We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
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.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
AN IMAGE USED by pro-life campaigners Youth Defence is being investigated to determine whether it breached the license agreement of the company from which it was purchased.
This was revealed after images on their site were found to have been altered to include a required disclaimer which was missing from their recent campaign, which included billboards, leaflets and bus and Luas ads.
iStockPhoto - which sells stock images for third party use – state that any images used should be “accompanied by a statement that indicates that the Content is being used for illustrative purposes only and any person depicted in the Content is a model” where it:
depicts such person in a potentially sensitive subject matter, including, but not limited to mental and physical health issues, social issues, sexual or implied sexual activity or preferences, substance abuse, crime, physical or mental abuse or ailments
In the case of the image in question, it appears alongside the caption “Abortion Tears Her Life Apart.”
(Sam Boal/Photocall Ireland)
When contacted by TheJournal.ie on Wednesday, the campaign director for Youth Defence, Íde Nic Mhathúna, stated that they had a long-standing relationship with the company and that “the matter has been closed”.
She said that talk of wrongdoing was “not a revelation,” saying that the recent post on the blog red lemonade about the issue was a case of someone trying “desperately to dig up information” when nothing new existed.
She then went on to say that iStockPhoto was aware of the anti-abortion campaign and that the “images will be used in our campaign again.”
Internal investigation
An investigation by TheJournal.ie found that the images on Youth Defence’s website give the impression that they are in compliance with the company’s rules, with both the billboard and bus ad containing the disclaimer “PIC POSED BY MODEL.”
Images of the same billboard – identifiable by the billboard number on the top left – found elsewhere on the web (here and here) show no such disclaimer, however. Other photographs of the ad, as seen here and in the image above do not carry the required disclaimer either.
When TheJournal.ie contacted the Compliance Enforcement department within iStockPhoto with this information, we were put in contact with a Kylie Taylor from Getty Images, who stated:
Rights and compliance is of the utmost importance to iStockphoto and we are investigating this internally. While we cannot comment on current investigations, we can confirm that how a client chooses to incorporate an image into their communication is of their decision, provided they are in compliance with the license agreement.
In our attempts to identify the billboard in question, advertisers JCDecaux confirmed that the reference number corresponded to a billboard in Belfast which no longer exists, having been removed approximately 12 months ago.
When TheJournal.ie contacted Íde Nic Mhathúna again yesterday with our findings, she stated that the campaign billboards are between cycles and that “there are no billboards up at present.”
When asked how the image of a uniquely identifiable billboard that appears on Youth Defence’s site contains a disclaimer while other images of the same billboard do not, she stated that this image was representative of “any future advertisements,” before confirming that none of the materials that Youth Defence had used in their campaign up until this point bore this disclaimer.
When further questioned as to how a billboard which existed in Belfast before being ripped down 12 months ago contained an anti-abortion image from a campaign which only started in June and was limited to the Republic of Ireland, Nic Mhathúna responded that the image was a “mock-up” and that it was “used for market research”.
In response to the statement from Getty Images that they were “investigating this internally,” she said that “as far as we’re concerned the matter is closed,” while stating that she did not believe it to be anyone else’s business other than that of Youth Defence and iStockPhoto.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Just to clarify, if a woman here needs an abortion and must legally travel abroad Youth Defence assumes it’s their business, but when they break laws here it isn’t “anyone else’s business other than that of Youth Defence”. Gotya.
And this shower of fools presume to lecture to the rest of us on morality? I don’t think so.
And did Youth Defence have anything to say about the Lennart Nilsson image of an aborted foetus used on other billboards? Nillsson’s agency said (in response to queries by Red Lemonade) they made no licensing agreement with Youth Defence.
In the article the head of youth defence states that billboards are currently between cycles and they have none up, but outside Limerick city along the dual carriageway to Shannon there are numerous billboards like the one shown in this article.
All three images that they used in their recent campaign have broken copyright rules.
Who cares. Attack their policies properly as opposed to this rubbish.
Paul O’Grady, copyright is important, as a photographer I would want my images properly displayed in-line with the license they are sold under. If a company or group didn’t follow this license then I’d be rightly pissed and would want it pursued.
As for the policy’s youth defense have, your having a laugh right? They don’t have policies they only have mindless dogma and just want to create fear instead of allowing choice in life or death situations or even situations of rape or incest.
@Barry – that’s why we need clarity in this area – successive Fianna Fail governments have grossly failed to legislate in this area since the ruling in the X case.
Oh happy days!
And sun is shining!
Oh what a beautiful morning!
How about an investigation into some of the horrible (and I mean really nasty) things the above mentioned campaign director has said to some of the women of TFMR on the YD Facebook page? Professional it ain’t.
This is nothing new from YD. Back in the 1990s, during the X Case, anyone who was Pro Choice was fair game. I remember being on one demonstration where they threw, of all things, toilet rolls at us. It was designed to start trouble, so they could come across as the victims. They’re the stormtroopers of the Pro Life movement.
Stephanie, do you know if she was reported for any of her vicious comments?
