It’s called an ‘analogy’.

Peter unfortunately any abortion issue brings out the religious nuts so it has a lot to do with religion

I’m not a religious nut yet completely against the destruction of an unborn child on the “altar of faux human rights claims”. The report quite clearly states that the lady in question didn’t claim suicidal tendency until it was too late for an abortion. This flies in the face of the claims made by the Irish Times and the abortion lobby at the time.

…..which once again goes toward proving that the Irish Times is no longer the paper of record

All this goes to show is how the whole ‘suicide’ part of the abortion debate is exactly what anti-abortionists said it was. There’s a new baby alive in the world, and its mother is also alive. Thats something. Pity so many people wish the baby was dead.

She was raped and sought a termination she should have gotten one immediately and if she was in any other first developed country in the world not only would she would have gotten one there , it wouldn’t even the papers and she would not be made feel like a criminal. She was/is suicidal as a result of this pregnancy, she was/is suicidal because our country’s outdated, judgemental, know-it-all laws forced her to mother a child she cannot psychologically cope with.
By denying ‘sad and depressed’ women abortions and making them feel like criminals, we are causing them to become suicidal.
I am also religious.

Charlie, she’s alive, and so is the baby. Nobody died, isn’t that good? The circumstances of her pregnancy are absolutely horrendous. No denying that at all. Killing the baby wont undo those awful circumstances, it wont even ease them. The fact is though, rape is not what this is about, rather threat of suicide (which any pregnant woman can say they feel whatever the circumstances of the conception). The fact that we have mother and baby alive, even after a panel of ‘experts’ said she was suicidal is an example of the fault in including ‘suicide’ as part of the threat to the mothers life.

Yes ,it’s great that the child is alive and “well” . And that Mummy can become the Mum that she always wanted to be ..Oh wait !

This woman was raped, sought a termination in first trimester, was forced to carry the babyn, have a c/section at 28 weeks, her condition deteriorated from sad and depressed to suicidal as a result of this. What part of that do you find acceptable?

Yes James She’s alive, after having being held prisoner, prevented from obtaining a termination when requested and thereby forced to carry unwanted pregnancy to 24 weeks when it was surgically removed, also against her wishes, but none of that matters now to you, because …

Hyperbole aside. Of course it matters to me, the only difference between our views is that there is another person in this that matters to me also. I hate such pain, and I mean HATE it. I just don’t believe killing unborn children is a solution to such things.

@ Charlie. I find it acceptable that a baby was delivered and not killed and that the mother who said she was suicidal did not kill herself or her baby and is still alive.

You really don’t see the whole picture do you? Even the HSE admit this case was handled poorly. You must have tunnel vision on this subject- as long as pregnancy ends in childbirth it doesn’t matter what happens in between.

James, do you find it acceptable the psychological damage this case has caused the woman? That she was forcibly cut open by the state after being left in a clinically depressed state for months? All of which could have been prevented and all of which is in addition to her having been raped.

Charlie,
Both mother and the baby are alive. The state is looking after the best interests of the child while the mother is also receiving state assistance.
Please explain the “whole picture” so that we may understand what you thought should have happened here…

She was held, forcibly hydrated, sliced open when they thought she’d done enough incubating.

This isn’t hyperbole. This is fact. You can’t tell me that alls well that ends well when you have a mother who was essentially tortured by the state and a baby that is presumably now extremely high dependency given that they removed it as soon as it was physically viable.

Sorry Seán,
We got legislation last year and this is how this state has resolved to protect the unborn.
Ask the kid in 20 years time how they feel about it.
No one said this was easy but everybody is alive.

Actually Paul, during the bureaucratic process, she went past a stage where she could have an abortion.

This is not what was voted for, this is a failure in the system which should not have occurred.

Easy she should have had a termination in her first trimester when she sought one instead of being left to fester in her own depression where she became suicidal at which point it was too late to terminate so they forced a c/section on her. I doubt very much that this mother is fine, I doubt she will ever be fine.

To all the people who are lamenting the fact that the the child was not aborted when the mother requested it, what exactly are your feelings towards this little boy?

