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.
MY WIFE AND I had a miscarriage a few years back and that was how I first became aware of this taboo.
Previously, I had thought that miscarriages were not that common. I realised then that they are extremely common but just not talked about in our society.
I wanted to know why this life-changing, emotionally devastating event – resulting in a great sense of loss – comes with a huge social pressure to keep it under wraps, almost like it’s an embarrassing secret.
I only ever had one conversation about the miscarriage with a work colleague and that was in order to coordinate time off and other work logistics.
I do not think we would have discussed the topic otherwise and even at that we conversed almost in dark shadows for fear anyone would know the content of our short discussion.
I know men are not great at talking about emotional issues but maybe that is something that needs to change too!
Personally what I felt after our miscarriage was that I wanted, almost needed to talk to people about it.
There was a profound sadness in the loss of our potential son or daughter that was necessary for us to share. There should have been an acknowledgement of what had happened and the anguish in our lives.
Then I was surprised to discover that friends and family members had gone through the same thing previously and I hadn’t known about it.
These were major events in their lives but society had deemed the topic was off-limits.
Perhaps it is understandable that deciding to terminate a pregnancy may well be something that people feel uncomfortable talking openly about it.
But miscarriages are part of nature – they just happen. There is no reason whatsoever to be ashamed or embarrassed. So why is this subject taboo?
Maybe that is an overhang from our past, remember that 50 years ago virtually anything to do with the procreation of our species was a forbidden topic of conversation.
The problem is that miscarriages can provoke feelings of guilt and cause parents to question whether they did something wrong, which of course they didn’t. That is why they need to be talked about.
I believe it is unhealthy to suppress the emotions that come with a miscarriage.
The truth is that miscarriages are completely common. It is estimated that 10% to 25% of known pregnancies end in miscarriages with the actual number estimated to exceed these figures. Happily, most women who have miscarriages do go on to become pregnant again and have a healthy child.
I remember a few years ago when Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan announced that she was expecting a baby. The couple then revealed for the first time that she had previously experienced three miscarriages. They were applauded for their openness in bringing the commonality of miscarriages to the fore.
That made me wonder though – why did this topic need a famous ambassador to tell people that it is ok to talk about it?
The grieving process after a miscarriage can be an uncertain time. People can find it difficult to grieve the loss of someone that they have never seen. A considerable amount of your emotional reaction will depend on your spiritual views on life – when it begins and what constitutes a human loss.
We received a range of different reactions from people. Some people gave me a pat on the back as a ‘hard luck’ gesture and that was it. Others grieved with us openly.
Some people, touchingly, gave us reminders to hang up for the ‘soul’ that didn’t make it but who they felt would be watching over us.
Some others were expecting a funeral service for the life that was lost.
It can be hard to know where exactly to fit in on that spectrum yourself. I found that difficult. Should I have simply moved on? Did I cry enough? Should we perhaps have had a funeral service?
I think the importance of allowing miscarriages to be discussed in an open and honest way cannot be overemphasized.
It is difficult enough that you are going through the experience with all the confused emotions that are aligned with it, the misguided guilt, the loss, the remorse and the misconceptions.
The way to deal with these emotions effectively is not by hiding them or pushing them away, we should not feel ashamed to talk about miscarriages openly.
I still don’t know why the subject of miscarriage is taboo. Do you?
Let’s break the silence.
Darragh Quinn is a freelance writer, see darraghquinn.com
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Great to see some sense, care and humanity from Mr Justice Horner.
The next issue will be does the alleged rape have to resulted in a conviction in court?
Will that ruling apply here? Or is there grounds to take a case?
Next, john, you’ll be demanding that the abortion is postponed for a few years while the case goes to court.
No, you don’t need a conviction. They have a similar law in Poland and they way it’s handled is that a prosecutor issues a certificate to say that the crime has been reported
Not asking for anything Connolly, just asking questions. Like yourself I have 1 vote and I want information on laws in Ireland before voting. Peace bud.
LOL vote in ignorance. The best way to build societies.
I think your right could be classed as breach of human rights
Fully onboard and think it’s great news…
Out of pure interest, What happens if the women subsequently recents or drops the charges. Perjury?
Implementation of abortion in cases of rape, how would that work? How much would we interrogate a potential rape victim to decide if she truly was raped or just looking for an abortion? Should it not simply be aa legal policy of all or nothing?
AN other you are perfectly right. How do you assess if a woman was raped? If the man denies it is she made to have the baby. This is ridiculous, this decision should be between a woman/couple and a physician. The government should have no part in what a woman does with her own body.
You assess it by requiring her to report the crime to the police. Making a false statement is already an offence, arguably so is lying to procure a miscarriage (this could be strengthened)
Imagine how desperate a woman would be if she lied? Do want her to be a mother because she doesn’t?
So you’d allow an abortion just because she wants one?
Paul Roche it could be very damaging to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy if she doesn’t want to. Aside from the potential of not bonding with the baby, there is depression and the triggering of mental illness to think about, as well as possible self-harm – she may decide to go to a back-street doctor, she may start self-mutilating or she may decide to take things into her own hands. Suicide is a huge risk factor too. Also, pregnancy is a very scary and very dangerous process, even for a healthy woman. Women don’t get abortions on a whim, which is what you seem to be suggesting (and which is extremely offensive). If you saw me, for example, you wouldn’t think anything is wrong with me, perfectly healthy. I am for the most part but I have epilepsy. I’m on a high dosage of medication, and the medication I take isn’t female-friendly as it causes severe foetal abnormalities, both mental and physical disabilities. I can’t switch from that type however because I’m in a balancing act, trying to control my seizures. I’ve tried other types but each one caused depression and suicidal thoughts, as anti-seizure drugs are also used as mood stabilizers in other conditions. I can’t come off it, as each time I was put back on my working meds I had to take a higher dose and, as I am near the maximum safe amount I can take, it is too risky as it would more than likely never control my seizures again. Also, if I found out I was pregnant I would need to come off my tablets “cold turkey” instead of being weaned off them and this is incredibly dangerous, as I would go into something called status epilepticus (continuous seizure state) and it is often fatal. Abortion is a big issue. No woman ever gets one simply because “she wants one”, as if it’s a new handbag. And before I get slaughtered by pro-life activists, I’m not forcing abortion down anyone’s throat, but I hope you consider it from my point of view, so you might understand why an abortion is required in certain circumstances
“So you’d allow an abortion just because she wants one?” Having such auth
*having such authority to “allow” women to exercise autonomy in the first place is ridiculous.
Hang on a second. I don’t know where this debate suddenly went so extreme. I believe would should allow abortions up to 8 weeks and no further in all cases. As per Deborah’s catch all for a women’s body is all BS. The state has a right to do what it deems to be beneficial for society over the individual. But I for one do not want to see a situation like the US where we have mid term abortions and babies. Men and women both have responsibilities in this but the state have the right to legislate and so they should.
And that would be a yes Paul.
I wonder how many rape babies are conceived here in Ireland each year?
‘How do we know if a woman was really raped?’ Pro-lifers clutching at straws with their uneducated commentary as usual. Ever hear of rape test kits? Long in use for trials by forensics and medical professionals.
Ok.
I just thought it might be more honest to say you favour abortion on demand instead of pretending it’s about “Rights”.
O’Gorman, for example, wants to ignore that our Constitution carries a right to life for the unborn and calls for a right that doesn’t exist under any Convention.
