Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE FOLLOWING IS what the Garda Ombudsman describes as an “approximate transcript” of the audio recording which caused the controversy.
The Garda Ombudsman report, published this lunchtime, has said that the audio should not technically be described as a ‘tape’ as the recording was caught on a “non-removable hard-drive housed inside the camcorder device”. The remarks were not made in front of the two women protestors who were arrested by gardai, the report said.
The recording was accidentally made when the camcorder was taken from one of the women during her arrest. (This is the audio which Dublin Shell to Sea posted on its Vimeo account a year ago – it is not known if this is an uninterrupted recording of all events from the arrest onwards.)
The garda put the camcorder in his pocket and this device had been left in record mode “unknown to the garda concerned who then returned to a Garda vehicle where he joined a number of his colleagues”. The conversation during which the remarks were made happened in the Garda jeep with a sergeant and four gardai present. The report says:
The two females concerned became aware of the alleged conversation after the event, following their release and on reviewing the content of the camcorder that had been returned to them by gardaí.
THE TRANSCRIPT:
Sgt. A “Who is them two lassies – do you know the two of them?”
Garda B “I don’t know the second one, the first one is (refers to Ms. A) with blonde hair”.
Garda C “She was up on the tractor earlier on”.
Sgt. A “It’d do no harm to get the second one’s name again”.
Garda B “She’s some Yank. I don’t know who the fuck she is”.
Garda C “Is she a Yank?”
Garda B “It sounds like it, it sounds like it, the accent anyway”.
Garda D “Sounds like a Yank or Canadian”.
Garda B “Well whoever, we’ll get Immigration fucking on her”.
Sgt. A “She refused to give her name and address and told she would be arrested”.
Garda B “And deported”.
Sgt. A “And raped”.
Garda B “I wouldn’t go that far yet, she was living down at that crusty camp, fuck’s sake, you never know what you might get”.
Laughter
Sgt. A “Give me your name and address or I’ll rape you”.
Garda C “Hold it there, give me your name and address, there, I’ll Facebook you”.
Laughter
Sgt. A “Or I’ll definitely rape you”.
Garda C “Will you be me friend on Facebook?”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
“Two-thirds of GPs will refuse to provide abortion pills”
Refreshing to know there are still some professionals left in medicine.
@Gregory Curtis: From a “closed” forum and further down the article
“Asked how they would vote in the upcoming referendum, 58.5pc of the 518 GPs who responded said they supported the repeal of the Eighth Amendment. Another 25.3pc said they would vote to retain it and 14.5pc were unsure.”
@Gregory Curtis: If it’s their job, they shouldn’t be letting their personal feelings get the better of them & should just get on with it. Same if they’re required to actually carry out an abortion if one is requested.
@Keith McDonagh:
Simon Harris has already stated there will be a provision for any GP wanting to opt out of providing abortion services on ethical grounds.
Quite right too, this isn’t communist east Europe…………….yet.
@David Sinclair: It’s not 1989 anymore either, even though you’d like to drag us back there. Maybe you preferred when Ireland was a Catholic theocracy like Iran is today.
@Michael Knight: if this referendum is passed we are allowing women the choice to have an abortion or not. But you would force a doctor to carry one out regardless of their position. Now who is being unreasonable in not giving the doctor a choice??? There should be a register of practitioners willing to provide the abortion service and consultations. The woman can easily go online to find one or be referred to one. Forcing somebody to consult or carry out a procedure they are uncomfortable with isms taking their choice away is it not??? Or are you only pro-choice for the woman choosing the abortion and everyone else be damned?
@Kevin Tyrrell: Doctors should be given the choice…i’m also sure that there is plenty of doctors out there that will provide that badly needed healthcare to that woman..
@Kevin Tyrrell: is it not a healthcare issue?
Last time I checked a doctor is a healthcare professional and should act as such. Your personal beliefs should have no place in the work environment. We all have to make compromises and do stuff we don’t 100% agree with whilst in work.
@Are roo from Cork: What if a doctor though contraception was a sin and didn’t agree? Should they be able to refuse then?
@DJ François: what was the other .7′s thought on the subject..?
@Richard Lippy Collins: surely a woman who just doesnt want to carry on with a pregnancy and CHOOSES an abortion it would be an elective procedure…not a necessary one surely. It’s not like the fetus will kill her. It’s like having any procedure where you are exercising a choice. It isn’t a life or death thing. In the case of the fetus being a direct threat to the mother then the doctor would be forced to act just by virtue of the hipocratic oath. But in an elective procedure surely not.
@Are roo from Cork: of course there will. That’s the point. And an abortion on demand up to 12 weeks is an elective procedure surely. No doctor should be forced to carry out one of those and as there will be many who will be happy to do it the rights to refuse and refer onwards should be allowed.
@Kevin Tyrrell: “It’s not like the fetus will kill her”
I swear some men seem to think pregnancy is a “walk in the park”
There is a far higher mortality rate in carrying a pregnancy to term then there is in getting an early term abortion.
AND your body never really recovers, there are a multitude of issues that can come from it. https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/features/postpartum-problems#1
BTW, this other idea that it’s only a “risk to life” and not to health is something else that needs to get knocked on the head!
Pregnancy puts a huge toll on a person’s body. Perhaps you could remember that before making such sweeping generalist ions.
@Kevin Tyrrell: @Kevin Tyrrell: Wow. You make it sound like women are off getting boob jobs. Women don’t just wake up, find out they are pregnant and decide to have an invasive, painful, emotional and draining procedure. They weigh up their options, and come to an informed decision so yes, it is a necessary procedure. For reasons that we don’t need to know, a woman should be allowed decide for herself if she wants to carry a fetus to term or not. With it being a healtchare issue the doctor should then put his years of med school to practice and do his job.
@Tricia Golden: Would you consede that an abortion is an elective procedure? The woman is choosing it. She could easily take the time to find a doctor willing to carry it out and it should be only those doctors carrying out the procedure. It isn’t as though the fetus is going to kill at the very minute she finds out she is pregnant and decides to abort. It would be weeks probably before she would be even showing a bump. Do you want to force somebody against their will to carry out the procedure even though there will be many doctors providing an ample service to do so? I would never force anyone to do anything that they were uncomfortable in doing. That is morally and ethically wrong in every way. Stop conflating this into something it’s not.
@Kevin Tyrrell: once a woman has made up her mind to terminate her pregnancy,not even a scan will stop her from ending it..Stop trying to put obstacles in a grown woman’s way..
@Richard Lippy Collins: why can’t she simply go to a doctor willing to carry it out? I’m sure there would be many in each and every county. Is it too much to ask her to drive a few miles to a doctor willing to do it? Seriously…Stop making such a big deal about it. Nobody would be taking her rights to an abortion away. You are being totally inflammatory and exaggerating beyond any sort if reasonable stand point. The services will be widely available…most GPs are statistically pro-choice. So what’s the problem??? There is none…you just need something to be upset about it seems. People should not have to compromise their own ethical beliefs in a scenario where there is ample opportunity for a person requesting the service to avail of it elsewhere.
