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.
TEXAS’ REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR Gregg Abbott has announced he was banning Covid-19 vaccine mandates for any entities in his state, including private companies.
“I issued an Executive Order prohibiting vaccine mandates by ANY entity in Texas,” the governor wrote on Twitter.
“The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective & our best defense against the virus, but should always remain voluntary & never forced,” he said.
The tweet included an attachment of the press release announcing the executive order, which stipulated that “no entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination by any individual, including an employee or consumer, who objects to such vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19.”
I issued an Executive Order prohibiting vaccine mandates by ANY entity in Texas.
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) October 11, 2021
I also added the issue to the Special Session agenda.
The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, & our best defense against the virus, but should always remain voluntary & never forced. pic.twitter.com/8hHHLyebCk
The order came after Democratic President Joe Biden last month announced the government would demand vaccines for federal workers and for businesses with more than 100 employees.
Many leading Republicans have described the mandate as an overreach and an attack on personal freedoms.
Abbott, who had earlier been a forceful opponent of mask mandates, in August tested positive for Covid-19, after attending an indoor public event. The governor is fully vaccinated.
While his anti-mask and anti-vaccine mandate stance has won him support from loyalists of former president Donald Trump, it has drawn strong criticism from Texas Democrats.
Julian Castro, a former Democratic presidential candidate and ex-mayor of the city of Austin, said in August that Abbott “has put his own Republican primary politics before the public health since day one.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
In this day and age there is no need for unwanted pregnancies and weather we like it or not termination is murder
@Harry Foley: really? I have never wanted to experience pregnancy, therefore if I ever did get pregnant, it would absolutely be unwanted. Bear in mind that no birth control is 100% effective. Additionally, personal experience has taught me that getting sterilised in this country as a female is impossible, even on the private system.
@Mirabelle Stonegate: Yet a man can get one organised for himself in minutes hypocrisy is mind boggling.
@Harry Foley: So how are you going to prevent rape and incest Einstein? Seriously, please let us all know your genius plan so we can roll it out immediately!
@Harry Foley: In this day and age, unwanted pregnancies do occur and ‘whether’ we like it or not, termination is ‘NOT’ murder. It is terminating a pregnancy before life begins.
@James Brown: Life has begun, have you ever seen a live scan at 12 weeks. It looks like life has begun at that stage.
@brendan H: Yes Brendan, I saw both my son & daughter’s 12 week scan & saw the potential for life on both counts. Furthermore I celebrated when their lives began on the day they were born.
@James Brown: oh god this ridiculous point yet again. James may I ask that if one of your “potential” kids had died in the womb during pregnancy would you and your partner have just moved on with no emotion or sadness. I mean it wasn’t a life was it? Just a potential life.
@James Brown: So they are dead in the womb and born alive, Wow.
@Andrew Cosgrave: Of course there would’ve been emotion & sadness over the loss, and what may have been. On the other hand though, If we had lost one @ 12 weeks & I was asked how many children I have, I would hardly say 2. One is 21 & the other , well he or she miscarried @ 12 weeks pregnancy.
@brendan H:
‘@James Brown: So they are dead in the womb and born alive, Wow.’
I can’t believe I have to explain this to you.
Dead by dictionary definition means – no longer alive.
Since life begins at birth, they are neither alive nor are they dead before they are born.
@brendan H: Well then, if life has begun, remove the less than 12 week foetus from the person who doesn’t give permission for their body to be used to sustain it, and let the foetus live. Doesn’t work, does it? The only way for a 12 week foetus to turn into a independently viable baby is to use the woman the feotus resides in to sustain life. There are two ways to do this. The woman gives permission OR her bodily autonomy is stripped and she’s forced to sustain the life of another human, risking her life and well being in the process. That’s the really. No human gets to use another human’s body without their permission to sustain their own life and it should be no different for a feotus.
@James Brown: that is pure nonesence ask any biologist and they will tell you when life begins and nobody can deny that it is therefore a human life, an innocent human life that is being ended or killed.
@James Brown: keep telling yourself that you know that’s bull.
@Carol Oates: “The woman gives permission OR her bodily autonomy is stripped and she’s forced to sustain the life of another human, risking her life and well being in the process. That’s the really. No human gets to use another human’s body without their permission to sustain their own life and it should be no different for a feotus.”