Becka,
The situation you portray is already covered by legislation.
There’s no need for a Constitutional Amendment for such cases.
“No woman ever gets one because she wants one” Would you come off it! You’ve got fantastic faith in thdm human race I tell ya.
“So you’d allow an abortion just because she wants one?”
And you’d stop her having one just because you want to ..
I would mind my own business and let her get on with what she needed to do ..
I’m not responsible for what is in the Constitution.
I expect good reasons for any proposal to change it.
You want to remove a right while denying it exists.
Our country protects the unborn.
I see no good reason to change that.
Why am I getting red thumbed. I see abortion within the first 6-8 weeks for all cases. And then past that time period it is only when there is a risk to the mother or fatal foetal. Do you people see any other reason than that?
I was too young to vote in 1983. As a citizen of Ireland, what is in the Irish Constitution is my shared responsibility. The way in which we express that civic responsibility is my voting in a Referendum. I wish to vote in a Referendum on Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution.
It would be democratic to see if the majority has changed since 1983 when the RCC exploited a a political opportunity by playing FF and FG off against each other.
It seems to me that the electorate is less under the thumb of the institution of the RCC today, as it was back in 1983, and now less cowed into doing the bidding if that institution.
The Iona Institute is weakened. SPUC , PLAC and other pressure groups have less influence and religious dogma is not as decisive as it once was.
Yeah.
So I guess it’s just a matter of whether you think it’s acceptable to kill the unborn or not.
I would like to have the democratic opportunity to vote on the matter. There is a precedent for this. There was a Referendum on this back in 1983. I can see no valid reason for not having a Referendum on this in 2016. I see no reason to allow the voters of 1983 ductate on this issue in perpetuity.
The “unborn” is an interesting expression. Definition by negative attribute is an emotive approach. I think that the word “killing” is too emotive. The term “killing” should be reserved for ending the life of living beings, that is post-natal beings. I think that the expression “abortion” or “termination” is less tendentious than “killing”.
My opinion as a general proposition is that if the life, health or welfare of a pregnant woman is at risk, the pregnant woman should be entitled to make her own choice as to whether or not to go full term. I dislike late stage abirtion but, if the life of the pregnant woman is at any risk, I believe that she should be allowed prioritise her life and safety over that of the foetus.
I consider that a pregnant woman has a greater interest in the outcome of a pregnancy on her own life than anyone else and so should have the right to decide. I could not imagine abrogating to myself to right to determine something so important for another person capable of making her own decision.
I would like to vote on this issue. With the elapse of 32 years, values and views have likely changed.
This is also an important personal issue to me because of the interests of my daughter and to the fact that she has a serious medical condition which may potentially place her life at risk during pregnancy. A debate on the constitutional compatibility of the decision to abort would be clinically unwise. Therefore, my daughter and her husband have decided that they will emigrate to the UK so that her situation can be treated medically without undue deference to Constitutional dogma. Ireland would be too dangerous for her while Article 40.3.3 continues in its present form. My son-in-law is successful and can secure alternative employment in the UK but they would both prefer to live and raise a family in Ireland. But I support their decision to live in the UK if my daughter becomes pregnant. Sadly, not all couples or single woman have that option open to them.
Yeah.
You want to vote so that the right to life of the unborn is removed so that your daughter can kill your grandchild if she gets pregnant.
in the event that there is a medical crisis, my daughter will have the right, a human right, to decide if she wishes to risk her life or otherwise. She should have that right and no one else should complicate that decision. Not even you , Paul Roche, should have that decision, even to use your lame debating school sophistry to impose that decision on a woman.
That’d be a Medical decision Fiona DeFreyne.
One that could be properly taken within the context of a properly advised Profession where the right to life of the unborn could be equally respected.
You’re not a doctor, and you’re clutching at meaningless emotive straws that make me wonder if your daughter is lucky to be alive because you missed out on a vote.
No it won’t, no change on this matter can come about here without a referendum on the 8th.
The sooner we have one the better, and not before time. Thankfully there’s growing momentum for one.
The idea of sending women with pregnancies with FFA’s to England cannot go on, its simply not on.
To answer your 2nd question, I don’t think there’s grounds to take a case here because of the 8th.
The 8th is the source of all our problems on this issue.
X, Y, A, B, C, D, the brain dead woman last December….
Have the guidelines been published yet?
@James Darcy
By the time a woman misses her first period, she’s considered to be 4 weeks pregnant already, some are a bit irregular and would not suspect for a good few more days. Setting the limit at 6-8 weeks gives very little time to decide what to do and make arrangements. It would be beneficial to set the cut off point slightly later to avoid panic decisions
Paul Riche that is a lame, cheap, nasty and illogical comment but it demonstrates why your mentality drives you to the positions which you adopt.
It was highlighted by the judge in the case, Fiona.
There were no guidelines at the time of the case.
That would be a medical profession screw-up, not a legal, legislative or constitutional one.
How is it too tight of a timescale? If a woman is raped she will have immediate ability to act on this. Second to that 8 weeks is plenty in other cases. If you are mature enough to participate in the act then you must be mature enough to manage any consequences. I’m for amendment but I’ll vote no if it’s going to be an all or nothing situation.
@James
You think 1 – 3 weeks is plenty of time to decide AND make arrangements if you are unsure? The pregnancy test might not show positive until mid fifth week, you might need to tell the father, he might need tIme to absorb the news and decide how he feels. You’d already be six weeks pregnant by then. It has got nothing to do with immaturity to need a bit of time to decide, rather the opposite. My main concern with too tight a time limit would be that some would have an abortion they might regret because if they don’t have one straight away, they won’t be able to later.
Well you don’t have much time before your group of cells becomes a tiny human. I’m struggling to see the pro-choice in all cases. It’s not a chocolate bar you can just put back it’s a baby. I’m not voting to kill a child past 8 weeks other than fatal foetal.
No vote in regards to repealing the 8th amendment will be to allow Irish women to have abortions. It is already legal for them to have abortions. The vote will be whether to let them have their abortions at home or not.
In regards to rape victims, are you aware that a lot of victims are in denial after such a trauma which means they will also be in denial about a possible pregnancy. Because of this, countries who have abortion on demand make exceptions for rape victims past the on demand limit.
Good. It beggars belief that in the 21st century a woman should have to carry an unviable pregnancy to term, just because she lives in a state still hungover from being under the jackboot of the catholic church for so long.
@For Connolly. It’s not just the catholic church that made decisions not to provide this service in the north.
Apologies Anne, I should have been clearer. I meant the post in a ‘good for the 6 counties, next up the other 26′ type of post. You’re spot on with your comment.
I voted against the 8th back in the day. I recall plenty of woman campaigning for it ( ie anti abortion pro life pro 8th) and most fema les I knew and spoke to voted for the 8th. As unpalatable as it is to face it ” the state” forced nothing here. We did it openly and freely to ourselves.
Be good to see the same common sense and compassion being applied south of the border..export the problem to another jurisdiction..brilliantly put..over to you Enda…
And then turn a blind eye. Don’t forget.
“We need to pray to stop abortion throughout Ireland and the world.”
Washington, March 2014.
Bernadette Smyth
How’s the head, Bernie?
And we’ll sit back and watch as our dunderheaded government dodge the questions on this
Our constitution prevents this from becoming an issue.
Our AG even thinks it’s unconstitutional to debate it in the Dáil.