@Gav Quinn: we have enough ‘pro life’ crap being used against women from procuring an abortion.The last thing that they need would be another weapon to be used…
@Are roo from Cork: I’m not putting obstacles in anyone way. Unless going online and looking up a register of practitioners who carry out abortions and then going to one is an obstacle. There will be more than enough available to do it…so why force a doctor to carry out an abortion who might have reservations about performing the procedure. For one they mat not have any experience in carrying out the procedure and don’t want to for fear of doing harm…and simply refer to a more experienced colleague. Referrals to experts happen all the time. There is nothing wrong with it. I’m sure any doctor not willing for any reason be it experiential or ethical grounds would refer the woman to somebody with the experience and willingness to carry out the abortion. Surely that’s fair enough?? No??
@Kevin Tyrrell: I’m not upset about anything. I’m just saying that a healthcare professional should act as such when in work. Why should someone have to travel, wether it be to England or even a short drive away, to avail of basic healthcare?
@Michael Knight: Jeez I didn’t know Iran is a Catholic theocracy.
@Richard Lippy Collins: what if they have no experience in carrying out abortions and don’t want to get that experience. Can they not simply refer on to somebody who does? Happens all the time in the medical business does it not? And with most GPs being in shared practices now with a number of GPs in one building would you have the woman demand it from a doctor who doesn’t want to…even though there is more than likely one who does just down the hall???
@Gregory Curtis: IT would be more refreshing if more than a third of them were still being professional.
@Gregory Curtis: if you read the article it’s not that they maybe don’t want to…it’s because they have no training in it and would be uncomfortable providing the service in that case. READ THE ARTICLE. :-)For instance… I’m an engineer…if I am asked to design a structure that I have no expertise or training in should I not be allowed to refer to a firm or person that does? It’s disungenuous to say they are not willing to provide the service because they don’t want to…it says clearly they would be against it given they have no experience and no training and would prefer to refer to a practitioner that does…the same way me as an engineer would. Stop making things up and telling blatant untruths…or did you simply not read the article…just the headline???
@Kevin Tyrrell: Considering the vast majority will be medical abortions what you’re suggesting is that they don’t write a prescription.
@Kevin Tyrrell: it’s not a matter of wanting to. It’s a matter of doing your job.
@Richard Lippy Collins: Your job should never include killing an innocent. Never!
@Tricia Golden: are you a doctor??? Probably not. So maybe let them decide what is a safe Service to provide…No?? If they think there may be problems with them providing a safe service shouldnt it be up to the doctor. Maybe read the article the original poster put a link to. Or will you start coming into my office now demanding I design bridges when I’m a structural engineer and not a civil engineer…and yeah I could have a stab at it but it might fall down. I’m sure there will be many places to get the pill…the government will have to ensure there are I’m sure. Or do you want women being treated or seen by people who are not sure they are providing a safe service??? Not very good for the woman is it?
@Kevin Tyrrell: Let’s put it like this, should doctors also be allowed to refuse treatment to gay, lesbian, and transgender people, because they may disapprove of their “lifestyle”? Once you’re a healthcare professional, you have to leave your personal beliefs behind, and just treat everyone, and that also means, providing an abortion, if needed or requested.
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: what are you talking about? I’m not saying that at all. I am merely saying some doctors might not want to do the procedure. They would be legally bound to refer the woman to sonebody who does. And many doctors might not have the medical training or expertise to consult or advise or carry out the procedure either. Surely in that case they refer to an experienced practitioner. Not every doctor is an expert in performing abortions. I’m sure many many aren’t. Are they all supposed to be lined up and forced to learn the procedure now? There are specialists in every field of medicine…and there will be in this area too. Is that not fair to say??? So what’s the problem? The woman will have to be referred…or do you want all and sundry doing this unsafely?
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: because it sounds to me that you lot want to just be able to pop down the local shop and get an abortion pill or rock up to the local GP…jump onto the table and say get rid of this for me doc. Zero regulation and zero time spent waiting. Are you taking this thing seriously at all???
@Keith McDonagh: Mo they should not be required to go against their consciences and kill babies in the womb. Why would you think it is ok to force doctors to kill? Is this just another example of intolerance of other people’s rights from ProChoice.
@Michael Knight: nothing to do with Catholicism. Stick to the issue
@Richard Lippy Collins: That is a scary statement!
@Tricia Golden: Why don’t you stop the diatribe. Most women who have babies don’t make such a mountain out of a molehill. As a woman who had several (not exactly easy) pregnancies, I have to say this is a pretty natural process without after effects for most women.
@Richard Lippy Collins: Because killing a baby is not “health care”.
@Kevin Tyrrell: Some doctors are not prepared to introduce killing babies in their surgeries & won’t hire doctors who do it. Those wanting it can’t force a doctor to do it. Unfortunately doctors on medical card schemes will likely be punished by withdrawal of funding & will be pressurized to go against their consciences. If I were a doctor, I wouldn’t take medical health card patients at all. Doctors should think carefully about what will be forced on them, in hospitals, practice doctors in primary care etc. It isn’t just a case of ‘if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one’. So many others implicated like nurses, nurses aids and don’t forget the porters who will be left holding the (dead) baby or the dismembered baby parts for disposal.
@Gav Quinn: You can buy contraception in the jacks of any pub ..
@Tricia Golden: Do a little research. The mifeprex (mifepristone) chemical abortion pill is not a vitamin tablet. Its not a pain killer. Its not an anti inflammatory. It can have quite severe side effects. It isnt something you pop in your mouth and walk off never having to see the doctor again. Would you not think that prescribing and administering a drug and giving competent advice and aftercare would be essential to the health and safety of the woman?? Maybe not all GP’s are confident that they can safely provide this service. Maybe it should be a specialist like a gynecologist or somebody with training and a full working knowledge of the female reproductive system giving the advice and administering it? Somebody with training and experience of the drug, its side effects, and god forbid its limitations so they can properly act if something does go wrong and a surgical abortion is required. You lot sound like you are experts in the field and saying…ah sure its only an abortion pill….its grand. Pop it into you there and head off and no worries. Until maybe the woman has an adverse reaction or a complication and end up in hospital because the GP was not competent in the administering of the drug. And Im not scare mongering…go look it up yourself.
http://abortionpillrisks.org/risk-warnings/contraindications/#contraindications-mifepristone
http://abortionpillrisks.org/risk-warnings/contraindications/#contraindications-qa
@Kevin Tyrrell: excellent post.
@Richard Lippy Collins: so do you agree then that a woman who wants a c section for delivery of a baby is her Choice and should not be forced to deliver natural birth, there is very many hospitals that will not provide a elective c section, never mind doctors, and parents often have to go into huge debt to obtain a elective c section. Or are they just too posh to push?
@Michael Knight: I didn’t know that Iran was a Catholic theocracy.
From the site kevin linked to….
abortionpillrisks.org/about/
“This website is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.”
@Johnny Bellew: @Johnny Bellew: Anti choicers view it as killing an innocent. I view it as a medical procedure that a woman may need to have due to circumstances that don’t allow her to continue with a pregnancy.
@Sighle A. Ni Chuana: It’s not killing a baby. It’s terminating a pregnancy. You make it sound evil.
@dec dunne: Well, yeah. If she wants a c section, give her a c section. I don’t see the problem there.