@ Ailbhe: I find it acceptable that everyone is alive. I don’t find it acceptable that holding yourself and your unborn child to ransom should twist the arm of the state to killing unborn children. I find the fact that the woman was raped a lot more extenuating than being allegedly suicidal, but this is about the suicide clause, and what we see here, is the weakness of having suicide included as part of a threat to a mothers life. I don’t believe that stress, psychological distress etc on the part of the mother forfeits the life of the child. I believe justice is only done when both parties are considered. In this case they were, and thankfully everyone got out of it with their lives. Now its about support.

‘Holding yourself and unborn child to ransom’
What a horrific thing to say. How do you know anything about the mother or her mental health. Absolutely shocking statement.

‘Everybody got out with their lives’

That is only correct, provided a) the child survives/survived b) the mother is not more at risk of suicide since she was sluced open against her will and c) the state don’t eff up again in their provision of aftercare.

Your post highlights your compkete lack of understanding of mental healh issues, in particular depression and suicidal ideation. I’m glad you understand little about this, as those that do have either been there or know somebody who has been. I hope you educate yourself further on ‘alleged’ suicide and depression.

Aibhe , I have to say she was not cut open against her will .

Why do you think threat of suicide is a clause, and not mental health Charlie? Precisely because the mother is holding herself and unborn to ransom. Give me an abortion or I kill myself and my baby is the crux of it. You want to spin that as something shocking, but its the reality of what is happening. Whats more shocking IMO, is that a baby has been born that you and many others believes should have been killed.

@ Ailbhe: my post does not expose any lack of understanding at all. It simply doesn’t attempt to try understand the reasonings and mental health etc. What it does succinctly, is that it puts plainly what is actually happening with the suicide clause i.e. If I don’t get an abortion I will kill myself and my unborn. Is that not what is happening? For anyone who believes this is a shocking thing to say, could you explain the inaccuracy in it?

James you’re wrong.

It’s not ransom, it’s preventing the worst possible outcome. She was suffering from acute depression and suicidal tendencies as a result of her pregnancy, how that equates to willful ransom in your head is despicable.

Maria, delighted that the child is there of course. But the fact that this succession of heinous acts produced a baby is not justification. ‘sure she was raped, but there was a child that came from it so, alls well eh’.

Sean: The worst possible outcome being mother and baby dying by the mothers hand right? Is it that if someone is suicidal they are no longer deemed responsible for their own actions? And thus considered not their will? So when they present the choice to the HSE that they want an abortion or they will/might kill themselves, how should I describe it? In normal circumstances ransom is perfectly acceptable, so what should it be described as so as not to be classed as ‘despicable’?

How bout the manifestation of a terrible illness?

How bout a terrible mental condition which must have caused the mother terrible suffering and pain?

Either of them sound a bit better than ransom?

No one is suggesting that it because a baby was born, it was a good thing that a rape occurred. We are disputing the use of the circumstances of this little boy’s conception to justify him being aborted a few months ago. The circumstances of his conception, in no way invalidate his existence.

And also to point out that which should be obvious: abortion is not all about women.If this case shows us anything it is as much about their children. And this little boys welfare, well being and rights are every bit as important as his mothers. If people are offended by this, which I know they will be, so be it.

Sean,
“Sad and depressed – but not actually suicidal”- that’s how the HSE shrinks are covering their asses.
My understanding is that there was a delay in the diagnosis – but if she was not suicidal when she went to the HSE, it’s easy to see how she could have been suicidal leaving it.
But as far as our laws go, the system actually worked in spite of itself.
We don’t permit abortion on demand, we have a constitution that protects the unborn. It’s not smiles all round, but it is the best outcome from a horrendous incident.
Had she not decided to come to Ireland, would the mother be happier?
Smarter people than I should know that her circumstances are none of our business. The best we can hope is that she can leave this behind – given time.

@ Sean: They are not descriptions of the circumstance of the ultimatum of Abortion or suicide. I think what people have an issue with is that they believe I was being insensitive, not inaccurate. I’m open to correction though.

Paul,

That diagnosis was made as part of the investigation, a month or more after the fact and contradicts the finding of two psychiatrists who met with her in the depths of this.

I fully agree, this is the HSE covering themselves. Which is possibly the most despicable part of this.

James,

I think that your insistence in using words like ransom and ultimatum are entirely insensitive and unhelpful. This woman was desperate, unwell and then poorly treated by our state while going through (hopefully) the most traumatic event in her life.

Add to that after the fact she could easily read things like ‘go back home’, ‘how do we even know she was raped’, ‘why can’t she just accept this’ about her.

