Then you’re a sexist Tom. Women should have the right to choose though in my opinion.

Totally agree awkward, we are a Republic and every adult should get a vote. But did you ever think about if we all got to vote on something that can only affect men? Would their vote count twice?

Yeah just like how the marriage equality referendum was only open to people from the LGBT community.

You fundamentaly misunderstand how democracy works Deborah/Tom.

And the notion that abortion only affects women and not society as a whole is absolutely ridiculous.

Before you jump down my throat, I’m pro-choice.

@Tom Collins: Just as well that your opinion is as useful or worthy as a chocolate tea cup so.

Sorry sparky what relevance has the Irish attitude toward the EU got to do with Saint Teresa?

Hes right tho on this one Sparky, EU hung us practically out to dry and they are determined to keep interfering in our affairs because they arent ours they are Germanys. Nice and Lisbon forced on us and yet a majority of my mates ,including many who had a vote in #Brexit voted remain. Conditioned by the ‘they gave us the roads,’ crowd or the idea UK was exiting Europe I’d say, Their right, but very naive.

*even though their actions largely resulted in our financial ruin.

No need to apologise..it’s your holier than holier attitude that disgusts me..but when it suits you it’s # their problem. .go figure. .

O-sean I don’t disagree but his posts on other topics are so self righteousness that the man of the cloth he so defends wouldn’t agree with him..

:) ha ha

anyway Repeal the 8th!

If Ireland hadn’t voted yes to the Lisbon Treaty then the UK wouldn’t be able to leave the EU. Article 50 was in the Lisbon Treaty. There was no way to leave the EU before that treaty.

You’re wrong Jack, the UK or any country could have just declared they were leaving and left. Article 50 just formalises and complicates the leaving process.

Sorry for the reality check Sean…OUR ACTIONS resulted in our financial ruin.

It was a mix of both. They should not have forced us to bail out the bondholders alone. If we were in a true monetary union that would never have happened. That does not mean that we were running our country well because we most certainly were not.

Sean, the EU resulted in our financial gain and actual roads and infrastructure, our own government’s sheer idiocy and greediness resulted in our financial ruin. It’s never the fault of the Irish, we are just the victims.

@ Jimmy Rustle:

This poll suggests that the Irish people are against one particular European Commission judgement.

It’s a big leap of thought to equate that with the Irish people being “as Euroskeptic as the UK.”

Agree Danny but I was thinking of, in present times, the billions in illegal foreign debt having been foisted on Ireland.

And you know the difference what a slippery slope your goin down

@ Ed Magnier, you’ve just contradicted yourself there. Nobody is forced to have abortions, in fact it seems that many people are making the free choice to travel to have one, if they wish to do so. And this issue is not as simple as ‘having ideals’, so your patronising attitude towards towards janey mackle’s comment is disappointing and short sighted of you, in my opinion.

@ janey
How does the 8th protect the mother? It says nothing about protecting the right to life of the mother, so how did you come up with that?

@ Kristine

I saw a discussion the other week,and the anti choicer was saying that the 8th had saved over ..wait for it….500,000 lives…LOL

Just another reason why I have been laughing at antis 24/7

500,000 saved lives is ridiculous….I can agree

But surely some lives have been saved, whether you agree with abortion or not, it has to be the case that some women did not have an abortion as a result directly or indirectly of the 8th amendment.

How about someone interview all these women, and their sons or daughters that would lot be alive otherwise.

Then get another human perspective on the debate, and put a human face on these “inhuman” “group of cells” “without sentience” “not a human being”

I for one would be very interested

@ HelloGoogleTracking
You’d find a variety of outcomes. Just as there are some who regret their abortions, there are those who regret having children. There are unplanned children who are happy to be here and those who are not, same with the planned ones. They would, of course, no longer be clumps of cells or without sentience, doesn’t mean they weren’t at one stage.

I am sure I would like you say find a variety of outcomes, a mother regretting not getting an abortion however I would not expect.

If you can find an example it would be very interesting. Or a person alive who wishes they were aborted before birth? You were suggesting that right?

What is clear however, is as much as reduce a human being in terms of development before birth, they are the same human being, just younger.

The abstractions of pro abortion on demand people confuse me, genuinely, as it seems they are so eager to remove all humanity from the human zygote / human foetus.

Is that to ease their conscience ? Is it out of compassion from other women who have had an abortion? I can understand that, but it is in direct contradiction of the reality and facts

Do you see where I am coming from at least?