@Kevin Tyrrell: yes. That is exactly what should happen. No judgemental attitudes like yours. No waiting period. A decision between one woman and one doctor. On demand. Butt out. You will never be pregnant
@Kevin Slater: all I am saying is the decision should also be allowed to be by the doctor that may be they don’t feel they are competent, qualified to offer an abortion service. Many posters on here were saying a doctor should have no grounds to not do the abortion…and lack of experience or training is apparently a cop out. So my remark that you are commenting on was a bit facetious but all my other comments are standing by a doctor’s right to not offer the service if they feel they don’t have the expertise to offer it. Abortion practitioners should be regulated so they know what they are doing and how to offer a safe service. Many on here want to be able to go to a GP demand the abortion pill and walk away. It’s not that easy…that pill needs to be given by a qualified specialist.
@The Risen: okay so. Hypothetical for you. You have a female relative that is in need of an abortion. All doctors must provide the service since we are in your ideal world. They don’t get to have a choice. Now. You send your female relative to the local GP who has admitted he has never prescribed the abortion pill before…has no actual experience with any aftercare or complications and would rather refer your relative to a specialist. There is a specialist in the town 15 miles away. Would you have her demand the GP prescribes the pill and looks after her and takes care of her aftercare etc….or would you simply tell her to take the referal to the specialist who actually deals with this on a daily basis? That to me is a very easy question to answer. You go to the specialist. Every time.
@Kevin Tyrrell: I am not surprised that many GPs are unwilling to administer abortion pills. Firstly contrary to what some maintain abortion is killing a fetus-baby in the womb. GP training is to preserve life. Besides the ‘guidelines’ are so vague. Unspecified time lapse between request and administration 3mins, 3 days +. Will a GP risk litigation if s/he delays ‘too long’. My most recent experience of booking a GP appointment for flu symptoms was a 5day delay before seeing a GP. If this happens with over-worked GPS will they fear being sued? Conscientious GPs may refuse the pills to a woman over 35 years, or a smoker or a patient with breathing or cardiovascular problems. Will such a GP fear being sued. Only some of the reasons why an over-busy GP will say more trouble than it’s worth.
@Michael Knight:
No.It’s 2018 and Simon Harris has already stated that GPs who wish to opt out of providing abortion services on ethical grounds can do so.
Do try to keep up.
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus:
‘should doctors also be allowed to refuse treatment to gay, lesbian, and transgender people, because they may disapprove of their “lifestyle”?
It’s highly unlikely that gay, lesbian or transgender people will find themselves pregnant.
GPs who refuse to provide abortion services do so on ethical grounds.
It is quite right that Minister Harris has allowed them an opt out clause.
And I’m sure if the EU creates a federal army then no doubt you will be supporting any gay, lesbian or transgender person who wishes to opt out as a conscientious objector.
@Tricia Golden: abortion isn’t risk free either
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/risks/
@David Sinclair: gay/lesbian women can and do get pregnant through a number of different methods. Ridiculous to assume otherwise.
@Kevin Tyrrell: The results from this pilot study might help to ease your mind/or not…Time will tell
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/31/new-us-program-abortion-without-clinic-mifepristone-mifeprex
One of the rules for this campaign is the repeal side can use Savita but the no camp can’t talk about Down Syndrome & abortion’s impact on that.
@DPentony: Down syndrome will not be grounds for abortion though. This has been discussed at great length at this stage and yet people are still trying to use these people for their political aims.
@Ricky Spanish: There won’t even have to be a reason.
@Ricky Spanish: wait for it. With your knowledge can you explain how they will deal with rape cases
@Biggus Diccus: I assume you forgot to include “up to 12 weeks” otherwise you could be accused of deliberately spreading inaccurate information…which I’m sure was not your intention.
If we can at least try to keep this debate factual it would be a big help.
@DPentony:
FREE condoms if you vote with the government?
@DPentony: It doesn’t help the anti-choicers case that they are spouting non facts about abortion rates of fetuses diagnosed with Downs. The anti-choice campaign is now really just being driven by the hope that people will go, aww those poor children, why would anybody do that?! It’s disgusting and makes me sick.
@DPentony: Amniocentesis to diagnose Down Syndrome is after week 15, too late. Proposal up to 12 weeks wouldn’t have any impact there.
@Richard Lippy Collins: You better get used the idea of the referendum being defeated. I wasn’t one of them but 38% voted against gay marriage, these people will certainly vote against abortion. In theory it shouldn’t be hard to find about 15% more this time. I & many others who supported gay marriage won’t vote for abortion, this is what I’m hearing. This is the group of people who will defeat this. Death is going to such a hard sell for you guys. The save the 8th campaign have a much more simple effective message.
Such a waiting period sounds draconian. A distressed woman should not be forced to wait for treatment just to appease some Catholic fundamentalists in Fine Gael.
@Christian Taylor: Five years for a divorce is draconian. Five days is suitable.
@Christian Taylor: 5 days is fine. And this has nothing to do with religion. Stop making it out to be.
@Christian Taylor: Doesn’t address any issue, only meant to force people to wait and for what purpose? Why include it? It’s patriarchal at best, it won’t change anything, it’s an attempt to appear in control, it’s herding cats in reality.
@Gav Quinn: It does address an issue, actually, I would say. It’s giving the woman (and possibly her partner) time to reflect once a decision has been made. I think five days is too long because if you’re going to abort, do it as soon as possible because no one knows when the soul joins the body. I’m not religious at all but I am self-aware and I’m quite certain that most other creatures (humans and otherwise) are too.
To throw in the word patriarchal here though is quite daft. Stirring nonsense into a serious question.
@Philip O Brien: ‘when the soul joins the body’s
Glad to see the pro lifers admit their side is based on a load of hokum
@Chucky Arlaw: Have you got a reasonable statement to make or do you just have shite talk to fling around?
Call it what you will, a soul, self awareness, whatever. I know I have it and I don’t need any religion or label to be sure of that. Not so sure about the likes of you, based on your recent confession.
@Philip O Brien: Her partner doesn’t get a say, rightly so too. It’s her body, not his. It’s FORCING her to wait, it’s assuming she needs time to rethink. It’s enough to assume she has already thought it through, but you proved my point. The reflection period is being inserted for others to feel better.
@Gav Quinn: Her partner, assuming she has one, does have a say. I’ve gone through two abortions with two different women I was with, and I had a say in each case, by which I mean we both sat down and discussed the issue, and decided together what to do.
Aborting a child is not a minor decision, so once you make the decision official by going to see the doctor or clinician, it’s probably not a bad idea to have some time to think about it within the context of “now I’ve made my mind up, does this change how I feel?”
I do think that five days is too long though. It might be better to say “come back in 48 hours and if you still feel the same way, we’ll do it then”.
@Christian Taylor: hold on. I’m a Catholic and proud of it. Tell me how will they deal with rape cases
@Philip O Brien: well if self awareness is the test babies aren’t actually self aware: ie understand the distinction between self and non-self until the age of two
Souls and self awareness are no part of this debate
@Gav Quinn: dude, it’s like a cooling off period when you sign a new contract. you have 14 days to go off and think, and you can change your mind in those 14 days. we need to trust women, but they aren’t infallible, and believe it or not, they do change their minds sometimes, just like men… so why shouldn’t there be a period where they can go and reflect before making the ultimate decision?