‘It simply doesn’t try to understand the reasonings’

The clause is regarding suicide. Your post ignores the reasonings atound suicide. Not only do you do that, but in your post you imput your own reasonings, that of ransom. In essence you are accusing women of being so fiscal as to fake depression and lie regarding their suicidal wishes, just to have abortion on demand. That is a pretty reprehensible accusation.

Ailbhe: I asked Sean earlier, I’ll ask you now. The term ransom is approaching it from the aspect of legislature, and the only reason that the state considers threat of suicide an exception is due to the nature of the ultimatum. So in essence it is holding the state to ransom, getting it to carry out an act it deems illegal in normal circumstances because the threat of the person killing themselves is there. Thats not my own reasonings, its simply descriptive of the circumstance. In amongst all the disgust, nobody has offered an alternative description. It just doesn’t sit right with peoples sensitivities having laid out so bluntly, and I’m glad it doesn’t because its a terrible basis for making a law.

Sean: Ok, so you think its insensitive, but is it accurate is the pertinent question? If its not, can you describe the circumstance accurately but sensitively for me?

‘the only reason the state considers it an exception is due to the nature of the ultimatum’

Your entire basis is this above statement which is your own personal assumption and not the reality. you assume the state feels forced to allow this. That is not the case. You even claim that the state is allowing something illegal. It is legislated for, therefore it is not illegal. Basic law will tell you this. Your entire point is moot.

That’s not the issue. The issue arose BEFORE it developed into a little boy. Science not your best subject?

If an extremely ill patient, was admitted against their will to hospital, suicidal, with a large cancerous growth.. If doctors, removed growth, kept her alive hydrating her, would you still condemn the doctors, the state??

Condemning them for keeping her alive, “slicing her open” trying to save the child .. She’s alive, she can hopefully get all the help & support she needs to overcome her horrific rape and get on with her life..
Aborting her child won’t undo the rape.

Firstly are you comparing a foetus to a cancerous growth?! Shame on you.

Secondly, she has to overcome depression, suicidal ideation, being held and force hydrated in foreign country, being forcibly made to continue to carry the child of her rapist and then cut open.

Anything there incorrect Bridget?

No,
Just comparing you opinion on actions of doctors..

Big difference is all these things you listed, people have & do overcome them.. However you can never undo an abortion.. Anything incorrect?!

If Miss Y had of undergone the abortion she requested & then committed or attempted suicide just like the victim in the C case, her tragedy would have vapourized into thin air.

Nothing incorrect, lots of your comment is obtuse and naive. They can and do overcome it BUT shouldn’t have to.

No woman should endure a rape. No woman should be forced by law to be a gestational object for her rapists potential child. No woman should be deemed force hydrated by law. No woman should be forced to lie down on an oporating table while a doctor cuts her open against her will.

If all of that was done to a person that was not pregnant, it would be assault and criminalised. You find it excusable only because she is pregnant. You care only for the foetus and not the poornwkman, a child at the time she was raped and became pregnant. That disgusts me frankly. You disgust me for supportig the torture and repeated viokation of this woman and her bodily integrity.

Ailbhe, learn to read.

James, learn to write something intelligent with a genuine basis. I would bet I am far more educated than you James.

Siobhan, the same could be said of you. The Child struggling for survival in an NICU at present, is the exact same human individual as he was twenty weeks ago. He did not suddenly “morph” into a human by miracle of C section,or at some random point in his mothers pregnancy. He was always one and the same human. And Had he been killed twenty weeks ago, it would be the same human dead as if he died now. So again I ask why do you believe that he should be dead?

Ailbhe, I totally support your comments. I am amazed at the insincerity and faux concern that people show to the child of this girl. By all accounts, the child will have severe health problems. And this is a result of those people who put obstacles in the way of a termination being provided when sought. This cannot continue. We must have a vote on this at the earlier opportunity. A generation of women of child-bearing age have had to contend with this legislation. We need change now. Respect for Irish women!

Hear hear!

Sadly Maria there are those of us who have family & friends who were conceived thru rape & the media define them as monsters which is highly insulting. Dehumanization due to the means of conception yet in the UK sex abuse victims are forced to abort to cover-up rapists tracks. 14 year old Rotherham victim.

I have read or heard no reference to the chikd being a monster or in any way negative Maire. Have you a source for this?

