expedient reasons that have caused untold societal division and harm and are criticised the world over. That’s fine. That’s your decision. But it really is the opposite of how a country should make laws.
I don’t. I like my laws logical, pragmatic and changeable. Thankfully it certainly appears that we’re in for change.
Who came up with committe nonsense, but a bunch of busy bodies, so called experts and a clueless motley crew of concerned citizens into a room and what happens, CHAOS. and I assume the tax payer is paying for this absurdity. Just get on with a referendum
@Joseph Dempsey: I think you might be mixing up the committee and the Assembly. But not to worry, The “prolife” side get most things wrong all the time.
I respect this Liz person. At least she had the maturity to come forward to argue her case and not scuttle away like the rest of them. I’m very much pro choice but happy to hear this out. It’s necessary to hear all aspects, particularly if we want to decide on a post referendum world where abortion exists, and what it might look like
@Lucy Legacy: Nobody will force a woman or girl to have an abortion because that’s actually illegal. If her son made it to sixth class, then he didn’t have a fatal foetal abnormality.
@Lucy Legacy:
She presented her case very well . I believe she is a lawyer.Her son was born without limbs , she and her husband knew this in advance but went ahead anyway ,very courageous couple.
She gives recognition to all those carers who day in day out look after disabled relatives with little or no support.
@Fiona deFreyne: Its hard to believe you were once a foetus yourself ,but then i never did like that derogatory term to describe a small human being in the making .what a cold heart you have .
@Fiona deFreyne: Shocking statement,but I suppose Its a position you take based on the presupposition that the unborn is not human and therefore has no value. I find it incredible that a baby born at 25 weeks gestation would be afforded all human rights and protected by law, however it has no value due to its geographical location if it is unborn.
@Alan: I can confirm that this is indeed Tony’s stated view, life does not exist within the womb. Tony believes that life only commences when the foetus’ head surfaces from the womb. Based on that crazy premise, one can understand why Tony may only consider one life in the abortion decision making process, the mother’s, and not two. Only the pregnancy is ended, never the life inside, as Tony believes that there is no life, only the woman’s. There is no moral dilemma or debate as far as Tony is concerned, the clump of cells is dispensable.
@Stefanovich ; You really do “love both” the way that you go on…That woman has a right to look after herself and her already born family…luckily for her.she’s not answerable to some low life on the journal..
Where have they said that their aim is to have no DS children in Denmark ?
Anyway..It is a totally different country to us and there is also no stigma attached to having an abortion..I’ve also seen a statistic in which it showed that 80% of disabled children end up in an institution in Denmark..and that is probably one of the reasons why that EVERY pregnant woman there is given the test…
@Francis Mc Carthy: a so you are saying we shouldn’t have any non Irish input being a different country and that? We seem to have quite a few British contributors that I recall. Or what do you suggest we do to keep us different from Denmark? The constitution perhaps?
I have no issue whatsoever with another country’s input.I was just responding to the speakers input, in which she said that it was Denmark’s government policy to eradicate DS–which is a false claim of hers…But then again,when you have volunteered like for a rogue crisis pregnancy clinic,which has told pregnant women that “abortion causes cancer” – you straight away lose any credibility -especially when it comes to facts…..
I find it funny that liberals, in most areas of their lives, “feelings” and emotions play such a big role, but when it come to abortion it all clinical facts, fetuses and clumps of cells
I just find it a little strange
Anyway I’ll vote to repeal, can’t force people into having children and theyre getting it done in England anyway so why not do it here, I feel Sorry for the unborn child but such is life,
Puts paid to the like that abortions are carried out in circumstances of so called FFA, single women economically incapable of raising the child or rape. Abortion for the convenience of the mother/father. A problem flushed away.
@Misanthrope: It also puts paid to the notion that women and girls are using abortion as contraceptive.