@Chucky Arlaw: Souls and self awareness are not part of this debate, but in my opinion, it’s really all that matters.
It’s an inadequate argument, I feel, to talk about infants understanding the difference between self and non self. There is a point somewhere between conception and death where the soul joins the body. I’m not religious, so I don’t want to waste much time contemplating the God Theory, but I wonder will science ever be able to prove when a bunch of cells becomes a “me”.
The only difficulty I have with abortion is that we don’t know at what point a bunch of cells becomes a bunch of cells with an assigned conscious entity.
If I grew a bunch of human cells into a tree of organs in the lab from which I could pick a new heart, lungs or big toe from, and one day I unplugged it from its energy source and it died, my feeling is that no wrong has been done, because it was never going to become something independent with its own thoughts and perspective.
A foetus in the gestational phase may or may not be just a bunch of cells. If I knew for a fact that there’s no soul (simplified term) attached, fine, I have no ethical issue. If I knew for a fact that there is a soul there, I do have an ethical issue.
The only thing I am certain of is that I don’t know, and the women I’ve known or loved don’t know either, so it’s not about trusting them as such. It’s far deeper than that, and far deeper than big mouths or flag wavers or banner holders on either side of the debate.
@Christian Taylor: Maybe we should just go for abortion if the woman has a headache! How could anyone expect a woman to continue being pregnant if she has a headache?
@Gav Quinn: maybe wait so that the woman doesn’t make a rash decision while emotionally upset. They give you a 14-day cooling down period if you buy something!!!
@Sighle A. Ni Chuana: Do you have children? Do you get headaches? Were the 2 connected?
@Philip… What???
Your talking about how we have souls etc
You don’t mind abortion if they don’t have it but have ethical problems if they do!
Yet you supported two women through abortion?!
We have souls.
(self awesomeness, doesn’t happen till much older in our life)
The building blocks for Human life are there from the moment of conception, so If your in doubt assume its from conception when all else is created.
@Bridget: “You don’t mind abortion if they don’t have it but have ethical problems if they do!
Yet you supported two women through abortion?!”
Correct – both of the incidents in question happened quite a long time ago, circa 2000/2002. I’m pretty sure I was manipulated into believing the first was mine, but the second certainly was. Both came about through careless behaviour, and both may well have been completely avoided if abortion wasn’t available anywhere. I make that latter point based on the learned notion that making mistakes is more likely if you know deep down there’s a way out of it (which there was for me and the women in question – but not for the children in question, of course).
I am well aware of the contradiction in my actions before and my attitude now. Some might call that hypocrisy, but I see it as learning from my mistakes. If I got a woman pregnant today, I’d encourage her to keep the child. At the same time, I’m far less likely to take stupid risks because while I could “get away” with it before by “fixing” my mistakes, I don’t consider that to be an acceptable way out now – for the reasons that I’ve stated before (we don’t know when the soul arrives into the body).
“The building blocks for human life are there from the moment of conception, so if you’re in doubt, assume it’s from conception when all else is created.”
While I agree with the biology, I’m not sure about the metaphysical aspect of this, by which I mean I am not convinced that the soul arrives upon creation of the zygote (the initial fusion which occurs when the male sperm implants into the female egg). What I do know is that the soul does arrive at some point after conception and before birth. I don’t know the answer to this question, and while I somewhat agree that in cases where you don’t know, you ought to err on the side of caution, I will never make any assumptions about this.
In the event that I am lucky enough to have a wife one day and we are lucky enough to have a child on the way, if it turns out that continuing with the pregnancy puts my wife in unusual danger, there is no way I would want to continue with that pregnancy. Her opinion would matter too of course, but a potential new life does not get to usurp the place of an existing life, and I would say that no matter how far along the pregnancy is.
” (self awesomeness, doesn’t happen till much older in our life)”
I don’t understand this statement at all, sorry.
That was absolutely absolutely shameless from Minister Harris, to exploit Savita’s death to further his pro-abortion agenda. I wonder will he show as much pity over the countless lives lost in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy should he and his cohorts get the chance to bring in legislation to let the killing of innocents begin?
@Johnny Bellew: you stated before that thousands of lives have been saved because of the 8th. I asked you to provide some information baking this up, I am still waiting
@Johnny Bellew: Nobody’s killing anyone, they’re talking about allowing women the choice to have an abortion for whatever their reasons. If they feel it’s the right move then it’s very much up to them & if they don’t feel it’s the right move, they don’t have to do it. It won’t be compulsary so don’t worry about it.
@Keith McDonagh: But abortion is killing. Even the most pigheaded abortionist will admit that.
@Johnny Bellew: “Let the killing of innocents begin” – emotional BS aside.Abortions began a long time back.
@Johnny Bellew: It’s the termination of an unwanted pregnancy. The pigheaded ones are the ones who can’t see that.
@Johnny Bellew: given your past comments on how homosexuality is obscene I’m not surprised you’re on the Catholic churchs side for this one
@Johnny Bellew: well said.
Harris and cohorts showing their true colours.
Recommend everyone to attend the Right to Life Rally this Saturday 2pm.
Unborn Babies need a voice and someone to protect them.
Government wants zero protection of life for unborn babies.
@Johnny Bellew:
Abortion sounds INTENSE. I can’t wait for my first one.
I think as an introductory offer some clinics should offer a Buy One Get One Free.
@Keith McDonagh: It is killing, Keith, make no mistake. And never be afraid to admit that to yourself.
@Are roo from Cork: Of course, killing an innocent life is emotional. How could it not be?
@Johnny Bellew: Johnny, on behalf of the people who trust women in relation to their reproductive rights, I’d like the thank you for your tireless work for the pro choice side.
Please, keep up the inflammatory, hyperbolic language….
@Johnny Bellew: It had no life to begin with.However,the woman has a life.She is also the one that will have to ‘live’ with her decision.
@The Risen: Sometimes facts, because of their very nature, may sound inflammatory/hyperbolic, but at the end of the day they are simply facts.
@Johnny Bellew: You’re a total misogynist and always have been Johnny, everyone knows that.
@Are roo from Cork: To say it had no life to begin with is bordering on the ridiculous.
@Johnny Bellew: Ban condoms too Johnny, eh? No pun intended.
@Johnny Bellew: “@The Risen: Sometimes facts, because of their very nature, may sound inflammatory/hyperbolic, but at the end of the day they are simply facts.”
Oh, you like facts Johnny do you? Well riddle me this. If you have such a problem with abortion why do you worship a God that mandates it in your holy book?
@Pconor: but if the pregnant woman doesn’t want to be pregnant then she will go to the UK and have an abortion or will buy abortion pills online. How are you protecting the unborn as they will continue to have no choice should the pregnant woman decide she doesn’t want to continue being pregnant. Going abroad for an abortion is legal and Irish woman by the thousand are having abortions.
@Pconor: but when they’re born you don’t give a feck about them?
@Johnny Bellew: I did say it won’t be compulsary so if a woman doesn’t plan on having one, she doesn’t need to worry & neither does anyone else for that matter. Women who want one already go to England for them anyway, you can’t stop it so you may as well make it more easier & let them get it done here. You don’t have to support it but you have to understand that’s it’s their choice to make & you just have to deal with it. Don’t want one, don’t get one, don’t worry about it. Problem solved.