Aibhe , because of the mess up or whatever you want to call , by the time she got to see the right people she was 23 weeks gone so her only option then was a c -section which as she agreed to .. Not forced to .. And it was done within days .

Terminations in the UK are permitted up to 24 weeks. Why wasn’t she fast-tracked to a British clinic?

Joan,
Her wish was for an abortion. She was forced to carry the child until they decided to ‘offer’ t cut her open and remove the product of her traumatic rape.

Aibhe, she wasn’t forced to carry the baby until they decided to offer a c section , she did nothing and seen nobody between 8 weeks and 23 weeks pregnant which by then the doctors avcted quickly and gave her a c section . what did she do for all that length of time ? And frankly to call a baby born at 23 weeks is disgusting and shameful !

Oh Joan,
‘seen nobody between 8 weeks and 23 weeks’ this is utterly wrong and proof you have no clue what you are talking about! No point wasting time with somebody who hasn’t a clue.

Aibhe , I think you need to slow down a bit and read up on the case a bit more because believe it or not you don’t know it all

Several of the major commentators in the Irish media have such as Pat Kenny & Vincent Browne alongside others.

Joan, oh Joan. Read more.

‘The Health Service Executive is setting up an internal review to report into the care provided to the woman at the centre of the controversy over the decision to refuse a termination of pregnancy.
It will look at reports of a gap between the time the woman first sought a termination at around eight weeks and when she was admitted to hospital seeking a termination in her second trimester.’

Source RTE
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0818/637833-abortion-legislation/

As you can see Joan, your claim ‘she did nothing and seen nobody between 8 weeks and 23 weeks pregnant which by then the doctors avcted quickly and gave her a c section’ is totally and utterly wrong.

Ailbhe , that proves nothing cause they are investigating the timeline from 8 weeks onwards . maybe you should wait till you find out the full facts first . thanks

Ha! ‘maybe you should wait till you find out the full facts first’

You claimed she hadn’t attempted to see ANYBODY and you did so without the full facts. Take your own advise Joan. I can’t believe you actually are that hilariously hypocritical!

If you choose to make claims that have no proof or basis on reality to prove your point, you are digging a deep hole. Bless……..

*a product*

Not a product of love, but of rape!

Ailbhe , OK so maybe you can tell us what she did between that time frame ? She had only arrived here and couldn’t leave because of her status , so what was she doing ?

SO?

Joan, I am not claiming to know all this information and I am not, like you, going to speculate. I am saying your claim is incorrect. Which you pretty much agreed with already, ‘maybe you should wait till you find out the full facts first’ implying making any claim as to what she did or didn’t do is premature and unwise. Am I wrong?

Ailbhe, I agree that we should all wait until the full report comes out before jumping in .

Ailbhe is real hung up on being “educated”.. you need to be careful, if you make a spelling mistake, you will be accused of not understanding a word you write..

If you wait before you speculate, then that will be a first for the Pro Aborts on here.. Funny

Glad you agree Joan. Nice to have cleared that one up. Bridget, you support abortion as a life saving measure for the mother, am I correct?

Pro aborts? What does that mean? You should try to raise the level of your debate to Ailbhe’s level, rather than denigrate her for being articulate and sensitive when discussing such an abhorrent ordeal for a young girl who needed help.

If only you all showed the same concern for the hordes of men who are actually considering committing suicide.

Ailbhe, isn’t that you in the picture with the sun glasses on and holding the poster upside-down ?

@Rusty balls – how exactly did it go, to quote your comment , “tragically wrong? “…. Would it have been preferable to you had a child been killed? Is that the tragedy here according to you?

Mother wanted a termination.End of! Tragic story that has many a sad chapter to go ! Here’s hoping that they now both get the care that they so badly need .. They’ll be forgotten about now..as sure as night follows day ..inevitable !

Jesus I’m looking dodgy for 28. No Tinker it’s not. Anything intelligent to contribute?

As I’m sure you do, Peter.

I bet you are involved at a high level with an NGO, or as a psychiatrist, or a researcher, investigating the reality behind this awful phenomenon and working one-to-one to make sure men get help. I am sure you are well updated on the theories behind ‘manliness’, on the damage done to men in the current late capitalist climate, of the legacy of childhood trauma and cultural trauma, of the need to break down taboos.