How does our constitution prevent our laws being a human rights issue?
Sigh.
Because our constitution respects the right to life of the unborn.
That doesn’t supersede human rights Mr Roche
Actually, it expands the concept.
No, it stands directly in its way.
Paul, imagine that there was a large that prevented you having autonomy over your own body. Then you wouldn’t have what ever it is lodged in your anal cavity…
Let’s put it this way, the issue of the Human Right to Life of the Unborn has not been settled in International Law. Since our Constitution respects the rights of the unborn the issue of balance would have to be decided at some point after the International Law position is decided.
Read here:
http://adfinternational.org/2015/10/07/un-human-rights-committee-right-to-life-is-right-to-abortion/
You’re avoiding my point. A line in our constitution does not supersede human rights. That is a simple legal fact.
That line makes the right to life of the unborn a human right. Other states may not have to recognise our position, but we have decided that that right to life exists. That’s what you want to see withdrawn.
We also decided that it was illegal to engage in homosexual acts until 1993. Public opinion changes, and laws should adapt to suit that. That’s democracy, and the public will is there. Harp on if you must, but your opinion is that of what appears to be an ever lessening cohort of Irish society. Enjoy the 80′s, let us know when you feel like catching up
Our constitution does not determine human rights Paul. Your legal ignorance of basic jurisdiction is astounding.
Paul – citing an article by a religious organisation hardly offers a balanced or credible insight in these matters.
Of course Paul, but I can’t find any pro-choice source that deals with the issue.
You want people to believe that the unborn are not deserving of a right to life.
It looks like the UN won’t expressly support that, but our Constitution does.
You want to pretend that it’s about expanding rights for women and want to persuade the people to vote to remove a very unique right recognised by Bunreacht na hÉireann.
Once again, we are going to see a polarised debate where misinterpretation will be key to persuasion.
You cannot pretend that the right you wish to see removed does not exist in your effort to abolish it.
Indeed, and your wilful misinterpretation of how human rights are dictated by our constitution only serves to polarize the debate further and breeds ignorance.
It completely depends on your stance of when life starts. If you believe that life starts at conception, good for you. If you don’t, which seems to be the case in Ireland, then the only rights that are violated by the 8th amendment are that of the mother. So your stance is somewhat hypocritical as you are advocating for the infringement of rights of one life over another. Whereas my stance is clear cut
Socky,
Stop pretending you have knowledge of Constitutional Law.
From: https://www.dfa.ie/our-role-policies/international-priorities/human-rights/human-rights-in-ireland/
“Ireland is committed to having human rights both at the heart of both our national and foreign policy. The 1937 Constitution of Ireland, Bunreacht na hÉireann, predates both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights and contains strong emphasis on fundamental rights, which are in effect, human rights principles by a different name.”
Predating does not supersede Mr Roche. Try again
Tod,
What you posted makes no sense.
It makes it clear you have convinced yourself about something, but it’s not clear what that thing is.
And I’m sure you’re aware the 8th amendment came AFTER the convention on human rights.
No Socky.
Pre-dating could be interpreted as meaning precede.
But it looks as though you don’t understand what that means.
It could be interpreted as precede, but just because it predates something doesn’t mean it supersedes it so you’re talking $h1t in an attempt to muddle waters.
Spot on Todd, and it doesn’t even predate it! Lol. Poor Paul is trying but failing.
And both of you are exhibiting ignorance of Human Rights Law in Ireland.
Hi Larry.
Having a Monday?
The irony of criticising personal attacks while calling somebody Larry to insult them….
“Facts of the argument”. Paul merely has his own interpretation as opposed to facts. There are no facts as such, but an opinion of a large majority that abortion should be legal to one extent of another
Aww, Socrates, you have to give those guys a little credit, they’re not out to insult me, Larissa is just too difficult for them to spell, that’s all.
Put the question to them when they knock on your door.. They may avoid it in the Dáil, they won’t get away with it when they knock at my door!
Everybody is entitled to their views and opinions , whether people agree with them or not .
Rochey Boy, I have tried countless times to engage in a reasonable debate with you, but you then usually resort to misgendering and misnaming me, so if you can’t stomach some of your own medicine, tough luck.
Larry,
The topic here is abortion. You didn’t start well on this thread.
Care to try again?
Face it, the wording of the eighth amendment was a total fudge. By acknowledging that ‘the equal right to like of the mother’ would have to be considered, it actually served to make abortion legal where it had never been legal before. It now follows that every time a woman in complicated medical circumstances needs or desires an abortion we practically have a constitutional crisis on our hands because we don’t understand the exact meaning of our own amendment. Alan Shatter was bang on when he rather astutely pointed out at the time ‘I have no doubt, not merely from the interpretation the Attorney General has given but from the other interpretations that can be validly taken from the amendment, that if it in its present form becomes part of our Constitution it will essentially secure a constitutional judgment in the not too distant future requiring the House to enact legislation to permit women to have abortions.’ This is exactly what has happened.
The people who introduced and lobbied for the eighth amendment should never stop kicking themselves.
The problem is that the Medical Profession never bothered with practice guidelines.
Whatever legislative changes are ever made, nothing will change until the Medics make clear what the practice will be.
Mr Roche, you’re fairing pretty poorly yourself.
Rochey Boy, and that makes it okay for you to insult me in other threads, but not for me to call out your bigotry and idiocy in this thread?
How did you do that Larry?
“It’s not a breach of human rights cos I say so” – the basis of Mr Roches stance. Juvenile
Article 40.3.3° reads:
“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”
Paul Roche had nothing to do with it.
Paul Roche pretends that article supersedes International Human Rights. It does not, nor does it predate it. I witnessed you twist and bend law in the run up to the marriage referendum. You have previous. Thankfully people clearly see through your lies Mr Roche. Bring on the referendum!
Are you saying that the right to life is not a Human Right?
No. I’m saying the right to life of a foetus is not a human right. As does the supreme court of NI and many over jurisdictions
Ah. I see.
You’re saying that the Constitution is wrong.
The State shouldn’t protect the unborn?
Nope. Twisting things again Mr Roche. True to form.
But our Constitution recognises the right to life of the unborn.
The “Supreme Court of NI” (sic) probably didn’t say what you said they did…
Would you like to try again?
You’re right, our constitution does, but that does not over rule human rights
Oh?
Why?
Jurisdiction and application of international law. Do some research, it might enlighten you
If it weren’t, then as long as anything is written in a constitution, it isn’t a breach of human rights. If rape and murder was declared legal in our constitution, would it therefore be a human right? No
Guys just to clarify this back and forth. Pauls point stands in regards that our constitution recognises the foetus as life and therefore is an extension of human rights. However the decision will force the republic in my opinion because of accessible abortion is about to become in the north.
Thanks James,
The difference is that NI has a Human Rights Act that enabled the judge to make his finding.
Here, our Constitution would expressly prevent such a finding.
Take a trivial example, at Halloween, people buy their fireworks in NI, because the law prohibits their sale here. There’s no “right” to have them.
More seriously, Human Rights Conventions have not (yet) established a “Right” to abortion, and even if they did, Ireland as a State would be entitled to maintain it’s Constitutional Position.
It’s ironic that the Republic of Ireland recognises Same Sex Marriage and the Right to Life of the Unborn in contrast with most other Nations.
Ireland has the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. This Act of 2003 transposed the operational protocols of the European Convention on Human Rights, a multilateral international treaty, ratified in 1953, into domestic Irish law.