@Hello
I have talked with/debated with women who have regretted going through with pregnancy/ having children. Same with people who wished their mother had chosen abortion rather than give birth to them. They are not “random anonymous internet entities” for your scrutiny,

The “humanity of the foetus” is a distraction. We all know what embryos and foetuses look like on pictures, many who have abortions already have children and have seen the sonograms, so there are no abstractions. Few, if any women have solely philosophical musings when considering what to do about an unplanned/problematic pregnancy, in fact, it is as non-abstract as it can get when you’re the one who has to make a decision.

Kristine, I have to admit never meeting anyone who wished they had been aborted. I have met probably one woman who regretted having a family, but that is not the same as wishing they had had an abortion. The humanity of the foetus is not a distraction, I would say it is central, once the humanity of the foetus is accepted, it is much more difficult to kill it.

Kristine,

I can respect your answers, thank you.

You have clearly given it a lot of thought and compassion, you have reached a position different to mine but that is ok.

On an aside, I am glad you said it is not about abstractions.

Because that is what I see most regularly by pro abortion on demand people, they abstract the unborn to a point they have no humanity, then use that as a starting point to build an argument that it is not a human dying.

Also they say it is the woman’s body, without mentioning the second human body developing inside. And dismissing obvious concerns that a human being is dying.

How do you square that circle without deceiving yourself (I don’t mean you), I mean other surface level pro choice posters, who clearly have not given it much thought at all?

I agree Hello, it is refreshing to see commentary from someone like Kristine, who although comes to a different point of view, appears not to have avoided dealing with the difficult concepts around the issue.

@Joe
It is a distraction, it is a bickering about definitions, which are something humans make up as they need to. You can define the embryo/foetus as a human being or a baby all you like, it won’t be what women base their decisions to have abortions on and it won’t change what is physically present at any given stage of pregnancy.

@HelloGoogle Tracking
Pregnancy happens to a woman’s body. Yes, there is an embryo/foetus there as well and it depends on pregnancy to keep on happening to the woman’s body to live. Nobody born gets to insist something happens to another’s body to keep themselves alive and we accept that and people die as a result. There are no demands for mandatory registers in case anyone, child or adult needs an organ or bone marrow to live. We don’t even harvest routinely anything useful from dead people to save lives. We always need consent. So why is this different?

My answer Kristine,

Is because this is the process of human reproduction, it is how we all come to be, there is no way for a human being to exist without being dependant on their mother for the first 9 months.

It is how you came to be, and every other pro choice poster.

So you tell me, what right has anyone to be alive then, if you disagree with a right to life at the earliest most vulnerable stage of a humans life.

Also no one born had the right to use anyone sees body to stay alive, I agree that is true.

However it is also true that no one living today, could be alive except for sharing their mothers body for 9 months, that is a fact of life. Also once they are alive and human, they should rightly be entitled to human rights like the rest of us, born or not born.

P.S. On another aside…you mention harvesting organs from dead people.

That is not possible, to harvest organs they have to be taken from you when you are still alive.

Once you die, and every cell in your body is dead, your organs are useless.

“Brain dead” is a very contentious issue, as many people have recovered from brain death, rarely but it has happened.

Makes you think

If you know that nobody has the right to use another’s body to stay alive, then you should also know that foetuses aren’t deprived of any human rights we have when aborted. They have the exact same rights as the rest of us.
Most of us are here because our mothers consented, some even planned to have children.

It is impossible to give a right to life to anybody, it isn’t within our power. We can regulate and legislate, prosecute and incarcerate if somebody ends a life that wasn’t theirs for reasons we do not accept. Is abortion such a thing society would the better for handling that way?

I’m sorry Kristine, it is not bickering about definitions, it is about stating scientific reality.

It may well make a difference in what women decide. If a woman can be convinced that her foetus is a human being with a transitivity of identity, it may well influence how she decides to treat that human being.

If it can be established that smothering her new born baby is ethically the same as evicting her issue from her uterus, it may well give her pause for thought.

You can harvest organs immediately after cardiac arrest. I wasn’t talking about raiding the morgue.

Kristine,

I thought i made it clear, as you yourself said “Nobody born gets to insist something happens to another’s body to keep themselves alive and we accept that and people die as a result. ”

I.E. nobody BORN

Of course children do, as that is the only way for a human life to enter this world.
All of us are here because our mothers did not kill us, very true. Why would they, and how could they justify that to themselves and others, without dehumanising us, and reducing our worth until it is just a “medical procedure”…..the only one that deliberately ends a humans life.

All humans have a right to life, it is one of our fundamental values, that is why if i take your life or you take mine or anyone else, your are guilty of a crime. It is illegal to kill another human being.

