You do understand that if you pay taxes that education is one of the areas that should be covered by that Alan?

I don’t have any kids Alan, and I never intend to have them, but I see in my (when I’m normally working) three jobs how hard parents in this country have to slog for their kids, even people you might describe as upper middle class are in a bit of a struggle these days, paying massive taxes for nothing in return, and then I see people who contribute nothing get their entire lives funded by the state, and that makes me angry.

As to the attitude of ‘why should I pay for you/your kids’ the answer is quite simple: because I pay for you too.
We live in a society, and certain things are better funded collectively as a group than on an individual basis, can you imagine if we had a full fee for every aspect of healthcare? police?
The people paying that 53% tax, who want their kids education covered are ALREADY paying for the ambulance and medics that will come save your life if you have an MI in the middle of the street, they already pay for the police and the exotic vehicles, helicopters and firearms that protect you from terrorists and gangland criminals, they paid for most of the cost for you to go to primary school and secondary school, they paid for your vaccinations so you would not get sick…

Nobody is saying the state needs to do everything for us, I’m even ok with water bills, nor do I think the state needs to own airlines and phone companies…but healthcare and education are the most basic, fundamental public services and they are the most expensive for an individual or family to bear.

Ryan, whatever about first and second level education, third level education is charged for in many modern States. It is inherently expensive. Much more expensive than primary or secondary education. All the evidence shows that people with a third level qualification earn more over their lifetime than those without such an education so it confers a distinct lifetime benefit on recipients. This is why many States charge for third level education. In many EU States where it is free far fewer people attend 3rd level proportionately than in Ireland. If third level is totally free then demand for it increases. The State then must invest even more in infrastructure and increased staff levels so more cost. As matters stand the 3rd level institutions complain that because of the absence of fees they are underfunded compared to such institutions abroad. If the State is to invest further sums in 3rd level education then they must take it from elsewhere (first or second level which are already underfunded) or from other services provided by the State as I take it you do not want taxes further increased. Ireland is still borrowing money to fund day to day services. So the taxes we are paying do not fund the services we are receiving and Irish tax rates are still below the EU norm. If you want these services expect taxes to rise further especially on middle and lower income levels which by EU standards are still under-taxed. This is not going to happen.

Most of the EU-15 don’t charge for it, and most of the developed countries that do have some kind of state backed loan system so their students are not worried about money up front while they study, there is just no excuse for our policy.
Don’t be naive, I’ve heard that argument that more fees = more funding and it’s utter horse1ht, that’s ignoring how the beast works, what will happen is the state will say to UCD, Trinity, DCU ”right you have your own fee system now, so you don’t need as much state funding” and state funding will go down, it will not stay at the same rate.

The free fees scheme is nowhere near as expensive as half the stuff we pay for, it’s about 1/5th the cost of our welfare spending and dwarfed by our health spending, it’s NOT what is dragging down our budget and it never was.
There are plenty of things to reform, the entry system and points system make people go for courses so they’ll ”get something” rather than a course they really value and want.

Regardless, both govt parties made a contract with the electorate to abolish them up front and find a new funding model and were elected on that promise.
What will happen if we go back to full fees is we’ll be back to a situation where only the wealthy can afford an education, or those absolutely dog poor enough to get a grant, and that latter group will be utterly tiny.
The middle will be excluded again…the middle that pays all the taxes …and I think that’s unacceptable.

weed out the minorities ? less productive ? those who are challenged and folks before ye all go off on one…. I am talking about comments above to ” reform our welfare laws ” as a means of reducing un- wanted pregnancies

As usual this Silent Majority is very loud and vocal. Funny, because as polls show time and time again, they are actually a Loud Minority. Go figure.

As usual, you entirely miss the point emilio. I’d explain it again, but if you haven’t gotten it at this stage it’s unlikely you ever will.

Silent Majority and Paul,

Please explain the big problem with us signing charters to be held to a certain standard and opting in to be scrutinised by these organisation and then being scrutinised?

We decided to do this, we decided that we wanted to be held to a standard. We cannot get annoyed when we then are.

No one forced Ireland into the UN, you want to be gone from the UN then say that. But don’t question who they are to tell us what we should do… Because we invited them to.

No problem with them questioning our laws, like the recent legislation. No problem with them questioning the potential sentences (14 years is pretty extreme) but our constitution is ours and ours alone. How far exactly do you think their remit should extend Sean? Should they be allowed dictate constitutional amendments, or just call for referenda?