There are two jurisprudential sources of human rightts in Ireland. The ECHR and the Irish Constitution. There is some overlap but each also confers rights that the others do not confer.
The N.I. High Court Judgment , the full text of the judgment, is now available for download. The Judge’s judgment makes for fascinating reading. It’s well worth reading.
My personal view, a value judgment, is that the worth, value, quality and virtue of the life of a pregnant woman, with all of the attachments, memories, experiences, connnections and emotions connected with that life should and must transcend the qualities of a foetus. That is not to say that the quality of a foetus is not worth protecting but that in a case of potential discordance of interest, preference should be given to the life, health and welfare of the pregnant woman.
So for “discordance of interest” read “choice”?
No, “discordance of interest” is what I said.
“Choice”.
That’s what it means.
Paul Roche, you certainly are rather dogmatic and dictatorial.
I decide what I say and how I say it. You don’t get to impose your words on me.
Ah… Shamti!
Thought it was you!
How the Devil(le) have you been?
Ahh yes, I see that you have form in fixing with hatred on women who post against your comments and then pretend that all of the women who express views contrary to your dogmatic views are one and the same.
The next step is that you decide to debase the discussion into personal vindictiveness and recrimination, quickly diverting from the substantive issue and into a tit for tat.
There is a profound sadness about the way in which you take serious issues and seek to turn them into a Punch and Judy distraction.
When you fail in your arguments, with the likes of Shanti and others, you use distraction. I see that you avoid engaging with the substance of the issues and content yourself which cheap pot shots.
I looked up Shanti’s posts. I would be happy to associated with her erudition but this is all just in your sad and petty imagination.
Grand so.
There’s a couple of years left in this debate.
Should give you enough time to come up with a credible cover story.
Aww, poor Rochey, desperately twisting and turning, unable to come up with anything else than dogmatic BS, he tries to insinuate that all other commenters, bar himself and his cronies, are all the same person
And again, you seek to divert from the issue, which is about abortion and human rights, not about you and not about me but about the lives, health and welfare of pregnant women and their best interests.
Larissa, Paul Roche certainly lowers the tone of any debate.
As I see it, his comments indicate that he disrespects women, dislikes gay people, has a fear of transgender and gender fluidity and loathes any sort of rationality.
His most dishonest feature is how he tries to subvert all issues under discussion into a “Look at me and listen to me” in a similar way than an early adolescent boy who seeks attention behaves.
He hates to see a rational debate. So, he tries to sabotage the discussion. I’m considering ignoring him and his comments.
Lol.
You invented a sick daughter so you could put a case for abortion, Fiona.
Who does that?
Paul Roche, you really are willing to say anthing, to deny any truth, to tell any lie, to pull any stunt, to fabricate anything just so that you can make yourself right.
In your case, reality must give way to hard and inhumane ideology.
You can deny that I have a daughter, that my daughter has a serious medical condition, because I would not reveal her identity to you for her sake.
Your attitude and malignancy reflect the mentality of those who would deny the freedom to chose abortion in the case of those face threat to their lives, pregnancy due to incest, rape, and FFA min the foetus. You seek to trivialise and to deny the reality of the victim and of the potential victims.
You have lost in your hate driven attempt to prevent same sex marriage. You will fail in yiur attempt to prevent restricted and limited abortion and you will fail in yiur attempt to have the law treat women, pregnant or otherwise, as second class citizens.
The judgment by Judge Horner will reinforce the strength of the campaign for the repeal of the Eight Amendment. Look at how far Kenny has had to bend on his pre-election commitment not to allow abortion in any circumstances.
Since Roe v. Wade, how many innocents were killed?
Check your outrage and your privilege.
You want to remove a constitutional protection so that abortion could be obtained on request, regardless of whether a genuine reason exists.
You say I’m twisted while promoting murder and striving for credibility by playing with semantics.
Of course we disgust each other. We are diametrically opposed on this issue.
It really is that simple.
Fiona I’m impartial here and to be honest he is hitting you with opinion and fact and you are responding with emotion and headlines that you have read in the media. The human right aspect of this debate is complex and can not just be left with your one off beliefs.
“Since Roe v. Wade, how many innocents were killed?”
What exactly will happen to the future “innocents”, if abortion on demand was outlawed in America ?
Take your time answering ,Paul ..
James Darcy, you’re not impartial, can you show me, where Paul Roche has presented facts instead of muddling the water and diverting from questions put to him, are you backing him as well in misgendering and misnaming me?
Birth, usually.
“Birth,usually.”
A real stupid answer,Paul
According to the study done by the WHO -countries that have outlawed abortions completely ,the number of abortions do not decrease. But, the number of mothers dying from unsafe abortive practices increases dramatically. Are you happy with that,Paul?
At least our women can travel less expensively to the North in a shorter amount of time now rather than flying to mainland UK,makes our politicians look like even bigger spoons than they already are.
Of course it should. Who am I to judge the people who find themselves if these awful situations.
If it goes ahead down here you can be guaranteed that the poor women would be put on a list that would be longer than nine months.
While we are having a referendum on the 8th can we also remove the following:
Article 40.6.1º — specifically Blasphemy
—
“ARTICLE 44
1 The State acknowledges that the homage of
public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall
hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and
honour religion”
–
Amend article 6, to remove mention of “under god”, likewise remove mentions of God from oaths sworn by President, Council of State and Judges.
Can the preamble be deleted as well, it goes on about more sky-fairy stuff.
* Does a little dance* Jehovah!! Jehovah!! Jehovah!! …… Sorry, couldn’t resist….
*throws a pebble at Rasputin* you said Jehovah!
All murder is murder
So you think all the women who have gone to the UK over the years should be arrested.
If you think abortion is murder then it follows that these people are murderers.
Well at least you’re consistent in your beliefs.
Legally that’s the point, morally my thoughts are with the women, the law has very little to do with morals or ethics though.
Rod, it’s not murder. Murder is a legal construct and does not include abortion. If you have to twist legal terminology to pander to your emotions, go ahead, but don’t expect to be taken seriously.
If you consider the thing in the womb to be a person then it’s murder, give me a definition of when it becomes a person would you
The foetus does not fit that definition. You pretend it does to meet your bias. Carry on, we will ignore you on account of it!
When does a foetus become a person?
When it becomes an individual. The definition of a person is an individual human being.
So conjoined twins are people then
When it’s an individual? It’s got it’s own unique DNA from the point of conception!
You might be right. Nonetheless, a foetus does not fit the discription of a person. Not murder. That doesn’t suit you though does it?
Can you please define when it stops being a foetus and starts being a person
Already did. Do keep up. Can you show me that abortion is legally considered murder?
Em no you didn’t
I did, I said when it becomes an individual. If you cannot follow a basic thread, what hope do you have?! Now answer my question please, I answered yours…..twice
When it becomes an individual, that’s just vagueness personified. Pick a day during gestation please or toddle off like a good man
Birth mate. Now answer my question
So it’s ok to abort a foetus 10 mins before birth, now that’s messed up, what’s was you question again
Aborting a foetus 10 minutes before birth is called “birth”
Rod, I never said that. I see you are avoiding my question. I conclude that you know well it isn’t murder and you are fully aware that your are twisting legal terminology to suit your bias. You have zero credibility.