Also in Ireland under our constitution, unborn human life has full human rights. It is illegal here to kill the unborn, and you would be guilty of a crime.

What you are proposing is to remove human rights from people younger than a certain age, and allow others legally to kill them.

To me that is wrong on every level, especially that it is the mothers themselves that wish for this to take place. If society does not protect the most vulnerable within our society who will?

Of course if life threatening to the mother, then a justifiable case can be made. no question.
If unwanted there is always the option of life and adoption, and there are always more people looking for children than available, they will find happy homes who want them.

@Joe
How are you going to establish that smothering her new born baby, who does not in any way happen to your body, she can walk away, is ethically the same as not wanting to go through pregnancy and having an abortion?

Deciding to have an abortion isn’t about who or what the foetus is (or isn’t) or what it can do, it’s about what impact bringing to into the world will have on the woman in question. No amount of identity on the part of the foetus is going to have any impact on the reasons why somebody chooses abortion.

Well, ethically it seems there is little difference.

An article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life.” the author, ethicist Peter Singer.

Of course he is right but some of the establishment have shied away from his conclusions because it establishes a linear connection between the zygote and the newborn as being nothing more than a developmental difference in time.

I disagree, abortion is not simply a matter of impact, impact may be the driving force but dehumanising the entity to be destroyed is crucial in the mind of an empathetic individual.

@Google
You also said “Also once they are alive and human, they should rightly be entitled to human rights like the rest of us, born or not born.” So either we all have the rights to the bodies of others or none of us do, which is it?

Yes, it is illegal for you to take my life and you will be punished if you do – but I will still be dead. So life is not a right that can be given, we can just decide that taking a life will be punished.

Constitutions can be changed, and apparently ignored, considering the stark lack of investigation and prosecution of illegal abortions here. And, of course, the operative word is “here”, it is perfectly legal to end unborn life “there”.

Have you looked at the waiting lists for people wanting to adopt and compared them with known numbers of abortion?

@Kristine

A right to life means: that it illegal to take your life from you, it does not grant the dead life. It outlaws anyone, or any agency or government from taking your life. It is a right to stay alive, and not be killed. It is the most important thing we all share, being alive and human….i.e. human being

Yes unborn have all the rights of any human in Ireland, including not to be killed. However again as i clearly stated, children do have the right to use their mothers body, as this is the human species method of reproduction. And as the child has the right to life, and the mother has no right to kill the child.
Once born, like every other born human being, they can no longer ever use anyone else body without permission to live……but as they have not been born yet they cannot ask permission.

Yes constitutions can change, and laws, and before to long, less than a century i would guess, abortion as an idea will be viewed as insanity…..competely alien, and impossible to understand concept.

People will read defences of abortion and be shocked……at the cavalier attitudes of some people to the death of another.

@Joe
I’m pretty sure I said deciding to have an abortion is based on the impact bringing the pregnancy to term will have on the woman. What you think is crucial is besides the point.

@Google
It isn’t a right to stay alive unless you can with what is yours. We’ve already covered organs, the same is true for medical treatment, you’ll only get to stay alive if you can either pay for yourself or others are willing to pay for treatment to keep you alive if faced with a life threatening illness. Being able to ask for permission isn’t a mandatory.

Why do you think abortion, which humans have practiced for millennia, will end?

Well that’s exactly what I responded to.

Do you deny that it is necessary to dehumanise the unborn individual so that it can be killed? And that is [crucial].

If it is not necessary to deny the humanity of the foetus; and that humanity is understood, then there must be a suggestion of psychopathy involved.

Evolution, consciousness, better educated, better sense of right and wrong, continuous development of human rights, and ending of old crazy ideas.

What evolved enlightened human race, turn a blind eye to the obvious killing of unborn. There are far more civilised methods, and solutions, and the idea that abortion is taken so lightly. Just an opinion of mine, but that has been the development of civilisation, the expansion of human rights, and not the other direction.

I said the right to life, is against and other individual etc etc…..my sentence you are misunderstanding I clearly “It is a right to stay alive, and not be killed” meaning, a right not to killed.

In Ireland you have a right to life saving treatment irrespective of means, and ability to pay…fact.

Permission was me being ridiculous, a developing baby does not need to ask permission from its mother in a sane world.

@Google
No fact at all, you only have the right to whatever lifesaving treatment the governing bodies decide they will pay for, unless you can pay yourself and, of course, find somebody willing to provide it for you.

Do you know that your “right to stay alive” argument makes it look like medical abortions are ok? The embryo isn’t killed, it just can’t stay alive in the womb anymore due to conditions no longer being right.