” our constitution is ours and ours alone”

Well, you are actually wrong. If our constitution goes against human rights (be that by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, for example) then no.

Sick and tired of little muppets like yourself to be honest. Your point is provincial and inhumane. You have no point.

As opposed to your intellectual contributions,devoid of fact but never devoid of ad hominem for anyone who dares disagree eh emilio? The Irish constitution may be amended solely by national referendum – I assume it would be asking too much for you to actually support your point that foreign courts can amend our constitution…

The Irish constitution may only be amended by referendum, but that doesn’t mean the UN or the ECHR cannot tell Ireland that we must amend our constitution.

By the way, the fact that not a single woman in reproductive age did ever vote for the 8th amendment should be an indication that our constitution might be outdated.

Ireland’s current legal and constitutional framework is being criticised.

The best you can do to defend its validity is that only the Irish can change it? Sure if it was a good framework you’d be able to defend it on its own merits, 1 year old or 1000 year old, irish-voted or not.

But the best you can say is that it is Irish. You have no leg to stand on.

Well, in a word. Yes.

We wanted to be a member state.
We signed the UN Charters
We agreed to and invited scrutiny

If we don’t want that, then we can leave. I believe their remit should/does extend to recommendations. If you read the document (which I think someone linked) you won’t find in any of the section “a must”, a “need to” or a “have to”. It only ever says should.

So what’s the problem? Is it the fact that some of it is in the constitution?

Because if that’s the case, you hold very dear a very recent document, written for another time and one which we ourselves have amended (not even voted on but actually changed) a total of 33 times since this version was enacted in December of 1937, that’s an average of two amendments per year!

An average of 1 amendment every 2 years… sorry.

Emilio, that’s exactly what it means. You’re managing to disagree with yourself. Don’t know why I bother trying to argue with people like you, but without the consent of the Irish people the constitution cannot be amended, no matter what the UN, ECHR or anyone else tells us.
And “support your point” doesn’t mean “say what you just said again”. It means support your point with facts. In a country with free education there is no excuse for people like you.

Sean, it’s not so much the current constitution I hold dear as the notion of constitutional democracy. I have no problem with amendments being made so long as those amendments are the will of the people. The Irish state may well have signed up to UN charters, but the constitution is the property of the people, not the state. Everyone here is getting caught up because abortion is the issue at hand, but it’s the interference in our constitutional procedures that bothers me.

??

Anyone in the universe can tell Ireland to change its constitution. From Joe the Plumber to Titan moon blobs. Can you not understand this? What, Irish constitution is free from criticism? And of course, you are entitled to say whatever you please. But don’t pretend the UN is rewriting our constitution because they are not.

Of course it is Ireland’s task to change it, did I say otherwise? Your level of reading comprehension is abysmal, in a country with free education there is no excuse for people like you.

Seán is making exactly the same point:

“If we don’t want that, then we can leave. I believe their remit should/does extend to recommendations. If you read the document (which I think someone linked) you won’t find in any of the section “a must”, a “need to” or a “have to”. It only ever says should.”

They have made recommendations,

They haven’t imposed their will, altered our constitution or compelled us to do so.

They have said that we “should”. We are of course free to ignore their recommendations, but then again why would we?! This is a panel of people who are well versed in the law, ethics and practicalities of implementing these changes. Why wouldn’t we at least want to hear what they have to say on it.

It’s our constitution to change, but it’s our responsibility to change it wisely, in a considered manner and after hearing the facts. That is the opportunity we have been presented.

Also, despite it being our constitution to change, we sadly only get to do so when the government decide we do, in ways they decide and on issues that they decide, this at least might push the government to realise that there are a lotta people shouting on this who should have a voice in it, namely the people of Ireland.

SM, there are no procedures in discussing changes to the constitution, only how to make the changes themselves (referendum).

Discussing changes to the constitution can take place in the bar, in the dail, in the toilet, for all you care. And the UN and ECHR are perfectly valid actors in the scene of this discussions.

Getting any sentence is pretty extreme

@Emilio you are in correct…. Irish Constitution cannot be changed unless its by referendum…also you do not seem to be able to tolerate other people having different opinions to you a true Liberal you are

The UN can’t change our constitution – they can make recommendations, which we then ignore..