Not – stop being deliberately difficult and obnoxious, the issue surrounding when a focus becomes a person is as much a philosophical as scientific question and one which has different view points. In Western democracies it is ordinarily the courts and/or parliament who decide. However your point is a red herring and a very deliberate one. It is ordinarily the viability of the foetus which is considered when legislating for abortion.
The only murders that happen in abortion clinics are the ones carried out by christian pro-life terrorists.
well played not_rod…you saw off that muppen socrates in good style ..
By being a child ?
By ignoring my question and not proving his point. SURE!
Derek, i don’t know in what airy fairy land you’re living, but tell me, if you are so pro-life, then why are your kind of people running around abortion clinics and killing people? is their life not worth being protected? Or do you only care about life, when your twisted agenda is concerned?
Be anti-abortion, fair enough, that’s your right, but do never ever try and impose your view of the world on other people, because that just makes you an idiot.
larrisa …you got all that from my reply to rod?…are you a mindreader ? why arent you on telly… as for agenda or abortion or anything else you have labelled me with ..look to yourself first before you label anybody…anyone who thinks larisa is a bitter twisted agenda driven hateful little troll green thumb now please..
For those that are interested I’m pro choice, I’ve never got an answer to my question as to when a thing becomes a person, when we can agree on that we can move on in my opinion. Laters
You don’t seem pro-choice, given that you support punishment for those that make the choice. Try again Tod
Believe what you like soco
Say what you like Not Rod, abortion is coming to Ireland. It started with the x case. FFA and rape will be next. Full abortion on demand will follow. About time too.
Not – it is a red herring just like you claiming to be pro choice.
Ok, I think abortion should be available , free and safe. That it should be limited to a particular date in gestation and nobody should be coerced, it should not become a form of contraception.
So is that murder? Or not when you decide it’s not?
Birth – the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.
NB: note “the start of life”
Abortion – the direct and intentional killing of an unborn baby
NB: Note “killing”
Well yeah it does fit your (and who made you an authority) description of a person, actually
Aoife – very selective definition that one, have looked at all of the reputable online dictionaries and did not get that definition of abortion. Now why would that be?
“Ok, I think abortion should be available , free and safe. That it should be limited to a particular date in gestation and nobody should be coerced, it should not become a form of contraception.”
Have you any percentages of the women who used abortion as a form of contraception?
No I don’t but I think it would be naive to assume it would be used and is used as such
Oh look, Rod ignored my question again
When you answer mine I will answer yours
After 24 weeks.. Once it’s viable outside the womb
Seems reasonable, let’s put that to a vote then and move the Fein on.
I did. You failed to answer mine. Scroll up and see!
You didn’t you gave the vaguest possible definition of a person, that might describe you but how about we use the arbitrary 22 weeks as suggested above.
I think it’s quite obvious that a ‘foetus’ becomes a ‘person’ from the moment that the foetus can adequately survive outside of the womb. By adequately I mean that in an emergency case it would be possible to remove the foetus from the mother with a high statistical chance of survival using medical support.
Until that point it is a collection of cells incapable of self-sustenance or, in unfortunate cases, a baby which has a fatal abnormality.
Not everybody agrees with that, that the problem
I gave you a specific answer. I said birth. Now answer my question…..If you can. I doubt you will, as it will show your claim to be entirely wrong.
To answer your question with the same level of vagueness as you I would like to say “states”, happy?
Nope, I gave you a very specific point and I asked for proof. Try again
Oh look, Socrates ignored my question again
Why would that be the case, Jason? You say it’s “quite obvious” but I see no rationale for that. Nor does most of the world. Abortion is only legal at 24 weeks in a very small minority of countries
Lorem, I didn’t see any question directed at me. If you wish to ask a question, go ahead.
He could have asked you with one of ‘he’r other accounts —she has form..
Oops! *She
What other accounts does she have?
Those that Deny Freedom to others
Do NOT deserve it for themselves.
——————————————–
You have never seen an abortion and it results then?
I have never seen open heart surgery or an amputation or removal of an obstructed gall bladder.
On the question of an abortion, I suspect that the residue of an early stage abortion is not too gruesome but a very late stage surgical abortion would be extremely upsetting. That however should not be the arbiter of the decision.
Silver Planet-Le Tigre just to name two- and I’d bet my last dollar that “she” is Niall ..
Interesting!
Those that Deny Freedom to others
Do NOT deserve it for themselves.
——————————————–
Bit rich coming from someone who has Chainsaw in her “handle”
“The BBC notes that terminations are only allowed if a woman’s life is at risk, or if there is a permanent or serious risk to her mental or physical health.”
That’s also what the law says in England & Wales
Oh no!! A slippery slope.
What are you on about now?
Laws in this country on abortion are an abuse to women. In this day & age it’s a travesty that women are forced to have a baby if they have been raped. Stick your so called religion & excuses to stay in the Stone Age. Every women should be able to make an educated decision on what’s best for her & her child or unborn. Every case is different but as a country we treat nearly every case the same. That alone is against human rights.
I wonder how many people would want abortion on demand in the republic of Ireland? Will that be put to the people in a post Christmas referendum?
4
Imagine we treat women like adults and graciously allow them to decide their own fate, like they do in other countries? Nah, the Iona crew would have a fit.
I believe a woman should have the right to chose and if that is to be labelled as “on demand” than so be it. I view it as her right of mental and physical autonomy.
Don’t hold your breadth if you think there’ll be a referendum anytime soon. At least two years away, minimum.
But we could really do width it Reg
I would be in favour up to 12 weeks. Women are adults and we as individuals or as a state should not be meddling in their private lives or decisions.
I want abortion on demand the way I want chemo on demand, or dentistry on demand.
Shauna McDermott – There is more than just her own fate to be considered.
So great to hear a rationale wording of this matter from a judge on this island… Albeit not my side of the island. It is only a matter of time now. Let’s sit and watch a host of ‘which way the wind blows’ TDs trying to play catch up now. Shame on them for dragging their heels for so long
Except it’s not deciding their own fate, it’s their fate AND the baby’s fate (i.e. death)
It’s not ok to use abortion as a contraceptive or to abort a healthy child at 26 weeks.
Abortions are carried out for many reasons ..In fact..rape, incest and health of mother or baby would probably be well down the list of why a woman had an abortion..
Don’t worry lad ,as you’ll never have to go through having one ..
Ok lass, what’s you’re reason.
Sanity at last
The wilful destruction of human life and you call it sanity?
Destruct away :)
To quote the Judge in this case lone hurler.
“The protection of morals should not contemplate a restriction that bites on the impoverished but not the wealthy. That smacks of one law for the rich and one law for the poor.”
”this government is on notice….”
Very strong language – almost threatening – from Colm O’Gorman of Amnesty Ireland.
A pity he has such a selective view of human rights.
What has Amnesty to say about the rights of babies who survive abortion, and are simply left on a tray in a hospital corner to die. Several numbers of these cases recorded in Britain last year.
Not a peep from Amnesty (or O’Gorman) on this.
You keep fighting the fight ,Zoe ! You go girl!
Excellent work,Paul :) Can you name any other of my other numerous accounts on here whilst you’re at it :)Good lad!
Thanks Tom.
Thankfully Not_Rod, not everyone is as blinkered and close minded as you.
This is such good news! Now I hope we’ll get in in the Republic of Ireland and maybe more. I’m pro-choice and I feel like a woman should be able to decide whether she wants a termination or not. Especially in cases of rape. I’ve always hated that some women are forced to carry the baby of the man who raped them against their will.