Yes, you were being ridiculous, permission doesn’t need to be asked for, but it does need to be given. Personally, I also think your insistence that the foetus be given the same rights we have only to give a right we don’t have was somewhat silly too. Your reason seems to be because “it’s the process of human gestation”. Makes no sense whatsoever. But, of course, if it’s your opinion, we can leave it as such, probably for the best.

@Joe
There mustn’t really be any suggestion of anything. Thinking so suggests a lack of understanding of humanity.

Ok Kristine,

Good talking to you, really, I don’t agree with everything you say. However I have read it all, and given my own perspective on the matter.

I understand the rationalisations you make, to reduce the meaning and impact of ending a pregnancy to borrow your phrase, and focus exclusively on the woman, and her issues / wants / desires / etc….
Then following a decision to have an abortion, just giving 100% support etc, as it can only be a immensely difficult time for anyone except the absolute immature idiots (a small percentage).

All that is understandable, my only objection is the ignoring of the consequences…….completely….of ending that human life, before it even got a chance. I can not resolve that death, and it is a death intentionally and deliberately and knowingly instigated and initiated, and consciously decided to do.

I was once a zygote and a foetus and a baby and a teenager and a adult……and one day I will die. I would hate to think that anyone at anytime of my life would have the right to kill me for any reason that enters their mind, without and protection for support from society.

It just seems wrong to me……and i do understand it is a balancing act of rights between the child and mother, and that is very difficult.

The only fair way i can see is to grant both human rights, and let the courts decide. Otherwise one or the other will be deemed inhuman and expendable, which has to be wrong to any ethical human being

Take a look Seamus, Tariq.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abortion+on+demand

‘the absence of restrictive legal statutes giving a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy at her request.’ Exactly how things should be.

Within an acceptable time period, any woman, for any reason she deems necessary, should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. I’ve asked this before, to you, the pro-lifers, what is so important to you about another baby being born? Does it have any effect on your life? Nope.

Is the happiness and well being of that living, breathing woman with a life ahead of her and family, friends around her, not more important than an unborn child? Yes, certainly.

What you describe is “abortion on demand” Seamus.

Would you accept black people, homosexuals or muslims, for instance, being treated differently to you?

Their treatment doesn’t really affect you directly.

‘Would you accept black people, homosexuals or muslims, for instance, being treated differently to you?’

Of course not. I think you know well that that would be racist. You seem to like to play the intellectual, so do not ask me such nonsense.

Would I accept every woman on earth having free access to abortion? Yes.

And you also know well what the vast majority of pro-lifers mean by ‘abortion on demand’ is not the definition you posted. They are going for the ‘sure she knows she can have an abortion, why would she keep her legs closed’ angle. You know this.

Islam, is not a race Seamus, homosexuals are not a separate race.

However, you find it acceptable to defend their rights although their treatment does not affect you directly. But you do not accept that others should be free to defend or speak for the unborn because it doesn’t affect them.

That is hypocrisy and discriminates against the unborn simply on the basis of its location and stage of development. Would you accept the killing of people with advanced dementia, against their will?

Well if we’re going to get into it, ‘Would you accept the killing of people with advanced dementia, against their will?’

If it were agreed with the family, I would actually. My grandmother withered away to nothing in pain and confustion for nearly 13 years before she passed away. Euthanasia would have been far more humane. And if you knew anything about advanced dementia you would know that their’ will’ has nothing to do with it.

@Seamus,

Thus demonstrated your complete contempt for human rights, and human life. Well played…..

There are some terrible conditions, and horrible circumstances, and voluntary euthanasia should be a right…….however the removal of human rights and summary decisions to terminate human life should not be tolerated by any civilised society.

How about we do IQ tests and cull people too low, or better still, lets sterilise all criminals…..and kill all beyond a certain level of crime.

All disabled or handicapped people, lets kill them too………and F%^k it !!!! the long term unemployed !!! and lazy civil servants….

This power of life and death is great

You’re really letting you irrationality and general un-hingedness show here man, calm the jets. You were actually doing quite well until you started with the, ‘How about we do IQ tests and cull people too low, or better still, lets sterilise all criminals…..and kill all beyond a certain level of crime.

All disabled or handicapped people, lets kill them too………and F%^k it !!!! the long term unemployed !!! and lazy civil servants….’ bullshit.

And also, ‘Thus demonstrated your complete contempt for human rights, and human life’, you don’t know me at all buddy, and you can’t glean that kind of knowledge from a few Journal.ie comments, get off your high horse.