I remember as a teenager walking across O’Connell street and one of them shoving a poster of an aborted foetus in my grandmothers face. Nearly knocked the little lowlife out. Horrible cretins the lot of them.
@TooTrueLeft, they tried that with my then 5 year old son. Needless to say, they got an earful, and they were reported to the stationary Garda at the GPO. Bad enough I had to walk past their photos, but to try and explain to a 5 year old child is not on.
Well I know I reported her for one or two (can’t remember which but I think it was some on Simon Harris’ facebook page) and they are startlingly aggressive.
Stephanie could you be more precise because I personally remember stating my support and opinion on simon harris’s page only to be attacked by this member from TFMR where she completely violated my privacy by stating where I work, What i work at and that she would complain to my work place as she was worried that someone in my posiition could have these views and she accused me of holding my views towards people in work, which was a complete lie. she later removed her post and apologised. perhaps youre not talking about this particular thread but I just wanted to clarify that.
Clarify what precisely? That you’ve received abuse from people who are pro-choice? I don’t doubt that and you’ll recall that I supported you at the time. But that doesn’t excuse the actions of a spokeswoman for an organisation running a national campaign. As you pointed out the woman in question has apologised, I’ve failed to see any such apology from Ms. Nic Mhathúna or any of the De Faoites. They are highly dismissive, condescending and insulting towards anyone who disagrees with them. I can’t help but picture a sneer on the face of the people writing those kinds of comments.
What’s more is the comments from the woman you mention are at least understandable. She went though a very difficult and emotional experience and feels that her decision is being judged, which it is. That people are implying that she had no real love for her child, that she did the wrong thing etc. Her response was an emotional one in response to very harsh criticism of a personal decision and as you pointed out she deleted the post and apologised. Ms. Nic Mhathúna’s comments are directed at anyone with an opposing opinion. She has repeatedly implied that supporters of TFMR think that termination is the answer to any pregnancy with the slightest complication and has directed those comments to the women of TFMR despite never having been in a similar situation herself.
Only these women know what they’ve been through and their reasons for their decision and Ms. Nic Mhathúna presumes to judge them and imply that they have no right to support any other option for women in similar situations.
They’re horrendous. They remind me of similar fascist groups in Europe in the 1930s
I’m failing to see the real point of this story – apart from having a pop at youth defence. If this was any other organisation apart from youth defence this wouldn’t be a story. I do feel that you just jumped on a bandwagon rather than produced an ‘exclusive’.
Have you ever had to deal with Youth Defence?
It’s not a very pleasant ordeal!
Well say that then (and I’m sure they are) – but this story about copyright is a complete strawman. Let’s have some proper journalism please as opposed to this cheap shot to get on the bandwagon.
I still don’t get the relevance of this story apart from a blatant attack on youth defense – which is fine – but write an opinion piece on their policies – don’t dress up something like this as ‘news’.
Arguing with YD on their own policies is like attacking the Basilisk of The Chamber of Secrets with a tooth pick.
They are more than capable of arguing against everyone else’ policies, but good luck if you try arguing with theirs!
Breach of copyright is breach of the law Paul. I’m not sure it’s fair to presume this is not newsworthy just because you’re not interested.
Somewhat ironically these people are concerned that abortion might harm this woman when they have not only breached the copyright of the photography company but also seriously defamed this woman by implying she had an abortion! Sad to think that in this country that could be defamation but it is!
Thank you Oisin – but perhaps you should actually read the Defamation Act 2009 before offering opinion on that angle as the case wouldn’t last 30 seconds.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I’ve read the Defamation Act (and the common law of tort) and I’m willing to say that since being gay and having been raped were both held in common law to be defamatory, you could make a decent argument that saying someone had an abortion is (not that I think any of the three reflect badly on anyone). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
As to “why is this even in the Journal?”, totally right. Let’s just leave them to write more articles about the internet outrage directed at Kristen Stewart, shall we?
Mr O’Grady. Thank you for your kind advice to read the Defamation Act 2009. I will take same into consideration. Of course one would imagine I would have done so considering I’m a barrister who specialises in Intellectual Property Law and Defamation Law.
http://www.lawlibrary.ie/members/barrister.asp?barID=5524
Soz, lol.
@Nick Unfortunately, you are correct – abortion is illegal in Ireland unless the life of the mother is threatened in a real and substantial way. I would find it difficult (unless Mr O’Grady is claiming there is some sort of privilege or other defence available to the Youth Defence) to say that a picture of a woman used without her permission to depict that she may have implicitly committed an illegal act is not potentially defamatory of that woman. Alas, D v Ireland was inappropriately brought before the ECJ prior to exhausting national remedies or else we may not have these laws.
Ok Oisin. How would you get over the fact that a defamatory statement as defined by the act means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society. I don’t think that any reasonable member of society would consider that the girl in the picture actually had an abortion. Whether a statement is defamatory is a question of fact and not law.
@Paul. 1) the picture implies that she had an abortion; 2) abortion is illegal in Ireland unless her life is in real and substantial danger; 3) it “tears her life apart”.