Hmmm.
This is a UK Supreme Court issue, and Cameron has the Human Rights Act in his sights.
For most, Abortion is the main issue.
I’d ask people to spare a thought for Courts being used to override Parliament. It seems as though NI is experiencing a fresh wave of Judicial Activism. I’m really not sure if this is a good thing.
In some cases, it would be correct for courts to override the politicians, some of the shite, delaying, obfuscation pandering etc that goes on.
A healthy democracy should have the means to challenge legislation, but does this render abortion legislation redundant now? As in, any future cases for illegal abortion is not stand up in court if it meets the criteria above i.e fatal fetal abnormalities?
If Cameron had abolished the Human Rights Act, this Judgement could not have been written.
Paul it’s ok if you are against abortion, dont have one. Keep your nose out of others women’s business.
It an issue for society, Paul.
I like our protection for the unborn, you don’t.
I’m not sure about certain aspects (FFA/TFA – whether there’s an equal right to life…) but I there is precedence for legislation rather than removing the entire amendment.
It’s a discussion for grown ups, and you’re welcome to participate.
* but there is precedence…
Paul, your meandering legal technicalites argument is bewildering. You were at the same during the SSM referendum, trying (very badly) to pass yourself off as a dissineterested neutral with your convoluted reasoning.
Yes Matty,
When it becomes apparent in a public debate that a libtard hegemony is controlling public opinion then any objection would be perceived as a “legal meandering”.
Here, the constitution recognises a right to life that you’d like to see removed.
You rather not see the right to life as a “Human Right” but you’d like the people of Ireland to see the right to an abortion as a “Human Right”.
For you and the other ladies, it’s cut and dried.
Not so for me.
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with the type of person who describes his opponents as libtards. It’s reflective if an intransigent outlook on the part of the person who uses such an American neologism.
Ok.
Who cares what happens in Britland?
Down here south of the border it’s a Catholic country and our Constitution states that life is life.
And that ain’t gonna change.
Not now.
Not for the foreseeable future.
Ignore Enda.
He’s telling porkies again.
“Down here south of the border it’s a Catholic country”
Doesn’t matter how often you say that. It will never be true. We were abused by the Catholic church for a long time but it’s over now. Would you call Germany a Nazi country now?
Tommy I’m born and bred here as were my parents and their parents and I’m not a Catholic, why should I be discriminated against in the country of my birth because of my religion?
“it’s a Catholic country”
Thanks for the belly laugh, Tommy.
We haven’t had an official state religion since the foundation of the state, our constitution does not endorse any religion or belief and the reference to the special position of the Catholic church has been removed from our constitution by public referendum, so no we’re not a Catholic country.
And thank God for that Fiachra, but the most of the comments on here championing abortion are actually derived from their hatred of the Catholic Church which is quite sad and petty really.
@TheLoneHurler,
So, believing a woman should have to right to decide on issues concerning her own body, equals hatred of the Catholic Church? That’s quite an interesting statement.
But, tell me, why should the Catholic Church have a right to decide what women are allowed to do with their bodies and what not?
I’m not catholic and I hope my children never see the inside of a church, except as tourists.
Those that Deny Freedom to others
Do NOT deserve it for themselves.
————————————————
There is something instinctively wrong with the idea/concept of “abortion”! This is nothing to do with religion but all to do with our humanity and what makes us human. You can argue all you want, but no matter where your feelings lie in relation to when life starts, about non-viability, about other “abnormality” pregnancies, rape pregnancies etc. the idea of abortion just does not sit easy inside the human psyche! So any abortion for whatever the reason has to be thought through, proper system checks and balances put in place and all framed by a good set of laws and legislation. I suspect that most people in this country are not ok with what is know as “abortion on demand”, but can see where exceptions can/should be made in relation to the abortions where the circumstances (sadly) warrant it!
We are all now familiar with “gory” ads in relation to drink driving, smoking, drugs etc, maybe there should be more of this type of advertising or educational videos to show young adults what exactly happens in abortions. Maybe we all should be exposed to this type of video if we are to vote in a referendum in relation to abortion! Educational videos on foetal abnormalities, pregnancies that are a risk to the mother’s life etc should also be available. Also, personal responsibility should also be hammered home!
Finally, we have to decide as a species do we value human life or not? Therefore, on the serious issue as to when life starts there is no conclusive “argument” as to exactly that happens! So if we really value “human life” then we must err on the side of caution until that argument is conclusively proven!. Therefore, till that happens it could mean is that it starts at conception which might be 12, 24, 36, 48 hours after intercourse! This then makes abortion a “life or death” issue (of mother or child) and we should approach it with the seriousness it deserves!
Posts about valuing human life
Avatar is a warplane
Go figure.
There are videos that show exactly what happens in over 90% abortions. Woman takes tablets. Woman has heavy period. The gorno fetish videos made by so called pro-life groups are as genuine as “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” films.
She/he is still a human being Daisy no matter how much you degrade it.
Is there any particular reason you forgot to mention the effects of forced pregnancy in you long list of stuff we need to be educated about?
Warthog, any thoughts on all the 20th, 30th, 40th, 50th…………………. trimester children your avatar has aborted?
Those that Deny Freedom to others
Do NOT deserve it for themselves.
——————————————–
@For Connolly – I think your sad flippant idiotic comment indicates to me that you might need to grow up! Smart-asses like you should really be on the stage —- sweeping it!
I don’t think Mr Connolly would be happy with the manner in which you treat such a serious subject!
Anyone also notice the pure irony in the tag line he puts at the start of his posts and his anti-choice stance?
That is a cracker,Jason!
Those that Deny Freedom to others
Do NOT deserve it for themselves.
——————————————–
@Kristine Wahl – The list I gave was not exhaustive and was never meant to be. Most people are well able to do their own research if they really want to find out. There are many who have the resources do not want to know the “nitty gritty” of abortions! Bit like many of us not wanting to know how animals are treated before they arrive as meant on our table, many of us also don’t want to know what actually happens at an abortion!! The education that I was talking about I suggest should be aimed at those in 5th/6th class!
Your question about “forced pregnancy” confuses me as I never suggested anything that would suppose that I would support such a thing. My question back to you is, what is your point? My point is that if we are going to have abortion for certain situations then it has to be thought through, with proper system checks and balances put in place and all framed by a good set of laws and legislation. But when you get inane immature comments from posters such as “For Connolly & Matty Reese” on this subject, I sometimes wonder if people actually read what has been posted post?
Nowhere in my post was I ever ant-choice?
Those that Deny Freedom to others
Do NOT deserve it for themselves.
——————————————–
Pity people wouldn’t address the issue and not Tag lines and avatars, as when it comes to avatars it is a case of people in glass houses should not throw stones!
Warthog, the avatar shows an anti-life symbol and it provokes the question why you would use such a warlikeemblem. It is unlikely to be random.
My main point is that everything you did list was about the foetus, not a peep about the impact being forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy (forced pregnancy) has on women.
There are a lot nitty gritty details concerning abortion, pregnancy and birth, a lot of it gunky, a lot of it scary. Would you really want to know all about possible foetal abnormalities and health complications when trying to get pregnant? Thing is, few women ponder those details when they contemplate getting pregnant and having a baby or when they decide what to do about an unplanned pregnancy. Even staunchly anti choice women have abortions and a lot of them know more about what happens during abortions than what actually takes place. All those educational videos you propose would serve little purpose. Teaching young people how to protect themselves and to make contraception freely available would enable them to be as responsible as possible.