That is beyond drastic Carol. It reminds me of the Amritsar massacre in India where General Dyer at the Hunter Commission was asked how a wounded child shot with a Lee-Enfield rifle could apply permission for help. He didn’t understand the question because of the conviction that he was doing right.
There are better ways of doing this but bundling medical issues with willful intent to end life for no reasons by taking it out of the public domain is not the way to go.
@Gkell1: That is the reality though. That’s what it comes down to for all the various reasons including FFA, rape, economic, health, both longed for and unexpected pregnancy etc. Even with all the counselling and support in the world. It comes down to if the woman gives permission for the foetus to remain inside her body. If she doesn’t and she is not allowed end the pregnancy, you are talking forced pregnancy and forced birth, you are taking her bodily autonomy and reducing her to being life support to another human against her will. It it harsh. But after options have been weighed by the pregnant woman and support has been offered. If she doesn’t want to remain pregnant, it comes down to abortion or forced pregnancy.
@Carol Oates: “Even with all the counselling and support in the world. It comes down to if the woman gives permission for the foetus to remain inside her body.”
That developing boy or girl is part of life on the planet and the normal chain of life between one generation and the next. I am certain that in future this forced notion that a developing child in the womb is less than human or subhuman will be seen for the cruel and primitive extermination policy that it is.
There will be reproductive and contraceptive innovations in future that will take care of any pregnancy concerns so undermining the role of law and order to allow entitlements for one section of society to end life for no reason is wrong in every sense. It is a chance for this country’s citizens to show how progressive they are by sending this back to the Government to do this right instead of pandering to advocacy groups.
@Gkell1: Ah the natural order. Women are only tools of reproduction and should be happy to be so. Who’s making humans sub human now, Ger? You’re under the miscomprehension that folks who don’t agree with you don’t understand human development or where babies come from. It still comes down to women forced to remain pregnant. Ideally in future contraception will be 100% effective and the only pregnancy will be planned. We’re not there yet. Even when we are, even if every pregnancy is a longed for pregnancy, there will still be need for abortion because women(and their partners) will still need a choice for FFA, for health, for rape, for any number of reasons we haven’t even thought of yet. The 8th needs to go. There’s no way around it. Unless you lack all sense of compassion for women.
@Mirabelle Stonegate: You are fighting the wrong fight here. You should start a campaign to allow women in your predicament to get sterilized. I’m sure you would get massive support across both sides of the repeal argument. You’d have my vote without a second thought.
@James Brown: Their lives began “on the day they were born”?
Seriously?
You know that the “day they are born” is a very movable feast what with elective Caesarian births and inducement?
Is life that simple and ‘black and white’ for you? Could you maybe try to go a little deeper with your thought processes ?
@Carol Oates: “You’re under the miscomprehension that folks who don’t agree with you don’t understand human development or where babies come from.”
I don’t make a assumptions as to what people do or do not understand, the best that can be done is that medically it is a gender issue at 7 weeks when a boy or girl can be identified through non invasive tests.
As no reason needs to be at 12 weeks, it is then a legal issue of impartiality as all citizens are prevented from ending the life of a boy or girl. The linguistic gymnastics to dehumanize the medical distinction between a girl or boy in the womb and a boy or girl after birth looks like people with legal entitlements on their mind rather than healthcare concerns for either the developing child or mum.
@Gkell1: I’ve never encountered anyone better qualified comment on linguistic gymnastics than you. Your points are still nonsense for the matter at hand. If a woman doesn’t want a feotus growing inside her for any reason. She should have the right to remove the feotus. She doesn’t want that human inside her, boy or girl doesn’t matter. Perhaps it’s an easy decision for her based on economics, perhaps she would love if the feotus was healthy and she could go to term. Either way, it is none of our business because no human should have the right to use another to sustain their own life. A YES vote is incredibly simple to me for that reason.
@Mirabelle Stonegate: So abortion should come in so you can engage in the only type of sexual activity- from a whole suite of such activities- that might, just might, result in pregnancy. At least someone’s come out and said it!
@Harry Foley: hello the 1940′s just phoned said it’s time you stopped using all of there outdated options…
I can take it from this long winded article that the answer is that public money will go towards abortions in cases that are not a medical necessity, where the woman’s health is not endangered.
@Padraig Corcoran: it’ll be much cheaper than 17-22 years of the children’s allowance, since so you’re so worried about the money like.
@Rónán O’Suilleabháin: The article is about money.