There is a serious case to be made by the woman who posed for a stock photo that her reputation has been injured in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. An illegal act is illegal regardless of how people feel about it.
… I mean, I certainly take the picture to mean that she had an abortion – maybe I’m the only one?!
I think that any reasonable member of society would be led to believe that the girl in the picture did actually have an abortion as the slogan across it states “Abortion tears her life apart”.
However I would also hope that any reasonable member of society would not take the fact that she has had an abortions to mean that her reputation has been injured in any way. Hopefully legislation will allow for every person to make their own choice.
There’s your other hurdle Oisin – consent. Posing for a stock photo means that you signed a waiver.
I disagree with your reasonable person analysis. All you have to do us read the Hickey v Sunday Newspaper judgment – while precedent is unreliable for defamation I do think that Kearns P’s reasoning would be followed and no reasonable person would be found to consider that this actual girl actually had an abortion and then youth defense stooped so low as to put her photo on a billboard without her consent.
I think that the majority of people would think that she was a model. In the same way the children on the Barbados billboards are not the actual victims of child abuse.
You would be facing an uphill battle with this case.
Are you kidding? The article is about the potentially illegal use of the photo!? Consent to what exactly?
I’ve seen cases progress much further on a lot less Paul… it’s the name of the game these days. Let’s put it this way, would you be happy if you went in and had photos taken for stock photography and then they were used in anti-abortion promos without your permission and without the permission of the company that claims they were illegally used.
You can’t pretend to know what type of consent she signed for the use of those photos either… you’re really grasping at straws here. I said there is potential defamation here and there is. Whether or not she would win the case is an entirely different story and one which nobody here is in a position to claim they know the answer to. Armchair pundits and wannabe lawyers are always quick to claim they understand the law and the process, but unless you have the brief in front of you and were there in court you know little to nothing.
Paul, I think you may not have read the original article that this was drawn from on redlemonade.blogspot the photo has breached the terms and conditions as laid out on istocks website. The photographer who took the photo has acknowledged that and has said that he doesn’t believe his work should be used in this manner.
It’s not just this this photo either, all three images used in this campaign appear to have been used without consent.
I should say: not that I am claiming you are either of those things… I should have said “one” rather than “you”. Apologies (a rarity on the internet more prized than reddit karma!)
These are all interesting (collateral) points – but the crux of my argument is that no reasonable person would consider this girl to have actually had an abortion. In the same way we don’t consider that the children in the Barnados’ billboards to be the actual victims of child abuse. And if you can’t prove that then you can’t prove defamation.
Seriously – your first thought when you saw that billboard was not ‘I hope that poor girl in the photo is ok’ – your first though was probably ‘oh no, not another bloody youth defense billboard’. And if you think about this objectively (like a judge would) then you know you couldn’t prove defamation.
But debate is always good in a democracy and this issue badly needs to be addressed by the Oireachteas – it has been too long since the ruling in the X case without legislation being passed.
Paul, there is a mountain of case law from this jurisdiction as well as the UK that would counter your statement. The unlawful use of the girl’s photo could almost certainly be said to injure her reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society. You don’t have to prove that she did or didn’t have an abortion or that all people would believe that she did. The photo is implicit and carries any number of meanings – as I said before, it may not be an open and shut case but there is certainly a case to be made and I don’t think you are in a position to argue that it is certainly not defamatory or at the very least potentially defamatory.
how would paul feel if his image was used stock photo and the caption read similar drug dealers out?
I agree with Paul. Copyright isn’t that important and lets face it; if you want to have a go at Youth Defence, there are far more relevant things you can take a swing at.
Actually, this story is relevant for lots of reasons. It’s effectively false advertising and it breaks the law. Those are two reasons, but the third is that Red Lemonade undertook a seriously good investigation and reported it well. Investigative journalism is hard to come by- this demonstrates a good use of it. As for the fact that we should attack Youth Defence policies, they don’t have any to attack and don’t partake in anything other than screechy preaching when questioned.
If this is the way to get rid of their dirty dogmatic stupidity, i’m all for it. Not only should pro choice groups be satisfied, pro life groups should be too; youth defence makes them look mental instead of recognising their actual points in the debate. YD represent nobody effectively.
@Oisin – you are missing the point. Read the article again. There is a vast difference between using something illegally (and all that you are implying with that choice of words) and using something ‘in breach of your licence agreement’. The girl has a contract with the photographer/istockphoto and the photographer/istockphoto have a contract with Youth Defence – which seems to be in existence for some time as per the article. That therefore does not make their use of the photo ‘illegal’.
You are misrepresenting the law in some of your comments and I’m not sure if this is being done from a political/moral perspective – but once you have stated that you are speaking professionally you really should speak with more clarity and less implication.
Put your legal hat on and take off your social media hat – proving defamation in this case would be far more difficult than you are making it out to be.
I’m in no way representing my legal position on the situation: as I have said multiple times now, one cannot know the full extent of the position unless they have all of the information.