Antis are absolutely bullin’ over the fact that all the misinformation they’ve demanded we accept as the truth about abortion is pure bullplop. Mullen and McGrath come across as so angry and impotent because they no longer control the narrative.
If the 8th Amendment is ever repealed, Mullen, McGrath and Fitzpatrick will have played an invaluable role. Their judgmentalism, fundamentalism and authoritarianism have stood out.
This is heading for a dogs dinner where any hope of decent abortion laws is negligible.
So why not adopt the UK abortion law; its being serving Irish women well for decades and
there is no tangible evidence that it has made the UK a less civilised society.
It will probably end up something close to that. I don’t know if any studies have been done but the UK is a much more violent society today than it was in 1967, I believe abortion, as it is freely available in the UK, cheapens life.
If you can flush 200,000 human lives down the drain every year, how can human life itself have any value?
@lavbeer: Better that it links to a reputable agency like BPAS, than some antichoice religious nut jobs who lie to vulnerable women and girls that abortion gives you breast cancer and turns you into a child abuser.
@Fiona deFreyne: I’ve noticed that comment a few times now Fiona, so please do enlighten me. Where is your scientific proof the unborn is not human? We can all make unqualified statements to justify our position. I’ve read a few history books myself and as far as I can remember that’s the line slave owners espoused to justify slavery. Sure their not fully human, my property so I’ll do as I wish. Sound familiar?
@Alan – where is your proof that Fiona says that it is not “human” ?
Slave women wanted agency over their bodies.That is why they found ways of ending their rape pregnancies ..You seem to want to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will…why is that ?
At least when this Committee has done its invaluable work people will be well informed of the issue. Those of us who have had our privilege to be born and live our lives will have a huge decision to make.
Taoiseach meets Zelenskyy at Shannon on stopover to visit Trump
Updated
1 hr ago
24.3k
180
New Mexico
Legendary actor Gene Hackman and his wife Betsy Arakawa found dead at their home
Updated
2 hrs ago
72.3k
67
New Mexico
Legendary actor Gene Hackman and his wife Betsy Arakawa found dead at their home
Updated
2 hrs ago
72.3k
67
Your Cookies. Your Choice.
Cookies help provide our news service while also enabling the advertising needed to fund this work.
We categorise cookies as Necessary, Performance (used to analyse the site performance) and Targeting (used to target advertising which helps us keep this service free).
We and our 152 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device. Selecting Accept All enables tracking technologies to support the purposes shown under we and our partners process data to provide. If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you. You can resurface this menu to change your choices or withdraw consent at any time by clicking the Cookie Preferences link on the bottom of the webpage .Your choices will have effect within our Website. For more details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
We and our vendors process data for the following purposes:
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
Cookies Preference Centre
We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent. You may exercise your right to consent, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. Some vendors may process your data based on their legitimate interests, which does not require your consent. You cannot object to tracking technologies placed to ensure security, prevent fraud, fix errors, or deliver and present advertising and content, and precise geolocation data and active scanning of device characteristics for identification may be used to support this purpose. This exception does not apply to targeted advertising. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework.
Manage Consent Preferences
Necessary Cookies
Always Active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
Targeting Cookies
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
Functional Cookies
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
Performance Cookies
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Store and/or access information on a device 104 partners can use this purpose
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development 136 partners can use this purpose
Use limited data to select advertising 106 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Create profiles for personalised advertising 78 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Use profiles to select personalised advertising 77 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Create profiles to personalise content 37 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Use profiles to select personalised content 33 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Measure advertising performance 127 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Measure content performance 60 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources 75 partners can use this purpose
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Develop and improve services 82 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Use limited data to select content 38 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
Use precise geolocation data 43 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification 25 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Ensure security, prevent and detect fraud, and fix errors 86 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Deliver and present advertising and content 96 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Match and combine data from other data sources 68 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Link different devices 50 partners can use this feature
Always Active
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Identify devices based on information transmitted automatically 84 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
Save and communicate privacy choices 64 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say