Those that Deny Freedom to others
Do NOT deserve it for themselves.
——————————————–
Maybe I just like aircraft & was until today not aware that your avatar says what you are and that your opinion is not considered serious! Therefore, on that bases what does it say about those who have avatars such as cartoon characters, animals, half naked ladies, cowboys, Chinese lady, bats etc etc. Must remember to only take those with no avatars seriously in the future. But really all this avatar talk it is just deflection, redirection and sticking the head in the sand.
Finally, its a bit rich to mention “anti-life” when the discussion here is about abortion.
Those that Deny Freedom to others
Do NOT deserve it for themselves.
——————————————–
@Kristine Wahl – I can only take from what you said that you are in favour of “abortion on demand” as I again never mentioned or alluded to women into “forced pregnancy”. I am totally against abortion on demand. For a healthy woman to abort a perfect healthy baby because she wants to to on holidays is to my mind morally and ethically wrong!
As to the list of reason proposed by the Lab party for abortion I can go most of the way with that, but have my doubts in relation to “suicide and rape”!
That was sort of my initial point, you never even mentioned women.
Of course I am in favour of abortion on demand, nothing else makes sense, or have you not noticed that women have illegal abortions when they can’t access the service legally? This is not about allowing/not allowing women to have abortions, it’s about making it as safe as possible when they choose to have one seeing as it is beneficial to society that they remain healthy and with no more dependents than they can provide for.
Strangely enough, of the women I know who have had abortions, wanting to go on holidays was never a factor. The fact that you think it is explains why forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies didn’t make your list of things to be educated about.
Those that Deny Freedom to others
Do NOT deserve it for themselves.
——————————————–
@Kristine Wahl – So you want abortion to be used as a form of contraception? Abortion on demand is in my opinion unethical and morally wrong. If women do not want to have children then don’t get pregnant in the first place. FFS grow up and take personal responsibility & don’t tell me that the 4k women or more heading to the UK were in someway coerced or forced into getting pregnant There are plenty of solutions out there already to prevent that happening in the first place. The whole this is “my body” argument is tiring. Once pregnant you are sharing that body with another living entity! Isn’t funny when women who have had miscarriages never articulate their sadness as “the loss of a foetus” but usually generally articulate it as “the loss of their baby”! Yet we have people on here stating that the “baby” is not a baby or human (in fact it is treated as a piece of dog meat) until it is born! If women want to have abortions for non-medical or non-physiological reason then hop on the plane. If you dip your wick then you pay for the oil. Women have to stop continually play the “victim” card!
Finally, no one human should be responsible for whether another human lives or dies. That is why we must not allow “abortion on demand”. In the case of abortion where there are sound medical and physiological reasons and possibly in the case of rape, suicide and incest then we should have strict procedures in place.
P.S. Just want to say that I appreciate your honesty and the fact that you did not let my avatar detract from what I was saying unlike others on here.
“If women do not want to have children then don’t get pregnant in the first place” -Brilliant piece of advice!
Here’s another bit of even more brilliant advice- “If you don’t agree with abortion,then don’t have one!”
Did you not notice in a previous post of mine, addressed to you, said that sex ed and freely available contraception is the way to go? It should have tipped you off to the answer to your question.
Have you ever had a look at the fail rate of various contraceptives or the effectiveness of preaching sexual abstinence? Forced pregnancy is to be forced to continue with a pregnancy you don’t want. Being forced to GET pregnant against your will is rape.
How come you consider taking on a responsibility you are not able for as taking responsibility? That one never made much sense to me.
Why do you find it strange that we say “lost the baby” when it comes to miscarriages? We tend to think in terms of wanted end result. I put the bread in the oven even though clearly it is still just dough.
It is not up to you or us whether to allow women to have abortions for whatever reason they have for choosing to have one, that is outside our control. What we get to decide is how safe having an abortion will. So what it comes down to is what is more important to you, your personal view on morals or the safety and health of born women.
Those that Deny Freedom to others
Do NOT deserve it for themselves.
————————————————-
@Kristine Wahl – Abortion is very safe in the Uk so for those who want to preserve their figure for the summer holiday then they can afford to head on over! The 5.5K of women who are heading to the UK from this island are not going there because of poor education or failed contraceptives.
Quote
“How come you consider taking on a responsibility you are not able for as taking responsibility? That one never made much sense to me.”
Unquote
How’s about ensuring that you don’t get pregnant then? Don’t drink and drive! Don’t cycle at night without high vis clothing and lights! You know those sort of responsibilities. Surely women are well capable of ensuring that they don’t get pregnant? If they are not then…..?
Do not accept your “bread in the oven” analogy although considering what we are discussing “bun in the oven” might be more apt? “Baby in the womb” is exactly how we refer to the baby, but it is now convenient to call the baby something else when we want abortion. All I see in your argument is selfishness, lack of personal responsibility, weak excuses as to why women end up with unwanted pregnancies, using of abortion as a for of contraception, the feminism “poor me” syndrome, the tiring my body argument (which obviously 5.5K women don’t care much about as they managed to get pregnant when they didn’t want to), the baby in the womb has no value (in fact our family pets have more rights as far as the pro-abortion side are concerned), lack of ethic and morals.
Abortion on demand as you would like, will suit the Seven Eleven crowd perfectly, they want the rest of us to pay for their mistakes, whether that be an abortion or as a single parent! In fact those on Social Welfare will also have had us pay for their night out where the got pregnant in the first place.
I was just thinking, that if by some aberration abortion on demand was legalised then that should end the situation with “single mothers”! Particularly those that as you pointed out cannot afford to finance a child’s upbringing. Once that fact has been established then you will now they have 3 choices:-
1. Give child up for adoption.
2. Have an abortion.
3. Take care of child without State aid except of course for C.Allwnc and Med Card.
Be careful what you wish for?
You know all the women who travel every year and they have all confided in you how they got pregnant? I’m impressed!
The only way to ensure never to get pregnant is to never have sex. It would mean only having sex if you are trying to get pregnant. Given that most women get pregnant within the first year of trying and many settle for two or three children, we’d get to have sex for about three years until menopause – unless women have their tubes tied, of course. I’m sure that is realistic.
The bread in the oven was an illustration of how we think in future results, not an analogy. It also applies to buns and the prospect of having a baby. No matter how we think of what is in the womb, fact is, it’s a foetus until it’s born. That fact is, neither an argument for nor against abortion, so little point in harping on about.
Would you elaborate a bit on that responsibility bit again? You seem to be of the opinion that if you get pregnant, the only responsible thing is to carry to term. It’s as if pregnancy does not take it’s toll on a woman’s body nearly no matter how easy a pregnancy, that there is no life long commitment to the resulting child after birth and that people have resources to to provide for any number of dependents. (Pets have the rights they have been given in law and has got nothing to do with “as far as pro abortion are concerned”, but well done you for cluttering with irrelevant babble)
Of course abortion in the UK is safe, it’s the having to travel after a medical procedure, using online medication without face to face medical supervision etc that adds the risks for Irish women.
What situation with single mothers should end?
Ah Kristine the mask has slipped. Remember one man’s babble is another man’s truth. Likewise to some the termination of a pregnancy is an abortion to others it’s a killing. My pets comment was an illustration as to how little we value the life of the baby in the womb.