The ruling from the ECHR was telling us to set out a framework to allow women to ascertain under which precise situations they were constitutionally entitled to abortion here – they didn’t tell us to change our constitution, they told us to legislate for it. They told us to codify our own law – they didn’t force anything on us that should not have been done already (20 years previously in fact).

@Silent We signed up for this. This isn’t some external body imposing itself on Ireland. Ireland is part of this body.

Sean,
You missed the point. It’s about national self determination. Alienation, because we are supposed to hold ourselves to be different, not because we joined a club of nations. We are expected to rule ourselves, not be ordered how to rule ourselves.
We don’t rewrite our constitution because we choose not to do so. Was it all that hard to understand?

Let’s be clear about this. There is no right to abortion in any international human rights law. This committee is interpreting things on an ideological basis. Its recommendations have no legal standing.

If some international court or other body should seek to demand that we change our constitution it would be open to us to consider if the issue in question was of such importance that we wished to withdraw from the relevant organisation or convention. I believe that protection of human life from conception to natural death is of paramount importance.

Yet again I see in these comments no concern expressed for the life lost in abortion. Somebody has to represent the rights of the unborn as guaranteed by the constitution and the pro-life movement will never cease to do that.

And let me say that the idea that pro-life people are only concerned with the birth of the child and not its life thereafter is utterly repugnant to me. I of course can’t speak for everyone but I consider my pro-lifeism as including the right to a decent standard of living for everybody and equality of opportunity for everybody. I am as appalled as anybody by the poverty, homelessness, unemployment, poor healthcare etc which I exist in this country.

Nicely patronising there Paul.

Do you think that the Necklacing going on in many African countries, where they fill a tyre with petrol, place it around peoples necks and light it, because they are gay, adulterous or of the wrong religion, is ok? If not, who should do something about it, if their own police or government won’t?

Michael.
If you include a decent standard of living in your prolifeism then would I be correct to assume that you would be in favour of permitting abortion where the pregnancy is a) the result of rape or incest, b) doomed with a fatal diagnosis and c) when it may cause serious health complications for the woman (as any threat to her life would be a given), yes?
Because that is what they are asking us to consider – not unrestricted abortion access.

To force a woman to remain pregnant against her will in any of these situations would be a form of cruel and inhumane punishment.

@Silent Majority:

If we DO have another referendum and for some reason the people vote against the UN suggestion, what then? will we have another referendum to get it right? Remember, we did this at least twice before. If we did hold a second, or third referendum and the result was still against the UN, what would they do? I am of the opinion that others, the UN and the EU think they can do what they like with us.

No Shanti you wouldn’t. I was merely addressing the point where pro-lifers are criticised for being only interested up to the point where the baby is born. Personally I stand over the current constitutional position. The intentional targeting of the life of the unborn is wrong in my opinion.

You say that the UN committee is only recommending abortion in certain circumstances. However I am convinced that some people will not rest until the right to abortion on demand is conceded. While I appreciate your own bona fides in this regard I rather feel you are underestimating the danger of liberalising the law in any respect. You have probably seen references in the media to people who want the right to abortion in their own countries to be extended to post-birth situations where the child is not acceptable for one reason or another. It is difficult to be sanguine in such circumstances.

Are you referring to that ethics paper that compared abortion to infanticide?

Because I have seen a lot of hooha about this from the pro life side, who seem to either a) be blissfully unaware of what the purpose of an ethics journal and therefore papers submitted to same is, or b) are well aware what they are for and are misrepresenting them on purpose in yet another fallacious attempt at emotional blackmail on those less clued in or inclined to track back the sources..

I’m open to the possibility of other reasons, but truly to say that people are calling for this to be made legal is a massive misrepresentation of what the paper was, what it’s intentions were and even what it’s contents were.

And ironically enough, the authors received death threats from the “pro life” movement over it. Doubtless the ones not critical enough to check the paper out before jumping to conclusions.

And I repeat – do you actually think it’s acceptable to tell a woman who has been raped that her body is no longer her own? To force the birth of the product of incest? To make a woman carry the baby she wanted to term when it has no possibility of life? Or to tell a woman, “so what if this pregnancy may complicate an existing illness / have permanent negative consequences for your health”?

Because that’s not giving much consideration to those women’s quality of life is it?