The only one misrepresenting the position here for a moral or political gain is yourself by continually ignoring the word ‘potentially’ – which I have used preceding the word ‘defamatory’ on multiple occasions (if not all) in relation to this issue. If there is breach of contract here (which there appears to be from the facts as outlined by the journal) then the girl certainly has a potential case in defamation.
Unless you have inside information that we don’t know I think this is just going around in circles, but I would love to know your legal background, education and experience that makes your position so certain on this issue. I would love to have an actual conversation about the issue which I don’t think is happening here, I presume because of a level of trench warfare from your part. I have no horse in this race – I couldn’t really care less if this girl is having abortions all day long TBH. My original point stands, if this image was used in breach of contract and copyright then I’m certain she has a potential case in defamation as well. The merits of that case will rely heavily on many factors which I am not privy to, nor do I imagine are you.
I’ll readily admit that I’m not a second year devil or in my first year of practice. But then again that never made somebody an authority on a subject either. But I am as entitled to my opinion as much as you. And calling people’s legal experience and education into account only shows what a high opinion you have of your own.
A complete failure to address the facts of the situation. I’m not calling anyone’s education or experience into question – in fact, quite the opposite. One would think that anyone with the slightest of legal education or experience would know that there is no black and white to these situations. Perhaps you are entirely well versed in land law or family law and know it inside and out… but anyone practising in defamation would know that Irish law is miles from certain in these types of issues. I merely stated that you’re approaching this from a very pseudo-legal manner. You’re keeping the cards close to your chest; there is no point in arguing with someone who thinks they know everything about the law on the internet or anywhere… starting off posts with insults about “a little knowledge…” and talking about my professional experience doesn’t start people off on the right foot. My point about wishing to know your education and experience is so that I know on what level I need to approach you; as a colleague or some twit know-it-all on the internet.
Now, I have much better things to be doing with my time and money and continuing this shite with you. Auf Wiedersehen
Here Here
Quite obvious that Youth Defence thinks it can get away with anything. I’ve said it time and time again that they seem to think that the ‘evil’ of abortion justifies absolutely any course of action to prevent it.
That’s why they need a few manners put on them by the law. It won’t change their horrible, twisted approach to the abortion debate but the law is the law and they would want to start realising this.
Ide Nic Mhatuna sounds like the life and soul of the party doesn’t she?
Breaking news! Youth Defence are Liars and law-breakers!!
No shit.
Thanks for all the comments so far.
As a catch all comment which will hopefully address them all, it is worth noting that this piece was written without bias, fear or favour. It reports on facts, with no attack or bandwagon jumping. Just simple facts.
For comment/opinion pieces (which this is not) regarding Youth Defence’s recent campaign, you can find links to these at the bottom of the article.
Thanks
Where do they get the funds for these campaigns? These things cost lots of cash. Now, that would be a great investigative story.
They have quite a lot of ties to various movements in the US.
Which is rather unfortunate!
how is it unfortunate micheal that they have funds they are right and i am delighted that the billboards are up abortion is disgusting and i am so glad we do not allow it here in ireland
Emma, it’s unfortunate because of the methods by which YD get their point across. If they allowed others to have their point of view, then maybe, just maybe, it would not be so unfortunate.
But it’s YD, so they don’t allow others to have a point of view. Fine, I disagree with your point of view, but I’ll let you have it. If I were of a YD mindset, I would tell you that your point of view is wrong.
They are anti-democratic. That is wrong. Points of view differ, that’s a matter of fact. It is life.
there is no other point of view killing a baby a life is wrong
That’s your point of view, and I’m not going to get into an argument over whether abortion is right or wrong, never mind the technicalities of the whole situation.
Nobody is pro-abortion. Not anyone. But if my wife, daughter, sister, or cousin fell pregnant as a result of rape, or incest, or if I thought their life was at risk by carrying out full term, I’d want the choice to be there.
That is all.
^^YD Troll. You’re not going to get through to the likes of her so I wouldn’t waste my energy trying.
first of all im not a yd troll and also micheal that is all everyone says when they believe in abortion they pull out the being raped incest or pregnancy that could affect mother or child im not saying that people are pro abortion and my heart goes out to anyone in that situation named above but seriously look at the fact how many people in england killed babies because they just did not want them people are using it as a contraception and it does tear women apart i know people who have done it i have not got over it overall it is wrong and am glad we dont have it here because you would not just have a tiny minority named going for an abortion have you ever read what they do to kill the child i have it is sick and disturbing
Emma, you make the assumption that abortion is going to be widely available here as it is in Britain. That’s called scaremongering. Also, try using full stops next time….you’d need the patience of a saint to read that last comment!
ok never mind micheal you have nothing productive to say to my reply and there has been talks of bringing it here so people should see pictures and information on how abortion are carried out
The legislation YD is currently campaigning against would only allow abortions on maternal health grounds. Not for “contraception.” At least be honest that what you’re campaigning for is to deny cancer survivors life-saving treatment.
Emma Byrne, killing a baby is wrong is it….what about killing a women?
Lets look at a situation, we have a women who is pregnant, her life is at risk if she proceeds with it. By your logic the unborn baby’s life is far far more important then the women’s. Also what about any existing kids or family members the women may have?