@Padraig Corcoran: Being a member of the EU ,I presume all pregnant EU citizens can avail of this free abortion service in public hospitals putting more pressure on our hospitals..
@Padraig Corcoran: Public money already goes towards many procedures where a person’s health is not endangered, such as eye tests, sex changes, methadone programs….etc, etc. Should we stop paying for all of these too. Or just the ones that are contrary to your moral compass?? Your morality is not the same as mine.
@James Brown: Is it so bad to not want to pay for something someone else elects to do. It is about “Choice” and they choose this.
@Padraig Corcoran: Is it fair that public money goes towards the GAA. I don’t play or watch GAA. Should my tax have to go towards that. The answer is yes, because that’s the way taxes work. Taxes go towards the needs of society, not just the ones we may or may not agree with.
@Ben Moylan: just on this point, Ireland is the last country in the EU bar Malta to have such a ban on abortion. So why would anyone specifically come here for one?
Furthermore, The UK (for the moment at least) is in the EU and despite the fact that British women can access abortions for free in The NHS, Irish women have to pay for it.
@James Brown: Poor comparison really. GAA is part of our culture and heritage.
@James Brown: Plus one has to pay membership to be part of a club.
@Ben Moylan: @Ben Moylan: nonsense, we cannot avail of free abortions in the EU currently. FFS, any chance you would engage the brain.
@Padraig Corcoran: GAA may be part of your culture and heritage, but it’s not part of mine. I’m still happy my taxes are going towards it though as it benefits our society as a whole.
@James Brown: Perfect. I will continue to pay GAA membership and you can send a few pound (Sterling) to you nearest abortion clinic.
@James Brown: going blind (eye tests), the psychological issues of being in the wrong body (sex change operations), HIV, hepatitis, the destructive effects of heroin on a person (methadone programmes) – you don’t consider these as endangering a person’s health?
@Philip Kavanagh: Not everyone who has an eye test is going blind. Personally I have a been wearing glasses for the past 40 years & I haven’t gone blind yet, not has it endangered my health.
Don’t really have any experience of any psychological issues of being in the wrong body as I’m happy in my own skin, but fair dinkum, I’ll take you at your word on that one.
Also not everyone who is on methadone has HIV or Hepatitus, although there’s another one I don’t have any experience with.
Either way, I was just making the point that our taxes pay for a lot of procedures or activities that do not concern me or benefit me, or many other people.
I’m still happy my taxes are going towards them though, as they benefit our society as a whole.
@Padraig Corcoran: Well hopefully that will be a few € (euro), after the 25th May.
#Repeal the 8th
@Padraig Corcoran: it would appear so Padraig. I am against abortion on demand so much. To discover that I will be expected to fund it would crack me up. In cases of fFA and rape, that is absolutely healthcare and these people need all the support available but on abortion on demand, no chance.
@Caz 17: there are many things in society I am against, but my wife and I have to fund through taxation.
@James Brown: does that mean that you are not irish i.e. the fact that gaa is not part of your heritage because like it or not that is irish heritage. If u are not irish i presume you will not have a vote and your opinion is therefore irrelevant.
@Jeremy DeChad: Born & bred in Dublin, just like my parents before me & theirs before them. Can you say the same? I don’t consider GAA my heritage as I have no interest in that sport at all. Just because I’m Irish, it doesn’t mean I have to subscribe to what others decide what it means to be Irish. On your other point I do have a vote & I will be using my vote to Repeal the 8th.
Go raibh mile maith agat
@James Brown: No, your point was that “public money already goes towards many procedures where a person’s health is not endangered” and you fail to back it up with anything concrete. All the procedures you name have clear and proven benefits where health is threatened.
@Philip Kavanagh:
‘@James Brown: No, your point was that “public money already goes towards many procedures where a person’s health is not endangered” and you fail to back it up with anything concrete. All the procedures you name have clear and proven benefits where health is threatened.’
As does abortion!
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/23m-spent-on-cosmetic-surgery-in-public-hospitals-1.2466514
Is this concrete?
@James Brown: Bit of a week comparison there when one considers that no human life is ever deliberately terminated on any GAA pitch.
@Nydon: “weak”
@Nydon:
Obviously you missed my point. Public money is spent on many services & procedures in the country which benefit our society as a whole.
Abortion services in Ireland would benefit our society as a whole.
I am more than happy that my taxes will go to any service or procedure that benefit our society as a whole.