Obviously death threats are entirely at odds with a pro-life position. I don’t recollect any reference to an ethics paper and I am pretty sure I’ve seen similar references in a number of places.

I believe that from the moment of conception a second life enters the situation which life is worthy of protection. I believe it would do irreparable harm to the dignity and value of human life if abortion were allowed in any circumstances. However I would insist that any woman who found herself in the circumstances you describe would be given every possible support during and after the pregnancy. I know that won’t satisfy you and I regret that but I can’t go against my conscience.

The whole “arguing for post birth abortion” straw man originated from that ethics paper. I’m familiar with the argument, it’s put out there quite frequently. But no country has had such a proposition put to it’s legislature – that is an over exaggeration of what actually happened. It seems in your case, lack of knowledge of the source is to blame.

Also, your conscience can rest easy, as you are presumably male – you will never directly be in the position where these things affect you, at best they will only ever affect you indirectly. As such, one would hope you would have respect for the consciences of other human beings and the fact that they have free will and a right to decide what happens within their own bodies.

There are many women out there for whom pregnancy poses health risks, these women will be doing their level best to avoid pregnancy but no method of contraception is infallible and to suggest they remain celibate for their entire lives is laughable.
There are families who want nothing more than a baby but the baby is not going to survive and there are scarred women who have already been violated and had their right to decide what goes on in their body violated – these women deserve precedence over the as yet contingent non sentient life gestating within them.

No, the issue here IS abortion

also you do not seem to be able to tolerate other people having different opinions to you a true Liberal you are

I refuse to tolerate pro-life opinions because not only are they invariably based on religious zealoutry, but they would deny women full human rights, which is intolerable to me. And most decent people. Why should I be asked to tolerate that?

It is nothing on intolerance just tired of interfering foreign agencies who think they know what is best for our country.

They’re hardly interfering. We signed up to be members of the UN. What’s the point of doing so if we ignore it? Shouldn’t we just cut all ties with them then?

Kevin,

That’s a ridiculous position to adopt:

“Hey, can we join your club for the betterment of everyone, through establishing standards and basic rights for all?”
“Yeah, sure… Welcome.”
“Cheers lads.”
“By the way, we reckon that you have some stuff you should look at.”
“Feck off, you can’t tell me what to do.”

Ireland signed UN Charters, we decided to be subject to their scrutiny. We can’t get pissy when we don’t like what they tell us.

when something is wrong, its wrong. no matter who says it.

Our society has changed dramatically since 1983, it’s time to revisit this, many of us were not even alive then.
It’s not just the Gen Y or X that are different, the older generations have changed.
I was on the DART one day earlier in the summer. Some 17/18 year old with a mens health build, on his way home from rugby training sat down next to this grandmother type out of central casting, they knew each other.
They talked about rugby cos he was semi-caked in mud even on his face and she asked him ”do you have a girlfriend yet Sean?” (a pause..looks at her) ”no”, ”any nice girls on the horizon then?”, ”All the time Mrs Redmond but they stay on that horizon cos I like guys”. He paused, was clearly thinking damn did I have to volunteer that. ”oh…(she looks him up and down stopping at chest level) you’d never think it Sean…that’s very metropolitan of you all together…any nice boys then?”
”I prefer to stick with the same few, less headcases, less pervy owllads”
”The pervy owllads aren’t new Sean, it’s just in our day they hurled that word at your side of the fence to throw the attention off themselves”

We’ve changed…a lot, even 7-8 years ago that guy would have been firmly in the closet or faking it with birds.

If the Irish people are so against abortion for these cases why are you afraid of a referendum then Kevin. You know time has moved on and so have the Irish people. No law or indeed section of the constitution is written in stone never subject to change by the will of the people. The vAst majority want legislation for abortion and removal of the 8th amendment.

apologies – aren’t subject to

No the population is more than just your “young voters” democracy is about the majority not the minority. The people voted a number of times and each time it was the same….. What do you want a nice treaty type vote ..keep asking until you get the answer you like? .. please

No more fudging the issue Inda, get on with and bring us into line with the present day for a change,

Was supposed to say to the UN .. auto correct :(

Stop the press, Lads! Kevin says we shouldn’t do anything and he’s produced a detailed report in the comments section of thejournal.ie that destroys the detailed report produced by the UN Human Rights Committee.