Is a unborn baby’s life more important then a women’s life and the wellbeing of any children she may already have, if she’s a lone parent is it better that she die and the baby is born but goes into care along with her other kids?
Is that a better situation for everyone?, all because as you said a unborn baby should not be killed?
barry as i said above that is a small minority of people in that situation including me i was told by a doctor while pregnant that i could choose to get something checked out which i would have to end my pregnancy he told me to go and have a little think about it gave me information i had 24 hours for my reply i did not need that time to say no i said it straight away abortion is wrong to use it because people are not educating themselves to use protection and going over to get rid of there problem there are families willing to adopt these children and for your comment on is a womans life less important than a child no it is not but if it was me my life would be less important than my childs
Well, here’s hoping your kid has a better grasp of the English language than you do.
Emma Byrne, you didn’t really answer my situation.
If it helps I’ll make it simpler, given the situation I have suggested why should Youth Defense or anyone for that matter choose for this women to die and for her kids to be put into care? Why should they decide that her life means so little?
It doesn’t matter that you’d let yourself die and leave your kids in care as you see you life as worth less, but you have no right what so ever to push your belief in a women’s life being worth so little onto somebody else.
@Emma, killing a baby may well be wrong but I don’t think there is anyone advocating that. An embryo (up to 8 weeks following impregnation) cannot be said to be a “human”; certainly there are arguments that a fœtus may be a human… but abortions up to 8 weeks should not be an issue to anyone IMHO.
Emma your saying some people are not educating themselves on protection are you aware the Youth Defence is against contraception as well abortions and that have published Junior Cert school texts that push for abstinence only sex education and no sex outside of marriage?
Time and again the facts have proven that abstinence only sex education programs lead to increases in unwanted pregnancies as well as STI’s infection increases [just look at the numbers from the CDC of Bushes faith based sex education policy vs Obamas reproductive health care education policy] Countries like Sweden have legal abortions but yet have lower abortion rates then Ireland a country because they have some of the best sex education in the world.
I don’t know were you grew up but I grew up in a damn small town that even to this day is still closed minded when it comes to sex education. One GP in the town has begged the secondary schools to let her come in and teach family planning to the 6th year students [ie 17 and 18 year olds] and every year is told no. So to imply that some people are just being lazy for not using proper protection is unfair given the current state of sex education in this country and access to contraceptions.
Actually, Emma, it sounds exactly like your doctor did the right thing by giving you information, explaining it to you and giving you time to think and ultimately, allowing YOU and your family to choose the best course of action. Why would you want that denied to other women?
emma i think at this stage you must realise that if you keep posting comments without any punctuation whatsoever people will be less inclined to read your comments and quite frankly its nobodys loss because youre talking complete rubbish anyway
@Nick: that’s exactly the point (and it’s one that I feel applies to the argument over gay marriage) – ok, we get that YOU don’t want to do it… but why deprive someone else from doing it.
It’s not like abortion up to a certain time period will mean that EVERYONE has to do it!
Unfortunately, a distinction not everyone is able to make, Oisin! I’m had members of Youth Defence tell me that “pro-aborts” want women to be forced to have abortions here, just like China!
I don’t want any woman ever to be forced about her pregnancy. Unfortunately, Youth Defence only see it as a problem if she’s forced in a direction they don’t like!
barry i have answered your situation i do not think a womens life is not less than a childs i said that in my last post and i would not leave my children in care they do have a father after all and my life is far from worthless but my children do come first if you have been reading my post a small minority have been sent over for abortions were the child could not live outside of the womb or it put a womans life at risk or rape which is extremely sad but the main reason people go over to england is to get rid of there baby because they did not keep there legs closed to you think this is right were there is adoptions i do not do anything with the yd but my opinion is people should see the effects on woman and also how they kill the babies do you know how they do it micheal i would neer judge anyone who has had an abortion i know friends who have gone and done it so i have never pushed my belives as you have said to another woman but it is being used as a contraception everywere england america and especially russia
im not speaking rubbish here but it seems to me that ur failing to realise we are talking about children here cliodhna i do believe in contraception i have only comment above on the posters and information on abortion i have nothing to do with yd and i agree with everything you have said there on safe sex the education when i was in school was dreadful and oisin i was told at 32 weeks pregnant to go over to england by my doctor it is not just 8 weeks to get an abortion i do not agree with killing a baby just because they dont want the baby there are adoption for that
Also, even with the best sex education in the world, no form of contraception except total abstinence is 100% effective.
Totally right, Emma. Why consider the fact that proposed legislation in Ireland is only for maternal health when you can judge (hey did not keep there legs closed) and campaign against the legalisation of abortion while making the incredibly ironic statement that ” have never pushed my belives as you have said to another woman”.
Irish legislation = only for maternal health reasons. I shouldn’t even bother bringing facts into this, should I?
@Lisa – even total abstinence isn’t 100% effective. Sure, there’s an entire religion based around that fact! :P
@Emma – I’m sorry that your experience was so and I agree that “live abortions” are wrong and should, in fact, be illegal. My argument is that abortions at the embryonic or fœtus stage are not “killing babies” and should be legal in most situations.