@Brian Madden: that’s no comparison at all. Traveling to the US to procure a gun to commit a murder is also legal, yet we don’t stop people from traveling.
@Johnny Bellew: To say that it had a life is bordering on the delusional..
@Sean @114: eh? Does the Irish government give that info to it’s citizens ?
@Sean @114: what a ridiculous comparison
@Brian Madden: Actually it is quite a poignant comparison.
@Johnny Bellew: this referendum is about abortion and not about gun control. Can you please provide me with some proof that thousands of lives have and are being saved as a result of the 8th as you mentioned. Cora Sherlock mention five thousand per year. Can you explain to me how the process life group gets this figure?
@Keith McDonagh: There’s no point in reasoning with Johnny Bellend, he’s just another forced-birther troll
@Johnny Bellew: “About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks.
This doesn’t include situations in which you lose a fertilized egg before a pregnancy becomes established. Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time.” https://www.babycenter.com/0_miscarriage-signs-causes-and-treatment_252.bc
@Brian Madden: why is it ridiculous Brian? It’s spot on! The mechanism (travel), process (securing the means) and result (ending of life) are all the same are they not?
@Sean @114: but we are not voting in gun control. We are voting on abortion. You need to go back onto the fox news website
@Brian Madden: it’s called an analogy Brian. It’s spot on. You’re concerned that the state permits women to travel to UK to end life via abortion but you’ve no concern for them traveling and ending life by any other means. Bizarre!
@Sean @114: are you giving equal rights to the born with the unborn? Why is it that abortion is legal and killing a born person Isn’t? If life begins at conception then why is the morning after pill legal?
@Keith McDonagh: If somebody thinks of abortion as really just being about ending a human life, this line of thought isn’t going to reassure them. What you’re essentially saying is ‘the government has legalised badger baiting, but if it bothers you, remember it’s not compulsory, you don’t have to do it’.
That doesn’t address any of the concerns the pro-life people have.
@Brian Madden: they’re giving more rights to the non viable embryo than to any born person when it comes to using another persons organs….they’re saying that that human embryo doesn’t need the consent from the human being, but once it’s born, it does…
*****consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy****
Savita’s death was caused by sepsis compounded by gross medical negligence. Three independent investigations have confirmed this. Absolutely nothing to do with the 8th Amendment and shame on Simon Harris for trying to exploit her death in this manner. Her husband has previously asked that her name be left out of Ireland’s abortion debate.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/keep-savitas-name-out-of-abortion-row-husband-29096789.html
@Emma Murphy: if she had been given the abortion when she asked for it she would have survived. The eighth amendment killed her
@Emma Murphy: Do you know more than Dr Peter Boylan, chair of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and former master of the National Maternity Hospital?
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2017/10/19/dr-boylan-savita-would-have-survived/
Boylan: “Of course she died of septicaemia, she wouldn’t have got septicaemia if her uterus was empty and any practicing doctor knows that and anybody who claims otherwise is really not telling the truth.”
Shame on you Emma
@The Risen: Ah, Dr Peter Boylan. We all know his form. Just ask his sister-in-law.
@Emma Murphy: your wrong
@Chucky Arlaw: how do you know this. If she had sepsis likelihood she’d still no survive.
@willypearson: It’s “you’re” so you’re wrong twice.
@Emma Murphy: well said, the truth needs to be told
@Emma Murphy: Did they ever find out who put the excrement onto the Yob Defence HQ ? Wasn’t an inside job,no ? Plenty of excrement inside there…
@The Risen: Its normal procedure with a miscarriage to let nature run its course. Savitas blood tests were not followed up which led to the septicaemia not being diagnosed. They were the findings and thats a fact and Dr Boylan is being deliberately misleading cos we all know he is stone mad for abortion.
@Emma Murphy: Did you get your nursing qualifications in the same place as PosterBoy Noel Patrun? http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/03/08/a-pro-life-pattern
@Emma Murphy: don’t let facts get in the way of them using a woman’s death to forge their lies.
Save the 8th. And btw I have zero religion. Now square that peg repeals
@Chucky Arlaw: WRONG WRONG. please educate yourself and read one of the reports in to the poor ladies death.
Shame on Harris for bringing her name up.
@Sinead Hanley: sure weren’t you ‘stone mad’ for an abortion,too ?
What did you make of the situation of the young woman who died in the back of a taxi in the UK ? Do you believe that the 8th saved her life ?
Such a wonderful act of self-deception couched as ‘termination of pregnancy’ but what it actually does is break the chain of life by dehumanization or inserting the idea of subhuman where none existed before. I understand from experience that the readership of the Journal are prepared to consider the issue as a woman/foetus or woman/pregnancy while ignoring that it is not a gender issue but rather how far people are willing to deceive themselves at the expense of the most cherished relationship in society – mother, parents and child.
@Gerald Kelleher:
A free abortion for everyone in the audience please Ryan.
@Gerald Kelleher: it’s a gendered issue while women are the only ones who can carry a child. You and your church will dictate to women of Ireland no longer
@Chucky Arlaw: I look at the standard of discussion here and it is fairly poor – normally an attempt is made to make it a denominational Church issue when it is, in fact, a vapid language issue where mother and developing child are entirely absent from consideration. There is nothing positive about the ending of a life so if people are willing to distance the woman from the developing child in her womb by an act of self-deception based on words, then they die in themselves as reasoning humans.
Nobody dares touch the word ‘subhuman’ and that will get me banned but it is the word that encompasses this whole issue.
@Gerald Kelleher: “the word ‘subhuman’ …………….. is the word that encompasses this whole issue.”
You forgot “IN MY OPINION”.
And considering we’ve all read your rambling opinions no one can be ar$ed trying to get sense out of you.
@Chucky Arlaw: Put down your trumpet, you daft troll! Abortion is not a gendered issue in the sense that the arrival or not of a new human being affects both parents.
Unless of course you’re the sort who likes to dip his wick and run, which, judging by your other comments here, indicate a sort of brainlessness that wouldn’t surprise me at all.
@Tricia Golden: Fair enough, I wouldn’t expect anyone who avoids the words mother/child would find anything positive in this issue. The use of the word ‘subhuman’ was always towards extermination purposes and used in different centuries for different things but unfortunately the ‘pro-lifers’ are just not interested in the historical development and its awful consequences.
@Chucky Arlaw: what church. Why are you not including other faiths churches in this
@Gerald Kelleher: but Gerald you are actually a devout Catholic are you not? You go so far as to deny Newtonian physics because the Church tells you to
So therefore it seems likely that your anti choice views come from your allegiance to the Catholic church. And of course everyone knows that the Catholic ‘concern’ for the unborn is rooted in their medieval desire to control women. Just look at how your precious church treated children under its care to look at the altruism behind their actions
@Chucky Arlaw: You can’t help yourselves can you as this is not a Church issue or a gender issue, it is however whether you can even bring yourself to write about mother and developing child instead of an Oireachtas report that can only mention woman/foetus or woman/pregnancy.
The chain of life as a concept doesn’t take a holiday because people are dead set in dividing mother from developing child for extermination purposes so it is an individual act of self-deception to believe woman/ foetus is something less than what it actually is.