@James Brown: fyi i am Irish and know that Gaelic games have part of our heritage for thousands of years. I don’t play Gaelic games either but it is still part of our history and heritage. Tá fáilte romhat.
@Padraig Corcoran: YES!
The abortion industry is a cash cow, terminating life to make a profit. The only reason I can think of why Ireland’s conservative politicians have flipped over to an extreme liberal view on abortion is because they are setting the groundwork for what will ultimately be standard EU wide abortion laws.
Vote No.
@Mr Phil Officer: or maybe there finally seeing sense and not forcing women to travel to other countries to have abortions and not providing proper care to those women when they return.
Fact is it doesn’t matter if votes yes or no to repal the 8th. Vote no the women will either buy abortion pills from the internet or travel abroad. Both steps leave them vulnerable. Vote yes gives women who wish to abortion access to proper safe medical practitioners at home and proper aftercare. Hence why I’m voting Yes.
@Roy Dowling: so you agree then, its abortion on demand
@Roy Dowling: the question is about money. The public medical system is at bursting point. There are no staff on the dole awaiting a surgical abortion job, psychologists, nurses……. there are no beds. Do the hospital staff and facilities divert from treating the sick, ill, diseased, suffering patients they all ready have on waiting lists to accommodate abortions in cases of unwanted pregnancy? Haven’t many women headed off to England for this service? It’s still available.
@Joe Mc: I agree it’s time to trust women with there bodies. I don’t believe women travel to the UK and order pill online and put themselves at risk for no reason. it’s not like a woman decides to have an abortion so she can go on the session with her mates. it’s not we’ll see #ihadanabortion trending.
@Joe Mc: Relax Joe, nobody is going to force you to have one. However, why do you think it’s your business if Mary down the road wants one. Do you know the situation she’s in? How do you know it wasn’t her father, brother, local priest who put her in that situation? Keep your own door step clean and keep your nose out of other peoples business #repeal
@Pajo Mata: I think you’ll find it was mister Phil officer who completely blanked what the article was about. Feel free to question him on it instead if me
@Mr Phil Officer: Do you have a daughter?
@Mr Phil Officer: abortion is available almost everywhere. Do you think the entire world is ruled by extreme liberal view whatever it is supposed to mean? You might be in a minuscule minority then, time to reflect on your position in the world society.
@Marie McCormack: is international abortion a not for profit industry, do you know how much abortion costs in the UK where the majority of women have a termination for contraceptive reasons, women with multiple kids to different fathers heading for their 5th free abortion are not vulnerable. I am not disputing that there is medical or criminal reasons why some abortions happen but unrestricted abortions up to 12 weeks is an extreme reaction to an issue that will never affect 99% of the population, I’m voting no.
@Roy Dowling: I would not be so sure about the last bit of your comment,
@Mr Phil Officer: heart transplant are also a for profit industry, including housing, food, etc. You know how many people starve when food is thrown out to keep the market price? Whats your nonpoint anyway?
@Mr Phil Officer: we, maybe those 5 fathers should also think. Whats your solution then? a woman has 15 kids from 15 fathers and all kids suffer? Or you would advise she doe snot sleep around? Now we are back to the core of the pro life movement – shoving their moral down everyones throat. Its not your business how many partners a woman has.
@Sean Murnin: I’d imagine the concern here lies with the baby being aborted. This rape argument is a red herring. Fortunately those cases will be in the minority if repealed. As for the ‘don’t want an abortion then don’t have an abortion’ line constantly used by pro aborts, again it’s the baby concerning us. Not the person who has made a conscious decision to pull the plug on the life of an innocent healthy baby. I speak only with regards to abortion on demand. FFA and rape I’m in a different mind set. But I will not be blind sighted with this rape crap.
@Caz 17: The “rape thing” is not crap, it’s very real. Abortion is happening in this country even if you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore it. I’m voting to make it safer for women. Also, it’s not your “baby” being aborted so it’s none of your business. You make your own choice and give others the right to make their choice.
Did I miss something or was there only vague references to an answer……..
Harris would not answer any of the questions put to him. That means either he doesn’t know the answers or he is withholding information from us. That is not good enough from a Health Minister in a referendum of such significance to our country for future generations.
Tax payers money been used to kill healthy unborn babies, that’s what people are voting for. Welcome to the new Ireland
@Stephen: I see that financial considerations are your priority.