You are probably a paradigm of empathy and intelligent reasoning, who can look at the bigger picture and start asking the questions we need to ask about why so many men in our society are suffering – and why, by extension, our society metes out so much symbolic and literal violence to women, and why men and women sometimes seem so divided and unable to communicate effectively with one another.

Or, you could just be another spiteful and defensively selfish troll who feels that, if women are getting attention from The Journal, your lot of special treatment from the universe has been somehow depleted. In which case, you are making use of the real suffering of real men to make a rhetorical point which is actually just all about how hard-done-by you are feeling at this moment in time. Which is, you must admit, pretty cretinous.

But I’m sure that’s not it, right?

You cant seem to see things properly,Tinker .

I could be another spiteful and defensively selfish troll or maybe I just don’t dig hypocrisy especially since abortion is not a proven treatment for being suicidal.

Can’t debate the abortion thing, so let’s move the goalposts to male suicide. Nice try Peter…

How is saying abortion is not a treatment for a person being suicidal not debating the “abortion thing”?
Your contribution was stellar.

Peter your contribution is to engage in fallacies. Sean by virtue of his grip on reality is far supperior in his contributions.

If only you all showed the same concern for the hordes of men who are actually contemplating suicide….

You actually said that and that’s what I was commenting on. Clearer now?

Fallacies in your opinion. If society says it is ok to have an abortion if you are suicidal then we may as well just have abortion on demand(something that the majority of the country don’t want).

Enlighten me what processes and procedures would you put in place to separate those who are genuinely suicidal from those who could be just using emotional blackmail.

Arguably this girl has been let down by the fact both sides fundamentally distrust each other.

The pro life side rightly think that any ground given up is and inching towards the eventual goal of abortion on demand. This meaning that they are afraid to move on issues like this even though there is a compelling case for an early term abortion.

Peter, you clearly have trust issues with regards to women…..pity

So you wouldn’t encourage a women who wanted to get an abortion to claim to be suicidal if her word was all that was needed?

These are the fears that the pro life side have. The real pity is that you can’t see things from their side.

Peter, those processes and procedures would be clinical, psychological assessment and diagnosis.

Sufficient?

Of course it would be sufficient for me. Would that be enough for you to except the refusal of an abortion?

If that’s the law, yes.

In this case she was seen by two psychiatrists, found to be suicidal and was still not granted an abortion.

That’s the problem I’ve had with this from the start.

No Peter I certainly wouldn’t. Such an action would be reprehensible, disgusting and an insult to those who are truelly suffering to the point of being suicidal!

“found to be suicidal”?
Sean, its a diagnosis, not a judgement, it was a diagnosis reached after weeks of a stupid process, but that’s the law that was supported through the Dail, and the clever people who could see what would happen were shouted down or heavily criticised for not supporting a half assed bill.
The problem here is that in this case, the system worked. It allows the state to ignore the perceived rights of an individual so that the state can decide on our behalf.
You thought you got what you wanted with this legislation and it turns out you don’t want what you got. The ship has sailed.

What about the suicidal victims due to abortion? Just like forced adoption years ago let us pretend post abortion syndrome doesn’t exist. http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/ccase-mum-i-grieve-for-my-lost-baby-every-day-29241584.html

What about this case? Rape victim where abortion is the cause of driving her to the edge. http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/ccase-mum-i-grieve-for-my-lost-baby-every-day-29241584.html I guess some victims matter more than others.

Paul, while I agree with some of what you said. I know nobody who agrees with this legislation. There was no option by us the people. This was decided by others and not wanted by us. So on that point you are incorrect.

You are correct that the problem is the legislation and I hope you are wrong that the ship has sailed.

She came from a war zone, both rape and gang rape are rife in war. Does it matter anyway? She was raped and should have been granted the right to termination at 8 weeks or soon afterwards when she requested it. She shouldn’t have had to be suicidal in the first place, the 8th amendment needs to go or rape victims like her who can’t get to the UK will undergo forced pregnancy and c-section as she did. Forcing a pregnant rape victim to stay pregnant against her will is utterly inhumane. She has already been sexually coerced and then the state compounds her violation by forcing her to carry the pregnancy against her will.

Fair point but such cases are surely not unprecedented in other countries? They must have protocols in place.
Cruelty is again the word that comes to mind in the failure to deal with fatal foetal abnormalities.

The fact that the woman was gang raped emerged on ‘Prime Time’.
Yet we still deny women the right to an abortion when a crime is committed against them in this way.
Shameful.