You remind me of the brexiteers who develop impossible notions yet truly believe by some reworking of language that the border problem will go away where the North overlaps the South and the UK overlaps the EU -
By trying to isolate a mother from developing child it creates a society that loses self-respect as it is prepared to believe anything because of the wishes of one sector of society. No point in complaining about brexiteers when we as a nation are prepared to apply the same self-deception by imposing impossible notions on life in the womb.
@Gerald Kelleher: well said. Agree 100%.
Can see the referendum passing. People trusting politicians to decide??? As a country where has that ever got us…
@Chucky Arlaw: Because you want to bash the Church is no reason to mix it up with abortion. You obviously aren’t aware that there are atheists, LGBT, all religions and none, all professions and none who are against abortion so stop using the FG propaganda in their document for canvassers when they were talking about priests in the debate – “attack the Institution of the Church” also they said link the Catholic Church to Prolife! We know it is a tactic and if you want credibility in the debate, stick to the issue and leave the straw men out of it.
Please correct me if I’m wrong (with a source) but as far as I know there were three inquests into the death and all three found medical negligence to be the result. Nothing to do with the abortion laws in place.
@Patric Cooney: Never let facts get in the way of a few crocodile tears in the Dail, particularly if there are TV cameras present.
@Patric Cooney: if she’d been given an abortion when she asked she would have survived. The 8th killed her
@Chucky Arlaw: Correct. Had she been given the abortion when she requested it (for a fetus that was dying anyway, remember) she would almost definitely not developed the sepsis that killed her.
@Chucky Arlaw: Thumbs up for one sensible thing you’ve said anyway!
@Chucky Arlaw: but the reports found that the 8th didn’t apply and shouldn’t have resulted in her not getting an abortion? The wording of the 8th should have allowed her to obtain one so if anything it’s to do with educating doctors about what the 8th means.
@Patric Cooney: Correct, Patric.
Will the minister also remember Daphne Anderson who also died from sepsis?
@Little Nero: they died from sepsis.
@Little Nero: Was she miscarrying for days before dying?
@Daisy Chainsaw: At 91 years old I wouldn’t have thought so. Of course that might lead a reasonable person to suspect that the 8th amendment could not have been a factor in how her case was managed and there is a wider problem with the treatment of sepsis cases.
@Little Nero: Which Irish hospital mismanaged Daphne’s sepsis case?
Harris and his cronies are cowards ,another political stunt to bring in the wholesale slaughter of the innocent ,they have from the outset built their pro abortion agenda on the negative ,in a country where many couples who are unable to conceive ,where many travel abroad to adopt ,we give the green light to destroy our own native unborn children .the children of the state born or unborn are all our responsibility .society is a collective ,a child in the mothers womb has the basic right to be protected not exterminated .natural laws rise above mans laws and the right to life is fundamental to our own very existence .the republic is a commonwealth ,children born or unborn are part of that common wealth .we have no right to have them sacrificed .
@Anthony Gallagher: Whilst I feel for women who can’t conceive and/or have to go abroad to adopt, I fail to see the connection between that and the issue if abortion.
Are you suggesting that we carry on forcing women to carry to term so they can then in turn give their baby away to someone who cannot or chooses not to concieve?
Also, there is nothing sacrificial about an abortion.
@Anthony Gallagher: In keeping with natural law, if couples can’t have children, maybe it’s nature telling them they shouldn’t.
It’s not up to a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant to be livestock for the barren.
@Anthony Gallagher: well said Anthony.
@Daisy Chainsaw: these guys are a hoot :) If they want to ‘protect’ that “child” in the womb,why are they not looking to repeal the 13/14th amendments? Why are they not losing their minds at the 1500 women that are taking the abortion pills from right under their noses…
Beginning to veer to a no with this information. Usually not involved with the abortion debate but the first bullet point is troubling for me. It sounds similar to the provision which brought in abortion in demand in the UK and possibly negates the 12 week limit.
@UnTriggeredv2: sure.
@UnTriggeredv2: Sure, Jan.
@UnTriggeredv2: The first bullet point is necessary to allow a pregnant person receive medical treatment and/or medication for conditions and events that arise while pregnant, such as cancer or brain bleeds, that under Article 40.3.3 may be prohibited due to the possibility of causing harm or death to the foetus.
@UnTriggeredv2: Ditto
“termination up to 12 weeks of pregnancy will be permitted without specific indication.” That’s a bit vague. How does a GP determine whether the fetus is 12 weeks old?
@EK: How does a preganancy test tell you how many weeks pregnant you are?
@EK: the baby puts a chalk mark on the wall of the womb every day it’s in there. So one of the lads say anyway.
@EK: a day or two either way will be grand…
The fact is the vast majority of abortions are carried out long before the 12 week cutoff.
The irony being Irish women with the additional burden of travel (and all that can entail (raising money, time off from work, organising childcare, flights etc.)) led to them have later term abortions than would have occurred had they been able to access abortions in Ireland.
@Tricia Golden: if they’d bother to look at the UK abortion stats,they would find out that most Irish women have the procedure carried out before the 10th week…
@EK: Thanks for the replies guys. I had to laugh at the chalk one. Apparently there’s a company that sells pregnancy testers that can tell you how far along you are.
@EK: Scans are what determine how far you are gone but in the UK they don’t let women see the results because they often change their minds when they see a real baby instead of a ‘clump of cells’
@Sighle A. Ni Chuana: That is a LIE.
Can’t you people realise you harm your own cause by lying so blatantly?
Personally, I don’t like the idea of a “waiting period”, however I could tolerate it. About time women were allowed to control their own body after becoming pregnant.
#Repealthe8th
@Tricia Golden: I’m in two minds over the waiting period, on the one hand, I don’t like it, and think it has only been included to appease some fence sitting people, on the other hand, a waiting period of say 24 to 48 hours, after the doctor has explained what is involved in the procedure, for the woman to make up her mind, if she really wants to go through with the abortion, that I could live with
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: The waiting period is understandable and it does give the woman time to make sure that this is her choice, but she should also have access to a local doctor or clinic, not be forced to hang around in expensive accommodation in a city waiting for that time to lapse.
Such a wonderful act of self-deception couched as ‘termination of pregnancy’ but what it actually does is break the chain of life by dehumanization or inserting the idea of subhuman where none existed before. I understand from experience that the readership of the Journal are prepared to consider the issue as a woman/foetus or woman/pregnancy while ignoring that it is not a gender issue but rather how far people are willing to deceive themselves at the expense of the most cherished relationship in society – mother, parents and child.
Absolutely horrified that the Journal banned me for a more expansive view of the issue.
@Gerald Kelleher: “Absolutely horrified that the Journal banned me for a more expansive view of the issue.”
I think it’s fairly safe to assume that you were banned for calling people rascists gerald, not your (chuckle) ‘expansive views’
@The Risen: Nobody was called a racist however scientific language supports the notion of subhuman which far exceeds any racist ideas. It is the major framework that provides the background for this issue as woman/foetus are being misdirected towards extermination where once scientific language was used for humane purposes like miscarriages and difficult pregnancies where loss of life is unavoidable.