The interests of the pregnant woman should take priority over a foetus.
@Stephen: I am also a taxpayer and happy that money will go towards caring and showing compassion to women. But then I am a woman and know all difficulties that can arise. You are so against women’s healthcare though, that I am not quite sure I would want my tax money go towards your healthcare if you need it, the same way you want to deny it others. Can we differentiate somehow?
Marie abortion is not health care unless the woman’s life is in danger and if so there is already precision in law to terminate pregnancy in this country which nobody has a problem with. This referendum is about allowing healthy unborn babies to be destroyed by any means necessary because of inconvenience.
@Stephen: well, let me disagree there and we be done. Everyone to their own.
@Marie McCormack: people are not against health care for women but are against the killing of the innocent child in their womb.
@Marie McCormack: if I as a man went to a doctor or hospital and demanded that a perfectly healthy organ be removed and destroyed from my body. I wouldn’t be granted my demand and rightly so. Why do some women believe doctors and hospitals paid for by tax payers are responsible for killing their unwanted babies. I pay my taxes to save life’s not end them.
If we end up like Britain with 1 out of 5 babies aborted general no fault medical care needs will be affected.
@Tom Molloy: they’re not babies. Stop using that word dishonestly and maybe there can be intelligent, reasoned debate.
@Liam Byrne: they are humans. You were once like that
@Liam Byrne: in your opinion
@Liam Byrne: are they kittens?
@Ronan Sexton: embryos/foetuses..
@Liam Byrne: “oh honey I can feel my foetus kicking.”
I have yet to hear any woman refer to her unborn child as a foetus.
I have yet to hear any medical professional say the same to a woman when she turns up for her scan . “Wow I can see your foetus moving” said nobody ever!
@Tom Molloy: that line has been proven false. 1 in 5 babies babies/ pregnancies is only accurate if you do not believe miscarriages were a pregnancy, which would mean you do not believe “human life” begins at conception.
Peter Boylan has stated as fact that 50% of all pregnancies are miscarried within in the first 4 weeks and if the remainder a further 25% will also be miscarried. That is 62.5% of all pregnancies and means your assertion is only correct if you are talking about the remaining 37.5% of pregnancies and that makes an accurate figure of 7.5% of all pregnancies are actually aborted. That is a significant difference, but that’s the maths.
@Paul Fahey: so of the viable pregnancies, the 1 in 5 claim is accurate then? Is that what you are saying ?
@It’s A Bay-bee!: “oh I must go in for an ultrasound on the auld foetus, see how it’s getting on” said no expectant mother ever.
@Ronan Sexton: you’re being dishonest too. Baby is used by joe soap myself included to describe the cells growing in the womb. There’s a reason people don’t have funerals for miscarriages.
The point being, calling something a baby when it’s obviously not a baby for the purpose of falsely strengthening an argument full of holes is misleading.
@Greg Kelly: no, because all pregnancies are “viable” at conception, no? For the record, medically a viable pregnancy is one regarded as being able to survive outside of the womb, please try again.
@Joe Mc: in your view only. In my view it is a pregnancy terminated at its early stage, nothing more nothing less, but then I havent been brainwashed since childhood. I wont change your mind and you wont change mine, think it will be whose number will be higher after all.
@Greg Kelly: babies only start kicking between 16 and 25 weeks. Most closer to 25 weeks. At that point the baby is more likely to be viable/healthy/loved/wanted, so of course the mother will refer to it as a baby.
Given that 90% of abortions happen before 12 weeks, a large proportion of abortions will take place when the baby is technically an embryo, so the foetus vs baby argument still isn’t applicable.
@Liam Byrne: Congratulations honey we are having a foetus
@Marie McCormack: thats just your view, if your heartbeat stopped you’d be considered dead so by the same token your heart started you would be alive so peddle your bull somewhere else
@Joe Mc: by your reckoning should we be under a legal obligation to never turn off a life support machine?
For the record, your reckoning is not supported by science.
@Joe Mc: I think you are so confused that are clinging to straws which do not make any sense. You were also explained by medics that there is no heart in early pregnancy and what is heart is the circulation of blood being pumped. Anyway, you would know so much more wouldnt you.
@Marie McCormack: Nope Marie. Not joes mind only. Mine too. You’re aware you don’t speak for anyone else aren’t you? And I’ve not been brainwashed either. Just raised with morals. Vote NO
@Liam Byrne: have you ever even seen an actual abortion Liam? Obviously not. Come back when you do and maybe you might rethink your stupid comment. Abortion nurses will tell you stories of aborted babies thrown into buckets and legs and arms still moving!