Emma abortion is only legal in the UK until 24 weeks. After 24 weeks you would need to have two doctors in the UK agree the abortion was needed for health reasons. Given you are not a resident in the UK it would be highly unlikely you’d be able to get an abortion after 24 weeks and also unlikely an Irish GP encouraged you at that late stage to so seek one.
I mentioned contraception Emma because you were the one you made dismissive comments about women seeking abortions being “uneducated” in contraception.
Good for you that you were able to make the choices in life that you have but not everyone is as lucky. My own mother was forced to carry and deliver by C-section a still born child. Try putting yourself in her shoes, of being pregnant, being told your child is dead but due to the law they can’t deliver for another few weeks and you don’t have the money to go get help else where. Imagine walking down the street and having people stop you to ask about your baby and aren’t you looking forward to when it arrives etc etc…..Imagine the pain and heartache you’ve already been through with several miscarriages, finally getting pregnant and now having to go tell family and friends that the baby is dead but you still have to wait weeks for the c-section that you will under a local not general so will be awake for the whole thing. Imagine being awake, waiting to hear your child cry and hearing nothing. What sort of country are we that we would make women suffer for weeks on end like that when it is within our power to stop it?
oisin i have never judges anyone who felt like they had to go down that path but i do know they dont get over it im lucky i said no and ended up with an amazing healthy girl who has nothing wrong with her but i just dont think abortion should be used to get rid of a problem when there are other solutions there is going to be grey parts in this discussion no one is going to agree with each other 100% just like you said about gay marriage and to nick it is not just 8 weeks for an abortion it goes right up to 30 weeks do you think that is right and do you know how they do it you have brought some facts so tell the rest
cliodha who the hell do you think you are i have been in her shoes when the doctor told me there was something wrong with my baby walking around did not know what to do when people asking me how things wew and at around week 31 to tell me that i can got to england and he will arrange everything for my because more than likely with the test i could lose my baby so dont tell me it is illegal because there is ways around it i know what i have been there
Actually Cliodha, abortion in the UK is even more restrictive than that. It requires the consent of two doctors at *any* stage – though that’s effectively on demand in the first trimester, after that it’s almost exclusively for medical reasons.
Abortion is legal in the UK after 24 weeks (when it’s effectively induced delivery well before term) *only* in cases where the foetus would not survive outside the womb or if continuing the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother. I’m not entirely clear on what happened with your pregnancy, Emma, and whether there was possibly something gravely wrong with you or the foetus, and I’m sorry it was so traumatic – but you can’t argue that the decision you made in the face of a medical emergency (ie “if it’s me or the foetus, I would sacrifice myself” or “if the foetus isn’t going to live, I will still carry it to term”) is one that all women should make.
Er, that would be Cliodhna. Sorry for typo.
Sorry? I said nothing about term limits. I think other people have made that point adequately and I will simply add that many fatal foetal abnormalities and maternal health conditions are not apparent early in the pregnancy.
I’m still horrified how judgmental you are being about women seeking life saving treatment. “Should have kept their legs closed” is absolutely appalling.
Emma, your lack of empathy is startling.
From what I am reading – what you went through and what Cliodhna’s mother went through cannot be compared. You had a bad scare, that’s true – but you went on to have a healthy daughter. You did not have to go through the hell that this poor woman went through.
Stop making yourself out to be a Martyr and stop making this discussion all about you.
And please, improve your grammar.
Agree with Nick – saying “the main reason people go over to england is to get rid of there baby because they did not keep there legs closed” is mindbogglingly offensive.
Emma Byrne if you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t have one. It doesn’t mean you should get to decide how other people live.
The reason this is so important is that the backlash against this campaign has had no legitimate outlet to complain – the ASAI states that it does not have the authority to deal with it. This specific debate has two parts to it – the issue of abortion as a whole, and YD’s advertising campaign.
The campaign has made many people angry for moral, political, ethical, religious and economic reasons, but the ads can only be taken down if they are against the law. There is no other legitimate way for people who find these ads offensive to get them taken down. Fortunately, the law is against YD.
This is not ‘lazy journalism’, this issue has been framed in terms of legalities and technicalities – copyright law is extremely relevant.
Well said. I could put up a billboard tomorrow saying that democracy directly causes depresson but because it’s a ‘political statement’ I would have zero obligation to say that this is a totally baseless claim founded in opinion only.
It takes a special kind of ignorance not to think there’s something terribly wrong with that scenario.
*depression
The above were all very quite the other day when the article about Russian abortions was up.
Do you mean Chinese? I honestly can’t remember an article on Russian abortions.
For those saying this wouldn’t be a story if not for the Youth Defence connection take the 30 secs to do a quick search of Journal.ie’s website and you’ll find plenty of articles written in relation to copyright infringement and law. While it may not seem a big deal to some folk here some of us care greatly about copyright laws being enforced as it impacts on our livelihood. Why do you think there’s been all this talk about SOPA and other similar acts? Protecting the intellectual property of creative people is a big issue for many, not saying SOPA or any of the other acts are the right way to do that but clearly there is a need by creative people to make sure they’re creative work is protected and only used in a context that they agreed. If you sign a licensing agreement your a bound by the terms of that agreement end of.