You have had your fun and games and so what if I am banned again, it may even help other readers appreciate how their own decency stacks up against those like yourself who have convictions but stand for nothing positive.
@Gerald Kelleher: If you could go ahead and provide citations for your assertion that “scientific language supports the notion of subhuman” in the context you are implying, that would be great.
@Felicity Hensen: I already did many, many times before insofar as the term ‘anthropomorphous’ became accepted via natural selection and is still taught in secondary schools as an achievement. Nobody wants to go there , not even the ‘pro-lifers’, but that language swamps the issue which dilutes normal language of mother/developing child into woman/foetus where it can be directed towards extermination policies rather than the humane language which surrounds miscarriages and other medical problems with pregnancies.
The gender issue spills over into normal pregnancy where at the same time parents are celebrating the upcoming birth of their child while others are exterminating a foetus. It is not a gender issue, not a Church issue, not anything else other than a use of language for an act of communal self-deception.
@Gerald Kelleher: The term anthropomorphsis relates to the giving of human features, firstly, to deities. It was our arrogance & ignorance that claimed all other species were incapable of self-awareness & emotions. But I fail to see what either anthropomorphsis or natural selection has to do with a foetus, or the provision of abortion services. And as you have provided citations “many, many times before”, I’m sure you will do me the courtesy of providing one more.
@Felicity Hensen: Anthropomorphous apes was the term used to describe negroes and aborigines as evolutionary props within a natural selection narrative which distinguished glorious white skin people from gorillas and baboons. Once the notion became accepted then subhuman entered academic language as a principle and so it remains to this day. Anthropomorphous morphed into untermensch through the national socialists and now foetus for extermination purposes in Ireland.
Those with a balanced view make their case on the use of language like mother and child or mother and developing baby however there is another issue , almost totally ignored, where subhuman or something less than human provides the basis for extermination of life or termination of pregnancy as it is called in some circles. This issue is so unpopular that I invite being banned rather than have citizens here look at the use of language head on.
@Felicity Hensen: Even people who consider themselves intellectually strong find it almost impossible to put the academic acceptance of subhuman in context -
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Darwin
Once a society breaks the chain of life by inserting subhuman at a specific time in a child’s development for nothing other than willful extermination purposes, that society becomes diminished and in fact it may already be diminished. Try to make a positive out of killing is self-deception.
@Gerald Kelleher: It appears you are trying to use the necessity of repealing the current version of Article 40.3.3 from the Irish Constitution to promote racism and bigotry. At no point is a foetus considered “subhuman”. That term is only used by racists. It is not used by scientists. It has no part in an accurate understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Access to abortion services will not, as shown by all other jurisdictions where it is legally available, lead to “willful extermination”.
@Felicity Hensen: ” At no point is a foetus considered “subhuman”. ”
The only means to exterminate a developing child in the womb is to dehumanize that child so it is ultimately a vapid language argument and an act of self-deception. The danger always was that the humane language surrounding miscarriages and pregnancies in difficulties would be swamped by gender issues.
As for racist, give me a break, the aborigine/ anthropomophous ape part of that natural selection ideology refers to the genocide that happened in Tasmania in the early 19th century when the aborigine population was wiped out by settlers.
@Felicity Hensen: “It [subhuman] is not used by scientists. It has no part in an accurate understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection.”
You asked me to provide a citation where a subhuman term is used and anthropomorphous within the context of natural selection was the original bridge between glorious white skin people and baboons so you can’t have any complaints. Darwin would have known about the aborigine genocide on that lovely island of Tasmania so he wasn’t a racist or bigot when he suggested extermination of anthropomorphous apes, in this case native Tasmanians, he was just considering the matter as an academic with a dispassionate language of what is less than fully human -
http://combatgenocide.org/?page_id=146
At least the population of Ireland get to discuss the issue in historical context when issues of extermination of life such as large scale willful termination of pregnancy for lifestyle reasons becomes part of a national mindset. In my view it is a step towards self-deception and really unhealthy for any nation as it amounts to mob convictions.
We wont forget this betrayal of the unborn when it comes to the next election vote them out spinless gutless excuse for politicans. VOTE THEM OUT
@Jim Kenny: Economic issues are far more important to people n a general election.
@Jim Kenny: I think you will find it’s the politicians on the pro liar side that need to worry about their jobs.
@Jim Kenny: How many “prolife” Renua candidates were elected? How well did the likes of Kate Bopp, John D Walsh etc do in the Dail elections?
@Jim Kenny: But you’re all for the betrayal of women’s rights and continuing to treat them as second class citizens. Whichever politician can betray them the most gets your vote, is it?
The ‘pro life’ people were told a few years back that the abortion pills would be the game changer…and so it has turned out that way..We have been told that there is approx 1,500 first trimester abortions happening in this country every year…so it’s now best to take your head out of the sand and have it done under medical supervision…
Pretty reasonable proposed legislation
It’s all been said on both sides, no need to insult and fight anymore, I understand the other’s point, even if they don’t get mine.
Minister Harris can’t live with the thought of women not be able to get an abortion.
I agree with him but why can he live with people on trolleys on corridors where their health only get worse and not better.
@Hans Vos: Why is one dependent on the other?
Surely we can strive to achieve both?
i am a bit confused by this. if the 8th is repealed, can a future government change the abortion law without the people having to vote. if this is the case, how much do we trust our politicians.
@Datuk Don: Yep, if repealed, any future government can do as they wish.
@Datuk Don: Yes, that’s exactly what will happen. So if a future Government decides that it wants on-demand abortion without any time limit they can legislate for that without reference to the people.
@Frank McGlynn: All sitting governments have always had the power to enact legislation.
@Frank McGlynn: yes Frank. They are asking the Irish people to trust the politicians. Take the decision away from the general public and allow the politicians decide if a baby must die or not. If 12 weeks gets in then next will be 6 months.
The UK regime of abortion is horrific. I would hope Irish people have more compassion and morals to vote ‘NO we don’t trust politicians…
@Pconor: Would you be so kind confirming that, based on what you’re asserting, a politician will need to be present at all appointments for prospective and confirmed pregnant people. And the politician, not the pregnant person, couple, or medical professional, will be making the decision as to whether the pregnancy will be allowed, or if an abortion is necessary.
@Pconor: “the UK regime of abortion is horrific” – can you show us cases of the “horrors” of the past two years ? There must be “loads” of them that you can put up…
For shame simon harris for shame!!!
3 official reports confirm savita died from mismanaged sepsus.
Her spouse gas askef her name not be used in this debate.
You have no morals whatsoever. Disgusting
@Ismise Máire: of she had got the abortion when requested she wouldnt have developed the infection in the first place
@willypearson: Regardless of why she got sepsis it was still mismanaged and that is why she died. She died because medical staff didnt do their job properly.
@Chris Martin: Like leaving her miscarrying an unviable foetus for 3 days because it had a heartbeat?
Does the father have no say? What if the father wants the child to live and take care of it? It takes two to make a child.
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair: Obviously the man can have a say. The two can sit and talk and decide together, I’m sure it happens all the time. But the woman has the final say. If she doesn’t feel like carrying a fetus to term then she doesn’t have to. That’s what this referendum is for.