@Dylan Mehigan: a foetus can start kicking at 10 weeks. Women dont feel it until maybe 16 + weeks. A foetus is more or less fully formed at ten weeks..all it has to do is grow.
The unborn
@doorhandler: yep that’s who will pay
@Greg Kelly: they will pay before they yawn or after that? This paying thing hasnt been on a poster.
If the referendum result calls for repealing the 8th, then abortion should not be tax payer funded at all. Your healthcare is your personal issue.
More people on trolleys .
@Clinton Baptiste: I’ve muted Lang and his other fake accounts
.it’s much better now ..
@Clinton Baptiste: really stupid comment, people will not be presenting at A&E for an abortion.
@Matthew Henry: Sure you were probably only talking to yourself anyway.
@Matthew Henry: it is a pleasure to be muted by an extremist.
Will the €100 quid hospital charge apply like when you present with a broken leg?
@Ronan Sexton: that is for A&E and I don’t see any suggestion of abortions being performed in A&E.
@Paul Fahey: Did you not see how many ambulances were called to abortion centres in London?
Of course, the pro-life side would prefer abortion to be unaffordable and inaccessible but the hard reality is that some pregnant women will be unable to afford to have a baby at a particular time in life. Economic factors will drive the need for abortion in some cases. Poverty, homelessness, insecure housing and precarious employment are hard realities.
The pro-life side bases its opposition to abortion on a false foundation. It has to pretend that a foetus is a baby and imagine the foetus as a live baby outside the womb. This is why it describes the foetus in emotive terms, an innocent baby, a little baby, a little child, a little boy or a little girl, a tiny little human being but the reality is that a blastocyst, embryo or foetus may never become a baby. The foetus is a potential future human being, but this is contingent on birth.
We can try to think of a foetus as a baby, pretend or imagine a foetus as a baby, describe it tendentiously as a son or a daughter of the Republic, overlay images of real 6 month old babies onto a foetus, but a foetus is a foetus and a baby is a baby.
I would agree with Pro-Life if the foetus were to be an actual baby, but it’s not, and that is where Pro-Life falls down. It fights on the basis of a false premise.
@Michael Lang: stop dehumanising then….
“honey I can feel our foetus kicking”
“Hi welcome to your 12 week scan. How is the foetus? Oh wow I can see your foetus on the scan”
The first thing the nazis did was try to dehumanise their victims before they introduced abortion to route out “defects” in the “master race”.
Good try Michael.
But we can both agree he/she in the womb is an actual human though right?
@Michael Lang: ” This is why it describes the foetus in emotive terms, an innocent baby, a little baby, a little child, a little boy or a little girl….”
Nothing emotive and everything entirely medical that a simple blood test can determine gender at 7 weeks .
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/health/10birth.html?_r=1
In the historical scheme of things, the ending of life in the womb was and remains a contentious issue, even for societies which had no problem with capital punishment -
“For one party banishes abortives, citing the testimony of Hippocrates who says: ‘I will give to no one an abortive’; moreover, because it is the specific task of medicine to guard and preserve what has been engendered by nature. The other party prescribes abortions, but with discrimination, that is, they do not prescribe them when a person wishes to destroy the embryo because of adultery or out of consideration for youthful beauty; but only to prevent subsequent danger in parturition if the uterus is small and not capable of accommodating the complete development” Roman commentary on Hippocratic Oath, 100 AD
The vote in a few weeks is not a reflection of the real issue as the medical community is there to protect life (medical issues) while the legal community is to there to protect society from indiscriminate endings of life (repeal) so trying to mesh legal and medical issues was an awful thing to do for our society. Vote No and tell the Government to come back with proposals that keep the issue in the public domain while treating the different facets separately and with humanity.
A bunch of people trying to dehumanize a developing child in the womb is unsightly as you were all that size and shape once in the womb.
@Greg Kelly: you are still unable to comprehend the difference between a foetus and a baby even though there are numerous ways in which society does not recognise a foetus as a baby.
@Gkell1: none of that exposition of yours can magically transform a foetus into a baby. A foetus is a foetus up to birth. Then if the birth delivery process is successful, there is a baby.