So Seamus, are you saying, yes, you would take their lives without their consent. Who are you to decide what is best for someone to the extent that you would kill them. You did not address all of my comment, choosing instead to appeal to emotion.

@Seamus,

That is the point as Joe rightly says, and I was examining it myself.

If you contend that individuals within society should have the right to end the life of other individuals, based on those people not being able to talk for themselves, and express an opposition to it.

Then you have to think it through…..all the consequences, not just the ones you like.

You seem to have the premise that a unborn human cannot decide or communicate its will to live, has not developed the required consciousness, therefore it is ok to kill them. You link that belief to older individuals who have neuro degenerative conditions where consciousness / memory are badly effected.

Therefore you don’t believe that individuals without autonomy and independent will and consent should have any say in whether they live or die. That should be the decision of the family and parents (or just woman).

Is that your position or not? If it is there are serious objections you have not considered, also it is diametrically opposed to the spirit of human rights, and the letter of human rights.

The antis keep coming out with their moral & ethical nonsense ..lol

The human being doesn’t want to remain pregnant & she can remove that embryo from her body -if she so wishes ..

Joe & Hello are powerless to stop her from doing this ..lol

These lads put the zygote above the human being ..UGH!

@Laughs,

1. She cannot do that in Ireland, it is illegal, and the life of the unborn is protected under our constitution.
2. She can travel abroad and do anything legal in the countries she visits.
3. A unborn is a human being, just a very young developing human being……deserves equal consideration.

I know Laughs @, they’re absolutely dying to get an admission of something resembling an affront to human rights so they can pounce on it. They just can’t accept that we believe the woman comes first in this, and not the unborn child. I, for my part, cannot accept their position.

Lets have this bleedin’ vote already.

Laughs, do you believe that a zygote is not a human being? That is really where the debate has to be decided. Is a zygote a human being or not? Embryology and biological science has already decided this and the evidence is irrefutable.

I believe the woman should always come first, it it comes to a choice between the two due to medical emergency. Absolutely the woman must have priority, anything else would be crazy, for lots of reasons.

If danger to the life of the mother is not an issue, then I believe both individuals are human beings and deserve full human rights, both are living, and growing, and have a right to life.

No human beings right to life should be reduced, removed, or equated with anything less than the death of a human, which it is.

No objective – non dogmatic – reasonable consideration (devoid of all religious beliefs) can reach any other defensible position on the issue.

Every time pro-choice is challenged – they retreat into name calling – desemble into accusations of irrationality, without supporting reasons, and non-sense mantras like “a woman body” (when 2 bodies are involved) etc…..or climb an ivory tower of peer pressure / consensus appeal…..claiming that they cannot comprehend anything outside of the tiny unthinking mantra they keep repeating.

When I say the woman comes first, I mean she should have the choice to end the pregnancy if she wants to, whether her life is in danger or not.

A zygote is not a human being. It is a potential human being.

A zygote is no less a human than you are or your grandmother was.

You are free to disagree, however it puts you at odds with all human reproductive science, and seriously questions your claim to rationality.

It is not a “potential” human being, it is a living and growing human being

Laughs, if you wish to retreat into your ideological comfort blanket and not confront the scientific facts and construct a defence of abortion on different principles, then that’s okay. But then we can understand that your pro-abortion stand is based on nothing more than blind ideology. There are many skills that human beings never master, such as driving a sports car, however we do not decide that they should be killed because of their lack of development at that stage, or, their lack of skills.

Yes Dave it all about the way it’s phrased. You could say the same about the eighth amendment poll, I think a referendum to accommodate FFA would pass easily but a vote on , let’s say abortion on demand I believe would lose.

‘abortion on demand’ makes it sound like its a hot new trend. which it is not.

Some facts. I think there should be reasonable limits placed on abortion. But I will never vote that way. It’s not for the state to decide who cam and can’t have an abortion or to put a deadline on it. https://youtu.be/u3cedZT8I0M

That post makes no sense at all.

It is like a proposal for a language police, who cannot comprehend language.

Rascism respect rights and discrimination require a “judgement”

However

Honour, obligation morality and decency do not require a “judgement” ????

What?? All of morality is based on analysis of actions and intentions and consequences…..

Rosie funny you should call me slow when all you post over and over again is “poor pet” and “wacky backy”. You really are very limited aren’t you dear lol!

Rosie is a control freak

Rosie you are forgetting to put in “wacky backy” in your comment. Lol!

Rosie you poor pet are ur comments getting deleted poor poor poor little pet. What is it with you and pets you must be some kind of crazy cat lady. And i don’t call them murders I call them psychopathic sl¥ts