If it doesn’t matter, why change it?

I’m not sure how abortion for rape and incest cases could be legislated for separately. According to the Rape Crisis Network only about 30% of victims ever report the crime to the police, there is a fear of disbelief, victim blaming etc. Only a small amount ever make it to court and chances are by the time a trial has taken place it would probably be too late for an abortion. In most countries where abortion is legal, its a woman’s choice at least up to 12 weeks and that would probably cover most victims who become pregnant from rape. Legislating specifically for rape would be difficult as it’s not always easy to prove.

They manage to do it in other jurisdictions

What is the actual evidence the girl was raped ?
From what I have read it is just her version of events.

In fairness to RTE, they always refer to her as ‘the girl who says she was raped’

Not one of the pro-abortion comments in this string mentioned the life of the baby. its quite telling really!!!

Tinker Taylor, because it has been scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubt that a baby doesn’t gain conscience until around the 24th week, at 8 weeks, there is no “life” as you know, the embryo is as alive as a plant. And at the end of the day it doesn’t matter if the pro abortion doesn’t mention the baby’s life, in a Democracy, majority rules even if the ruling is crazy, that’s why is called democracy, put it for a referendum, not a compromised referendum but a real referendum once and for all to ask to fully legalise abortion or not, the we’ll see the will of society.

@Juan – so you’re claiming that a baby up to 24 weeks is not human? Is that correct or have I misunderstood you?

They are only now denied medical attention until they declare their intention to terminate, then our medical/social welfare system becomes a prison system designed to hold them until the pregnancy can go long enough for the Now baby to be removed and sold. It sound like the plot of some dystopian horror movie.

Her personal circumstances are none of your business. She should have had access to abortion because she wanted one, she should have been granted jurisdiction over her own body, end of story. Your opinion on the veracity of her claims and the fact that you feel entitled to comment on them is irrelevant. Everyone’s experience is their ‘version of events’ – what an extraordinarily cynical and arrogant thing to say.

That was for Larry, by the way.

I’m pro choice but that is factually incorrect. I’m not sure where you are getting your scientifically proven facts from but my niece was born at 23 weeks and she is not the only one.

Niamh, abortion is not a human right and the people of this country do not want an open abortion policy. There are children’s rights to think about as well!

Larry , that’s a fair point actually , for all we know she might have found out that the only way she could get an abortion was to say she was raped ?

Thanks for your criticism Niamh.

I agree that if someone wants to have an abortion (provided it falls within the boundaries of what is considered safe medical practice) they should be allowed to. My point though is not that.

Her personal circumstances do matter as she arrived here claiming to have been raped and seeking an abortion.

As distressing as those circumstances appear to be, I am simply asking the question. After all she wouldn’t be the first person to embellish a story in order to gain residency here.

Perhaps I am wrong and if so then of course I apologise.

@Niamh – the body of her unborn child is not her own body. It is a separate person with unique DNA and by definition, human – with all the rights that go with that, including the right to live.

Tinker, if you believe that, would you support a referendum on abortion, to put this issue to bed?

Joan and Larry. The only people I’ve seen questioning how in earnest this woman was (and this includes the clinical psychiatrists who met with her) are people here.

I find it pretty low for people to try and cast aspersions on this woman who was clearly unwell to try and advance their arguments.

You’re right Paul, and that separate DNA was put there by her rapist, her bodily autonomy was violated by him and then violated again by the Irish state.
She requested an abortion at 8 weeks, at that point there was no child just a non-sentient embryo yet the ‘rights’ of that embryo were prioritised over those of a sentient, raped teenage girl who was forced to be an incubator, suicidal, force fed and cut open to give birth to a barely viable child who may have health difficulties for life.
Now that the child is born of course all efforts should be made to keep him or her alive but it should never have got to that point in the first place, any rape victim should be entitled to a termination. Forcing a rape victim to stay pregnant is sickening, anyone who thinks she should be must be devoid of compassion and empathy. How can a non-sentient fertilised ovum or embryo be considered the ‘equal’ of a girl or woman? Its an insult to every woman in this country to be considered second place to the contents of her womb.

@Paul.
The embryo & foetus depend on the host womb for life. If the embryo or the foetus cannot exist without a host womb, then no woman should be forced into the role of incubator against her choice. The situation is particularly repugnant in the case of this multiply raped teenager.