And yes if women are sexually active and who do not want to become pregnant then yes get the female version of the male snip! Alternatively, using two methods of contraception would prevent 99.9 cases of these pregnancies, e.g. condom with pill or its equivalent, cap with condom are just 2 examples. So yes if you have been stupid enough to get pregnant because you failed to take proper or sufficient precautions then suck it up. You messed up so deal with the consequences. Might seems severe but we are not talking about pulling teeth here but with the extinguishing of life!
Finally, we are never going to agree as I will never support or agree with “abortion on demand”!
So we will agree to disagree on that. I am more acceptable to the list set out by the Lab party for allowable abortions with some reservations regarding suicide and rape! Oh and as to single mothers which I thought was pretty clear – if we do have abortion on demand then the state (it’s citizens) should no longer have to support the single mother who decides to have the baby that she cannot afford. If you want a child you pay for it just like if you want a BMW you pay for it not your neighbours!
Those that Deny Freedom to others
Do NOT deserve it for themselves.
——————————————–
Pity more on here would not have your courage and to come out the closet and admit that they support abortion on demand.
Looking at the post I could probably list most of them!
Over & out
I have never been in any sort of closet, nor are any others who favour abortion on demand, it’s just that sometimes the topic is one specific aspect that is being debated and most of us try not to drag in other aspects to clutter up the debate. Has got nothing to do with lack of courage, but everything to do with staying on one topic at the time. A bit like not dragging in who should and who should not be eligible for social welfare when debating abortion. That’s just clutter.
I guess we have now established that you are in fact anti choice, just like the focus of your original post suggested.
Those that Deny Freedom to others
Do NOT deserve it for themselves.
——————————————–
I wish you would read what I have wrote & I( also never said that you were in any closet. Was referring to others.
So for one last time. I AM NOT ANTI CHOICE BUT I AM ANTI ABORTION ON DEMAND.
Is that clear enough for you? So YES give people the CHOICE in cases where rape, severe fetal abnormality, life of the mother and suicide is involved! But suggest that there should be strict checks, balances & procedures all framed by good legislation in place particularly in relation to rape & suicide.
If you are against each individual woman making her own choice for her reasons which is what abortion on demand is, then you are anti choice.
Of course it stands to reason that if these matters weren’t being decided for me, I would be spreading foetus on my toast as we speak.
As it should be!
One can tell from Mr Justice Horner’s specious reasoning that he has come to this judgment from a prejudiced point of view on abortion. Only pro-choice lawyers make such ill-considered arguments with these sorts of holes in them.
It was completely rational reasoning and not that difficult to comprehend.
Only sick twisted folk would want a young woman to go through a full term with their own fathers child inside them ..
Interesting to know what Paul Roche would decide on this.
Why not ask someone who happens to be the child of such a tragedy?
They exist as people, you know.
We have Paul Roche’s answer if he was the father or not.
You have no such thing.
If a person is born from rape, then I have no issue with that person,Paul
If a person is raped and wants to abort and is stopped from doing so-that’s a different story ..
by the same token larissa ..what gives you the right to decide what women are allowed to do with their bodies and what not ?
I don’t think she is trying to decide for them, merely advocating the removal of impediments to them being allowed to choose for them selves.
You seem to believe there is an agenda to round up all pregnant women and force them to have terminations.
Oh, right Derek, arguing that every woman should make the decision for herself what to do with her body, is me deciding for everyone else, wow, how did you figure that out?
See larissa..you’re so bitter and twisted that you didn’t read my comment ..wood for trees and all that..what gives anyone the right …either male or female is membership of society ..every one has the right to decide on societal matters.. in this country citizenship gives you the right to vote and as a democracy everyone is entitled to an opinion ..even people who go to church …now larissa ..what label are giving me now?
Derek, no one is stopping you from arguing, but you have no right to force your views unto others and neither does the church, what part of this do you not understand?
But you don’t have a problem forcing your views? Are you serious?
She’s not forcing any view. She is advocating choice. Derek, do you oppose forcing women to do as you see fit?
Sock .are you and larissa the same person? Can you show any comments where I advocated any viewpoint?
Nope. I’m not saying you do, I’m asking do you. it’s a simple question.
It’s obvious you’re not the real socrates cos you’re a moron
It’s obvious by saying that : “you’re not the real Socrates” -that you’re the real moron just for saying that.
Mc f Kevin. …were you absent from Eton the day they covered sarcasm?
Derek, have you been rendered incapable of answering questions also?
Do you really expect to be taken seriously soc? Moron..
How very juvenile! Name calling, really? And still no answer. Typical pro life tactics
I think that Derek is finding this discussion a little too challenging.
And you think people are never forced to have abortions?
I’m asking how do you feel about rapists and abusers using abortion to cover up their crimes??
You do realise that if a rapist/abuser can force their victim to have legal abortion they can force their victim to have an illegal one too, right? Sure, that would maximise the chances of their victim never reporting anything to the police.
Do you actually think there are people that aren’t appalled at the idea of forcing a woman into an abortion to “cover up their crimes”?
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that access to safe legal abortion and the chance that some vile individuals could use it to perpetuate a crime are remotely the same thing?
Did you even read my point about a private discussion to attempt to make sure that no woman is being coerced?
Do I think there have been cases where a woman has been forced to have an abortion? Yes, most probably.
Do I think that should mean that access to safe, legal abortion is a bad idea? No
Do I think that putting an effective structure in place when a woman can safely access help if she’s in such a horrendous position is a good thing? Absolutely!
What do I think? I think any attempt to control a woman’s body and force her to do things with it that she does not want is wrong.
The foetus does not live in the male body, but rather, in the woman’s. Thus, the decision about the health and welfare of the affected individual should be paramount.
Even if one takes the hypothetical approach that the rapist or abuser wishes to force and abortion to hide his crimes – that is utter nonsense. How does a pregnancy hide or shield physical abuse? I suppose one could make the argument that the rapist could shield his DNA – but then again, how would the rapist know there was a pregnancy to begin with? This is an insane hypothetical. At the end of the day, decisions are made by the woman based upon what she views as her best interests.
Well said,Rosie!
Have to agree with you in saying that It was an insane hypothetical-but pro birthers have form on asking those ..
What about when rapists and abusers use abortion to cover up their sick crimes???
That is forced abortion, not choice
There is a reason a clinic will interview a woman, alone when she is requesting a termination. They want to make sure that it’s the individual’s choice and they’re not being pressured into it.
There is that word again. Choice!!
You do realise that a pregnancy or lack thereof has no bearing on the chances of a successful prosecution right?
In fact a pregnancy isn’t even evidence. It’s evidence that a sexual encounter took place and that’s about it.
from the judgement
>>[160] The doctors know when a foetus has an FFA. … In those circumstances the doctor can be reasonably certain that the foetus will be unable to live independently outside the womb.
>>[166] The position with SMFs is different.
I suspect the main challenge, if appealed, will be that this distinction if factually incorrect; that FFA is only know with hindsight and that doctors cannot reliably form an FFA opinion.
The rape portion of the decision looks to be more solid. English law applies the right to life from birth and is assumed to apply in NI.
>> [161] …the foetus does not have any Article 2 rights.
There’s unlikely to be any case law or argument to overturn that assumption.
Ireland hasn’t received that ruling yet so I don’t know how the north can
have your say