Speak for yourself Kevin. I was too young to vote the last time it was put to the Irish public, in 2002, and even then it was just a question on whether we wanted to remove the risk of suicide.

@Kevin – “Ireland must do nothing” – are you serious? This is not an independent dictatorship. Ireland has a responsibility to all of its citizens.
You sound like those countries content to harbour and shelter those who had commuted crimes against humanity by saying that we can do what we want.

I don’t remember a referendum taking place on the issue, never mind numerous! How else have the people of Ireland spoken?

Kevin Ireland spoke once in 1983 on abortion!

Since that time we have made the following changes:

1992: passed right to travel and information provision and rejected the 12th amendment which would have put further restrictions on abortion.

2002 rejected the removal of suicide as grounds for an abortion.

Nobody under 49 years old has given their approval for the continuing ban on abortion and many polls have concluded that large majorities favour it in certain cirumstances!

If the 1983,1992 and 2002 referenda were to be voted again today, there would be no need for the 1992 or 2002. Abortion would have been decriminalised already.

That’s why the young vote is pointed out, because it would change everything.

And, as Proinsias Ó Foghlú has pointed out, young means under 49 years old. Not under 25!

Honestly I think we should introduce citizen initiative like they have in Switzerland, where the people could force the government to hold a referendum on an issue by getting a certain number of people to sign a petition in favour of it. The constitution of the Irish free state had a system of citizen initiative, but it was never implemented in law and when people tried to use it to force the government to implement it, they removed the parts of the constitution regarding it (this was during a period where they were allowed to change the constitution without a referendum). When that constitution was replace with our current one, it didn’t include any initiative. This was also one of the things that the constitutional convention recommended introducing.

So rather than the government keeping on introducing referendums till they get an outcome they are happy with, it would be the people who introduce the referendums, which seem appropriate to me.

If a woman wants an abortion it has nothing to do with you or the state. Its her body, her womb, her choice

Sorry Kevin I think your information is off. The Irish electorate voted 31 years ago to the 8th amendment. That’s mean that any currently living Irish female of child bearing age has never had a say in the abortion debate as the Irish electorate has never been asked in a referendum to liberalize abortion laws. Something which would clearly pass by opinion polls, overwhelmingly in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities and rape and incest cases. Every referendum since 1983 regarding abortion which tried to make the abortion laws stricter has been defeated. The Irish electorate clearly favors more access to abortion.

@John that’s a great idea.

We’ve never had an ‘ordinary’ referendum (non constitutional one) even though were allowed by our constitution, we’ve never used the Presidential power to refer bills to the people…

The only caveat I’d have is that the referendums can’t contain appropriations, the Californians bankrupted themselves by voting for a load of expensive capital projects then voting down all the tax increasing needed to pay for them.

@ Kevin Foley

There are people in their 30′s in this country who have never had an opportunity to vote on abortion. This is an anti-democracy scandal considering people under 30 are the group most affected by the abortion issue.

The hope is that the elderly, church-fearing, uninformed, zealot demographic will soon die out and be replaced by a younger, modern, more tolerant demographic, who are capable of forming an opinion without asking their local priest what the official church stance is. It is therefore dispiriting when you see young people like yourself espousing the same knuckle-dragging, prehistoric, fascist nonsense as your grandparents no doubt espoused.

Progressive Ireland me arse!

Kevin, the choices of previous generations should not necessarily bind future generations. I remember the 1980s well and the bitter “culture wars” over divorce, abortion, contraception and homosexuality. It was a vile backward State and every time I recall it I still shudder with rage. I voted against the completely unnecessary abortion referendum and current voters deserve a similar opportunity. The relevant article should be completely removed from the Constitution and we should legislate for abortion. I believe such a proposal would overwhelmingly pass.

You are correct in that it cals on the government to change our constitution… Thats in the peoples remit to change our constitution not in the government’s power. As chairman of this body is SIR somebody possibly he does not understand how a republic works.

Its quite amusing to see correction of a typo been thumbed down….. its just shows the levels of bias in general on online discussion …. and the ” red thumbers ” would call themselves liberals…. I suspsect they are liberal providing you agree with them but have totally totalitarian attitudes if you hold a different view

@ Emilio
Ah Emilio, blindness of this nature is very sad. Why are we always elevating adult rights/choices over that of the child. Yes I’m very proud of our position up to Endas about turn last year. If he thinks elephants have long memories, wait until the next general election.
We are indeed free to choose the culture of death, or the culture of life. I would hope our natural pride will not let us bow to such an inauspicious organisation, gives one the feeling of foreign masters again.