This is hardly objective journalism from The Journal, is it? It’s more akin to a witch-hunt against what is a legitimate campaigning organisation which represents the pro-life views of a substantial population of the country. The Journal may disagree with those views (along with many of its readership it seems), but it should at least pretend to be taking a middle-ground in its news-reporting and leave its own stance-taking to the Op-Ed pages. Otherwise it has the journalistic integrity of Indymedia (i.e. not much).
So your saying that a media outlet should not report on a organization who push for laws to stay the same but at the same time appear to decide to break laws themselves?
I hate to say it Brian but you are right. This article wouldn’t have been written if it was Budweiser or Fairy Liquid that were at fault. Youth Defence like any lobby group are entitled to their opinion in a democracy
I hate to say it Brian but you are right. This article wouldn’t have been written if it was Budweiser or Fairy Liquid that were at fault. Youth Defence like any lobby group are entitled to their opinion in a democracy
They are indeed. But people are entitled to know these facts as well. Why is ever a bad thing to have an informed electorate?
I agree with Brian and Paul to an extent- the story does seem rather irrelevant in the big scheme of things. However, fully objective journalism is an impossibility and this is the reality of the media. Controversial and outspoken organizations/ individuals will always be closely scrutinized. YD are an organization that claim moral authority on a variety of issues so I believe it is fair to question the ethics of the group itself- expecially the decisions made during their controversial ad campaign.
Hi all,
While I appreciate that abortion is a contentious and divisive issue, it would be great if we could keep the comments on this page on point and related to the news story itself, otherwise some comments may have to be removed.
Please feel free to leave pro-life/pro-choice comments on our opinion pieces as you see fit.
Thanks,
Paul
I really find it hard to believe that The Journal are actually wasting time with this so called “investigation”. You are focusing on the nitty gritty of irrelevance as to how a stock photo is used. Who cares? Thousands of advertisers use stock photos on web sites and in adverts without disclaimers. It’s quite clear from the ad that the “her” is a generic “her”.
I would have a lot of problems with YD as an organisation but focusing in on a detail as irrelevant as this is nonsense. Absolute nonsense and hardly worth the time and effort to write it up. YD can substitute the image for another and put a T&C’s star beside it and nothing changes. The ads would be still up.
Lads, nobody’s forcing you to read the site in fairness
Barry – very true, nobody forces me to watch the news or buy the Irish Times. But when I do, I don’t expect to have to read some bullsh*t story like this! This is a serious issue and yet all The Journal can do is have a dig at the allegedly improper use of a stock photo?? Come on! This is not a story and they are making it out to be investigative reporting! It’s irrelevant to what’s going on here.
I really don’t think you can level the criticism at the Journal that they haven’t explored the substantive issues of abortion. There seems to be an article about it every other day or so.
Fact: the State Examinations Commission is allowed to use images from any website they want in their exams, without ever paying royalties or notifying the copyright holder prior to use. They are also allowed to manipulate these images to suit the exam, as happened in this years R.E. Junior Cert Exam. A protestor’s sign was crudely edited to read something different from the original. To me, saying someone said something that they didn’t is despicable.
A while back, ~2005, an author’s work was altered in a way they felt that degraded their work. Their is now a blank page in the past exam papers.
Your point being?
Because the government can use images for EXAM PAPERS anybody should be able to use images as they see fit? In this case the adverts were used for a very public advertising campaign on a very big issue, its no where near the same thing.
@Barry – You misunderstand my point.
My point was that what the SEC does is falsely say that someone has said something when they haven’t.
a) They don’t have to ask permission to use any image on the web – I checked, none were listed as creative commons
b) They don’t have to pay a stock photo agency like iStockphoto even AFTER publishing their copyrighted images.
c) This is the law.
I thought people might find it interesting that the SEC has also been misrepresenting people’s opinions, just like Youth Defence have, yet the SEC can get away with it.
You should actually suggest it as a story. The Journal picked this up (as has been mentioned) from a blogger’s revelation, you should think about writing something and submitting it to them.
i now believe that the youth offence english language reform movement is correct and i for one am now going to stop using punctuation which is a mortal sin in any case and will only write in lower-case letters without any breaks because that is the way the bible is written and that was written by god on the back of a donkey and anybody that says otherwise is going to burn in a big fire forever because i am right and everybody else is wrong and if you dont believe me just ask the pope and how dare anybody say im thick just because well just because i seem to be thick maybe they should just say the rosary to the virgin mary who never had an abortion when she got up the pole by that angel and thank god for the all those suckers in america who are funding us so that protestants and muslims and gays and catholics that are not as good as us dont get a look in in any future laws
all of you are idiots my keyboard is half broke so sorry i never used any full stops i will go over this again as you have clearly missed the point i have nothin to do with the yd i never said i believe in what they believe im also not thick i have never stated i was religious or against other religion or any gay people i have also said i do not judge anyone who has an abortion but dont agree with it i did state the spreading of the legs because people are using abortion as contraception i was told to get one done at a late stage of pregnancy were there were very few doctors in england who would of done it but i was lucky as i stated but dont try to say i was making up a story about my child because that is sick and there are none of you out there saying how they do the different types of abortion at different stages of pregnancy
Yes it was Russian! 250 + babies were found discarded, one picture showed fully formed baby, link to others.