@Richard Lippy Collins: correct. The woman ultimately can decide whether she wants to end the life or not. There have been many contentious legal cases on this, where does the father’s duty of care start and end to his own offspring?
@Sean @114: The duty of care begins if/when the woman decides to carry to term.
@Richard Lippy Collins: what if she changes her mind, very common, for example after 3 months?? So all is snowdrops and daffodils for 3 months then mother decides not for me but father wants the child. Very common scenario so father caught with a moral dilemma, wants his offspring to live but…
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair: It’s not inside the fathers body though is it
@Sean @114: Well then she changes her mind. It’s allowed. We change our mind all the time, it’s in our nature. It’s sad for both people involved, but she still has the say. It would be an horrific occurrence but if it’s the right thing to do then it’s the right thing to do.
@Richard Lippy Collins: exactly so it’s not black n white. Matters of life and death rarely are. Difficult place for the father to find himself in.
@Sean @114: It is a difficult place for the father to find himself. But it’s not him that has to carry the fetus, so the ultimate decision belongs to the woman. So yes, it is black and white in that regard. You’re bringing in an extra element that has nothing to do with the referendum. Also, you are aware abortions happen anyway, we just export them. The issue you’re raising is already an issue that is faced by potential parents. I don’t see how it is going to change if we allow abortion to happen in a safe and legal environment.
@Richard Lippy Collins: it is not the right thing to do. After 12 weeks I doubt if there is any person living who does not know that the baby in the womb is a recognizable baby whom many mothers can feel moving. To be so immature as to say ohI have changed my mind it is my right to get rid of my son or daughter is unnatural. It is the total opposite of how a mother should behave. Anyone who displayed that level of irresponsibility does not deserve the right of choice. I cannot believe the callous disregard for human life expressed in this blog.
@Richard Lippy Collins: yes well as I said above ultimately it will be the woman’s decision to end the life. The father, although responsible for the welfare of his own child outside the womb is powerless to protect it’s welfare inside the womb.
@Kay Kehoe: @Kay Kehoe: I never said anything about after 12 weeks. I was responding to a comment regarding twelve weeks, not after. Did you read the previous comments. I believe the previous comentee mentioned 3 months, not later. I do not, nor have I ever expressed myself to have a callous disregard for human life. Where you got that from, I have no idea. Your comment has no merit in this argument as you fabricated stuff to respond to.
@Sean @114: Not powerless, he can try. At the end of the day it’s the womans choice to carry or not carry. Unless you would rather we continue to force women to carry a fetus to term. Are you for that?
@Richard Lippy Collins: depends on the reasons for ending the life Richard. If her life is in danger, the baby will be born with a fatal condition etc then the older life should take precedence over the younger. If she wants to end the life at any time to suit her lifestyle then clearly this should not be allowed. The majority of people would not want this permitted and open season on the young life.
2 things that wont be in the bill referendum.
(1)
Humanity
(2)
The right to life
Just to add,,,neither will a pregnant woman whom is killed by domestic violence or killed whilst pregnant her unborn child unprotected,,,,her imediate family will not be able to prosecute for a double “Homicide” the unborns rights have therfore been vilafied by (7) Supream Court Judges.
Says a lot for child protection.
ABORTION A LISENCE TO KILL BY REFERENDUM,,,,,SAY NO TO MURDER.
@Michael Donovan: Given the historical and current difficulty regarding acknowledging the serious consequences of intimate partner & domestic violence, including situations that result in homicide, repealing the Eighth Amendment is lower on the list for those trying to survive intimate partner & domestic violence than you assert.
@Felicity Hensen: He also needs to look at the ‘double homicide’ convictions in the U.S. over the past 20 years…Of all the attacks on pregnant women, which resulted in the loss of their pregnancies,there still has only been a handful of convictions.
The attack on the pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy was seen as the bigger crime…
So does that mean it’ll be good to go once it passes or will it still take months of red tape & small print before it’s actually good to go?
@Keith McDonagh: You may not be aware, Keith, but there is a referendum to be held before that shameless mob get a chance to put their soiled hands towards any legislation.
@Johnny Bellew: I’m just saying, it’s better to get all this stuff done sooner rather than later so you don’t waste any time or effort drafting up a plan after something is voted in.
@Johnny Bellew: “shameless mob”
Ironic, given the mob you worship in the vatican.
@The Risen: The man said he was an atheist yet he looks to have a nice balance of head and heart so this quasi-commie attempt to neuter discussion by bringing in the Vatican looks desperate rather than anything else.
@Gerald Kelleher: Are you able to post something that makes actual sense, or can you just spout stupid wafflings?
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: Thank you for reminding me that I have to descend to a crude level to respond otherwise easy enough to ignore you.
Make sure you celebrate ‘mother’s day’ in gratitude to a body that give you life.
Spin unit on a roll today
Hi guys, I thought I’d post this comment on a post relating to the Eight amendment. I have created a brand new Facebook page entitled ‘Pure Politics’ to get people engaged with political affairs and get people talking. I will be doing opinion polls on this new page with some of them relating to the upcoming May referendum in Ireland. I would really appreciate if you could visit the link below and like the page! Thank you very much!
@Ryan Kelly: Great idea but I’m off FB for Lent. Be interested afterwards.
The Devil himself speaks……!
@Peadar Ó Gréacháin: Pray for him Peadar
I’m really sick to the back teeth of the polar opposite views being displayed on social media at this stage already. Seems to me that rational people tend not to comment in general. Seems to me that extreme comments only help to polarize views and certainly will not convince anyone to vote in favour of the protagonist. Time now to sit back and consider what you believe to be important. The majority will then decide.
@Ronan Ryan: I agree completely. A good example were the two numpties on The Last Word yesterday evening with their “my protest march is bigger than your protest march” b#llsh*t. Wouldn’t like to be back in Ireland for the next 2 months with all the propaganda, posters, etc.
This is all just a smoke screen to divert every other failing Simon Harris is governing. He is incompetent.
With 660- 700 people lying on trollers not sure how his “health service” will support all the abortions he now wants to support nationally with an infrastructure that can’t cope.
Malak Thawley and her partner Alan, two of the greatest victims of the cut backs and incompetency within the Irish health care system. Malak lost her life during an ectopic pregnancy emergency surgery by an inexperienced and no doubt overworked “have a go” junior doctor.
The doctors in this instance ended up in the pub across the road looking for ice during this surgery…. Harris is accountable for this death. He has enough failings and blood on his hands without adding even more…
Think about that…
While we all appreciate that this issue is complex, the Minister for Health should be ashamed of himself. His attempt at heartfelt sincerity is disgusting, a one-sided view of the issue as typical of this pro-abortion government. Using Savita Halappanavar and other cases are appalling. He is effectively spitting fire in the faces of babies, children, men & women who are alive today as a result of the protection imparted to them by the 8th amendment.
Will he stand in the Dáil and put it on the record in front of the people who are alive today because of the 8th, and tell them he wishes they were killed in the womb?
Can he live with their existence as sentient human beings just like us all?
We should not be falling for this one-sided propaganda by government and media.
I have yet to hear the moral or ethical argument by the pro-abortionists for the killing of unborn babies. Has Simon Harris seen ultrasounds of a baby in womb @8 weeks let alone 12 weeks & how well a baby is developed at that age?
have your say