“We are indeed free to choose the culture of death, or the culture of life. I would hope our natural pride will not let us bow to such an inauspicious organisation, gives one the feeling of foreign masters again.”

Rome or the UN?

Paddy, I am not the one who lives by a silly book that is all about death and what awaits you after you die.

I do not elevate adult rights/choices over that of a child. I elevate women rights over that of a bunch of cells in her womb. Very different. But you have been indoctrinated in a very specific brand of delusion and you cannot see past this point. I wonder who is the blind one here.

NEWSFLASH Paddy,no one gives a sh*t what anti-choice people think except anti-choice people. Isn’t The Vatican a foreign power imposing it’s dogma and policies on Ireland?

Also Paddy the great pro-lifer who has no Catholic Comment on real live children getting slaughtered in Gaza,geopolitics must not be on the Indoctrination Course

@ Paddy – “We have more war, famine, human trafficking, gendercide, and child abuse, than ever before;” Well Paddy that is certainly not true. Over recent time violence has dropped dramatically and we are now likely living in the most peaceful time in our existence, as pointed out by cognitive scientist Steven Pinker:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

And his book on the issue of the decline in violence is well worth a read:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence-ebook/dp/B005HHSYMW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406209890&sr=8-1&keywords=the+better+angels+of+our+nature

Also you say that “free generous people who are committed to protecting both mother and child. Shame on them and on their liberal cronies.” Yet even a brief look at recent history of this state shows otherwise. Women in this country were, for a very long time, treated like farm animals in terms of their bodies and their say in such matters. Now as religion is declining (thankfully so) the rights of women as well as minorities are finally being implemented. It is said that in thirty years time there could be as little as only 450 Catholic priests left in Ireland, if that is the case, the people of Ireland will benefit from it immensely.

Also thousands of children (perhaps more) were systematically raped by the people who were charged with protecting them, so no, you are yet again wrong on this. Women and children were not protected in this country and to say otherwise shows a severe lack of respect for the countless people who suffered at the hands of religious fanatics.

The sad state of affairs in this country is that a man’s sexual health is between him & his doctor. A woman’s sexual health is between her government & the religious right. THIS IS WRONG and it must change.

@ Emilio
Next time you meet an expectant mum, wish her well with her “clump of cells”. It’s just an expression you use to make yourself feel comfortable with your self deceit.
@ Dungeon Master
As you know, the Vatican is only a moral voice, not an imposing power in any shape or form. I tend not to comment on Gaza, as I see wrong on both sides, one sure way of annoying everyone.
@ Liam
There are about 130 wars in the world at the moment, add to this the war on the unborn with 3,700 being killed daily.
There is widespread institutional abuse today, never mind our past. Look at the numbers of persons in care of the HSE who die yearly. Our government now wants to redefine marriage as purely a transitional emotional commitment, and in the process state regulate that children have no rights to knowledge of their biological parents.
Peaceful! Dream on. Redefining what is war, murder, or abuse; may relieve our consciences but doesn’t change facts.

“As you know, the Vatican is only a moral voice, not an imposing power in any shape or form.”

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Er Paddy, the state is actually making a larger effort to ensure that kids know where they came from.. Why is it that you rely on these emotionally manipulative and downright dishonest arguments?
We will have a referendum on marriage equality – when it passes it will be because the Irish people voted for it.

In order for 40.3.3 to be repealed it must go to referendum, so if it is repealed again – it will be because the Irish people voted to do so.

So why does allowing people in this supposedly free nation vote on these matters bother you so much?

@ Shanti
With gay marriage comes surrogacy. With surrogacy comes children separated permanently from one or both biological parents. Not only are the government supporting the redefinition of marriage, but they are working up legislation to facilitate surrogacy. Their legislation is aimed at “fixing” the child debate around gay marriage. Most antidemocratic of them, telling the people they can choose, and then promoting this legislation before the referendum.
There will of course be very few surrogates in Ireland, and the cheaper option in the womb farms of India will be the preferred option.
These children, the bought children, will not be entitled to their genealogy if our state facilitates such surrogacy. In thirty years what crocodile tears will be spilled for the injustice we are about to inflict on this next generation of children. What will we do when we can’t blame the church for the bad decisions we make as a nation.
So the emotion touted with gay couples sighing for marriage is ok, but I’m using unfair emotion to point out we are creating a new generation of fatherless of motherless humans! (State approved)
The philanthropist sponsored NGOs who are pro abortion, encamp about the UN, staffed with radical feminists and liberals, to imply abortion is a new human right; and the UN has the audacity to imply we should join the western culture of culling children. We should kick them off of our island, and sterilise the ground they stood on.