Didn’t see it.
So what if you didnt see it? Does that mean it didnt happen? Stupid comment, just as the one on John Ryans comment.
Nick they are likely refering to this story – http://www.thejournal.ie/russia-250-foetuses-ural-mountains-532310-Jul2012/ Early indication is they are most likely the result of illegal abortions – the key word there being illegal.
If she didn’t see it she could hardly comment on it now could she?
She was responding to a comment stating that the pro-choice commentators were noticeable by their absence on the Russian story.
Also what’s the relevance of the Russia story to this debate. Do you think that Irish pro-choice activists would endorse this? Should they be scouring the internet, looking for stories to comment on, to assure the public that they have no intention of having this happen in Ireland?
Do religious commentators look for abuse stories to say “This is something that shouldn’t happen, we condemn this completely.” No. Why? Because it is safe to assume that someone condemns this form of behaviour unless they say otherwise.
Pro-choice folks not commenting on that story is not surprising. Pro-choice folks commenting on that story saying “Whats wrong with this, it’s perfectly acceptable would be surprising and worthy of comment.
Frankly John Ryan’s comment was a piss poor attempt to blacken pro-choice by association rather then try and address the content of the story. It’s a tactic normally practiced by those with no worthwhile argument of their own.
If she didn’t see it she could hardly comment on it now could she?
She was responding to a comment stating that the pro-choice commentators were noticeable by their absence on the Russian story.
Also what’s the relevance of the Russia story to this debate. Do you think that Irish pro-choice activists would endorse this? Should they be scouring the internet, looking for stories to comment on, to assure the public that they have no intention of having this happen in Ireland?
Do religious commentators look for abuse stories to say “This is something that shouldn’t happen, we condemn this completely.” No. Why? Because it is safe to assume that someone condemns this form of behaviour unless they say otherwise.
Pro-choice folks not commenting on that story is not surprising. Pro-choice folks commenting on that story saying “Whats wrong with this, it’s perfectly acceptable would be surprising and worthy of comment.
Frankly John Ryan’s comment was a piss poor attempt to blacken pro-choice by association rather then try and address the content of the story. It’s a tactic normally practiced by those with no worthwhile argument of their own.
Thank you. I was pointing out that I wasn’t aware of its existence, as opposed to my silence indicating that Irish women should be forced to have illegal abortions in the woods somewhere.
it annoys me that want to be teachers feel the need to “correct” other peoples comments. it is rude and offensive. brian today some one else tomorrow:-(
Sorry, you have a problem with people bringing accurate facts into this conversation? If I see someone saying something I know is patently false, I should ignore it?
no, i meant grammar etc!
no, i meant grammar etc
Grammar, apostrophes, spelling, that kinda thing, yeah I have to agree with you, if the meaning is clear get on with it, it’s social media written on the fly using smart phones and all that, and I have to admit I love when smarty-pants grammar nazis get it wrong and have to be corrected. In fairness to Brian tho, yer wan Emma wrote hundreds of words and didn’t use one single punctuation mark. It’s hard to read that kinda muck.
The relevance of the Russian story is usually when there any story about abortion nick is straight on the bandwagon, v surprised they didn’t see it.
I’ll let you in a secret: I don’t actually watch the Journal 24/7. A lot of times, the fact that articles are up in the Journal show up on my Facebook feed. That did not.
Also, it’s so weird, Annie. You’re normally right on any abortion story and you don’t seem to have commented on that one? By your logic, I should assume you didn’t condemn it, right?
It’s not really a story about abortion – its a criminal issue as already stated the abortions would have been illegal under Russian law. Just like the Chinese story recently also has nothing to do with abortion issues in Ireland as that was a forced procedure which goes against everything pro-choice supports stand for. Pro-choice means just that – choice.
Groups like Youth Defence like to paint this idea that those in support of legal, safe abortions in Ireland are “pro-abortion” and looking to force abortions on all pregnant women. They use expressions likes the “abortion industry” and post misleading images they claim to be babies in the womb with totally irrelevant captions underneath. They will jump on news items like those from China and Russia and use them as fodder to stir up anti-abortion sentiment but they have no relevance in Ireland just like China and Russia horrible records on human rights abuses are not going to be imported in this country neither will their abortion practices. If we are going to talk about other countries abortion policies then why is it always to countries like Russia and not Sweden? Why talk about abortions in countries with horrible human rates records, poor public heath care, and were women are still treated as second class citizens? Are people really that dim that think that is the sort of system anyone wants introduced to Ireland?
have your say