@ Shanti
The liberal push to get rid of 40.3.3 may well get to a vote with the marketing effort by the liberals to convince us how stupid we are. But the Irish have shown respect for life before, and one can only hope they will do so again. I have very little hope in our politicians resisting the lobbying, but the intelligence of the Irish voter may win out and protect all of our people, including the child in the womb.

@Paddy Scully

“There is widespread institutional abuse today, never mind our past. Look at the numbers of persons in care of the HSE who die yearly. Our government now wants to redefine marriage as purely a transitional emotional commitment, and in the process state regulate that children have no rights to knowledge of their biological parents.”

The deaths of people in HSE care have been caused by the taking of illegal drugs, overdose of legal drugs, suicide, car accidents, natural causes and killing by persons not affiliated with the HSE. Therefore, the HSE didn’t cause those deaths.

Furthermore, with regard to knowledge of biological parents, women who were compelled to give their children up for adoption have a constitutional right to privacy. It is an event that they may find too traumatic to revisit. Therefore, giving adopted the children the absolute right to know their biological mothers wouldn’t be good for the biological mothers or the adopted children. In cases where adopted children want to contact their biological parents and vice versa, contact should be conducted via a third party.

Lol..
Ok, for one – not all gay couples want kids. Same way not all hetero couples do.

Two, adoption and surrogacy already exist – even without gay couples! Do you heap the same amount of scorn upon hetero couples who use surrogacy?
To my understanding the idea behind the new law was to ensure that a) exploitation of birthing mothers was eradicated and b) the child will always be able to access information on their biological parents.. But hey – trust you to completely misrepresent the truth in order to manipulate agreement with your ideals.

And 40.3.3 needs to go. Maybe you agree with the torture meted out on pregnant rape / incest victims or couples faced with an FFA diagnosis, but most decent people realise that’s just taking the foetus obsession a little too far. I concede – there isn’t a huge support for unrestricted abortion access, but in order to allow for abortion in any situation outside of life and death 40.3.3 must go. It seems those “pro life” aren’t concerned with the myriad health complications experienced by women in pregnancy, some of which can be permanent – you seem to be of the opinion that you should be able to condemn a woman to disability purely because of your preoccupation with the contents of her womb.

Oh and ps Paddy – the reason they are sorting out the areas of adoption and surrogacy is because;
A) they’re separate to marriage, and shouldn’t be used as a red herring by anyone in the marriage equality debate.
B) these are things that require legislative changes regardless of whether the marriage referendum is passed or not.

You wouldn’t want to discriminate against the already existing children of gay couples would you? I mean, single gay people can adopt – why not gay couples too? What happens when that single gay parent enters a civil partnership? Their partner can’t adopt their kids – if that was a straight single parent who got married their new partner could adopt their kids, why not a gay couple? Is it purely because they are gay?

I won’t even start on the many complications that make the bar on gay adoption hazardous for the children.. But if you think necessitating children being made a ward of the state in an emergency rather than just allow the person they consider to be their parent be their legal guardian I really struggle to see your logic.

Hey Paddy, genuine questions:
Is it frightening knowing the outdated, hurtful and harmful views you hold are in decline in wider society, and that soon they will be a thing of the past?

Will you then become a grumpy old git, saying things like, ‘back in my day, we could legally discriminate, not to mention, force women to become no more than incubators when pregnant’?

@ Ciarán Masterson
You are right in many respects. Some fault however still lies with our institutions and us, even today. They are often so overwhelmed by their workload, that they can never substitute for the care and attention a child would get from its biological parents when things are right. So in that way, not deliberately but often by natural limitations, the HSE contributed to the death of these children. As the HSE only represents us, then we all have culpability. The liberal critics were not as forgiving of the nuns however, when many died in there care, often from virulent diseases, pre antibiotics.
The compulsion women felt to give up their children at that time, was the result of a throwback to Victorianism that had a big impact on the Irish psyche. The one thing that is clear from all the media examples is the appetite people have to know their biology. It is one thing for this to occur unplanned, but for the state to deliberately create parenting situations which create a demand for children who will be, by state decree, fatherless or motherless is a completely different scenario. This is a new state approved/designed form of depravity. And them to call it marriage! In this new arrangement, there is no register the child can come to, to see if they have a parent looking for them; just a sperm bank and/or an off the shelf egg from Eastern Europe.

@ Shanti
Lol all you want, its good for the heart.
International human rights tie marriage and the right to have children together, so with gay marriage (as opposed to partnership) comes the expectation or even right to have/purchase children. There is plenty evidence of the rush to the surrogacy farms in each country/state when gay marriage was introduced. Yes I do disapprove of IVF and surrogacy as a general rule. There is growing evidence of increased risk of health problems among surrogates. You are also aware of the many embryos that are created and lost for each successful IVF child.
40.3.3, does not have to go. Our constitution still overrules all other requests or obligations, real or imaginary. This is the decision of the Irish people. Thank God we have a constitution, that half protects us from politicians on a mission.
I never discriminated against the children of gay couples, their parents did that when they manufactured/bought them. It wasn’t my choice, or the States choice heather too fore, that they be fatherless or motherless.

@ Ailbhe O’Nolan
I have no reason to be frightened myself Ailbhe. What the state sows it will reap. I’d prefer to be outdated and correct any day, to being modern and incorrect.
When you say “Will you then become a grumpy old git”, that carries with it the assumption I am not already. But no, I smile, joke and laugh; much more than your average bear. I have much to be happy and joyful about. Should I apologise?

There you go again Paddy.. Lying through your teeth..
The women in the magdalen laundries didn’t “feel a compulsion” to give up their children – they were FORCED. By people spouting the same beliefs as you.
Mounting evidence of health issues from surrogacy? Massive rushes to this method with the introduction of marriage equality elsewhere – what have I and many others told you about making these statements Paddy? You haven’t backed any of them up, and going on past experience you won’t either – you’re just throwing out whatever you can to try and bolster your argument which is based on no more than lies.
40.3.3 needs to go. Us women – we are not just vessels.

And interesting you’re against IVF, says quite a lot about you.. Would you preclude those who cannot conceive from marriage too? After all, you’d happily preclude them from IVF..

It’s not a Catholic Country. It’s a country that was abused by the RCC for a long time. This is a republic and a democracy. If you was a theocracy go to North Korea or wait a few years and try the USA.

Ireland is not a “Catholic Country”. It is a secular republic, thank you very much.

Well said and good research. Agree.

It’s not a catholic country. It’s a country where grown adults who have long since lost all interest in religion still have church weddings, christenings and funerals because they’re afraid to upset their mummies.

What does a secular republic mean though ? Is it just non religous or is it a true republic of equals where all citizens are cherished equally ?

When you say “citizens are cherished equally” who are you referring to? I’m a citizen of this country. Are you suggesting that were I to fall pregnant the foetus or baby (whatever you want to call it) becomes a full citizen, with all the accompanying rights, at conception? Which automatically seriously infringes my rights as a citizen.

If I had a very rare blood type should I be forced to give blood because I can, quite literally, cause a person to die if they don’t get a blood transfusion? What if the reason they were dying was because I accidentally ran them over. I didn’t MEAN to but I did. Should I be FORCED, against my wishes to give that person a blood transfusion? Or does that seriously infringe my right to bodily autonomy?

Should we take organs from dead bodies to save other peoples lives? Against their or their families wishes? Of course not.

But apparently the second I fall pregnant I HAVE to continue “giving life” to that pregnancy. I “shouldn’t” be allowed to decide whether I WANT to continue. I have to give up my bodily autonomy.

No. My rights as a citizen trump the rights of any foetus.

Tricia i am suggesting nothing… I am asking what does a secular republic mean ? It appears to mean been anti any religion.. I am wondering does it mean ” cherishing all persons” equally as a republic should

I don’t think we are a secular republic.. If we were we wouldn’t have a church monopoly on our education system..
Even going on the census figures the RCC church is massively over represented..

Plus, our elected officials wouldn’t be required to say oaths on a bible..