A late terms foetus, as it becomes viable, deserves some limited legal protection but never at the expense or cost of the pregnant woman who is a real and live human being with her place in society, known, loved and loving with her rich netwrork of contacts.
There should be no contest between a fictional human being, a foetus, and a real live human being, the pregnant woman.
The life and interests of one pregnant woman are worth vastly more than every foetus. They are not seriously comparable.
@Greg Kelly: okay if it makes it easier for you let’s call it a baby the whole way through.
An unwanted or unsafe pregnancy is very emotional. It’s not black and white and it’s not simple. But personally I’m of the opinion that a woman shouldn’t be forced to continue with this pregnancy. That why I’m voting yes
Also this needs to be coupled with extensive education, free contraception, support for woman who continue a pregnancy even in the toughest of circumstances. Better supports for children with disabilities and their parents. Etc etc. So only where a woman feels abortion is the best option for her does it occur. I would love to live in a world where there are no unwanted pregnancies, not FFA’s, no rape no incest but I don’t. So I’ll face up to the reality and support my sisters.
@Gkell1: dont you get tired changing profile names? I can tell your weird posts from the way you write and from the way you put weird ideas forward. The ony thing I cant understand why you need to change profiles? Strange.
@Greg Kelly: Do you have a daughter? Tell her I said she needs to go on a diet…. You won’t do it and rightly so. You’ll tell me to f#$k off and mind my own business, how dare I tell your daughter what to do. Same applies here, that’s my daughter in my profile picture (I’m not hiding). Who the f#$k do you think you are to decide what is right for her future? How dare you sir!
@Michael Lang: ” none of that exposition of yours can magically transform a foetus into a baby. A foetus is a foetus up to birth. Then if the birth delivery process is successful, there is a baby.”
It is not possible to dehumanise a developing boy or girl in the womb after 7 weeks unless there is a unreasonable conviction to end the life of that developing child. The old dehumanising convictions like yours no longer hold as medicine has moved on from the primitive and cruel intentions to use the term ‘fetus’ for extermination purposes.
https://www.parents.com/health/parents-news-now/new-blood-test-can-tell-fetal-gender-at-7-weeks/
Some people can adapt and know exactly what this represents while others find it strange or their minds are not working properly . Those who can adapt realize that medical innovations in the future can treat gender specific illnesses before the boy or girl is born and that is positive medical news.
@Gkell1: Wow look – Gerrard Kelleher got a new account. Did he get banned for unremitting nonsense I wonder?
What happened Gerard. Why the name change?
@Stephen Adam: Gerald and most other commenters who are against abortion had their accounts banned by the journal…the journal allow multi account holders to continue unchecked to advance the abortion side….
@Stephen Adam: most pro life accounts were banned by the journal
@Matthew Henry: To be fair Matthew I burned through my Twitter and Facebook accounts on the issue of Darwin’s application of subhumans to negroes and aborigines who act as evolutionary props between caucasians and gorillas/baboons -
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Darwin
Natural selection was the empirical principles which national socialism applied in 1930′s Germany for invasion and extermination of the unfit within their own population and other cultures like the Jews but was whitewashed out of academic circles after WWII.
The use of the term ‘fetus/foetus’ is how entitlement seekers dehumanize that which is human in the womb so a lot of this is linked together. I shrug if the Journal bans me as it is their website .
@Gkell1: you demonstrate the irrationality and extremism of the pro-life side.
@Michael Lang: At last, a rationally set out argument- but still a false one as far as I’m concerned; I may or may not return safely from the walk I’m about to take, given Irish driving skills and the roads I’ll be crossing but that doesn’t mean you can freely shoot me in the head given the ‘contingencies’ involved. And you’re, typically, using technical terms in an emotive sense by referring to ‘blastocyst,’ ‘embryo’ and ‘foetus’ (did you forget ‘zygote’?) to dehumanise the unborn- ‘adolescent,’ ‘adult’ and ‘geriatric’ are also terms for an individual being, so the ones you use are just as neutral when properly used. None of us, not me or you Michael, would be here today if blastocyst, embryo or foetus WE were had been terminated for the convenience of another- and there are no ‘actual babies’ without them, no ‘pretence’ involved. By laying out your argument rationally and clearly you make it easy for me to reject it on factual grounds.
Obsessed!
@Jane: As is every other news media in Ireland would be no different from other referendums or general elections. Only difference is there seems to be a lot of people that want the media to stay quiet on this one and not tell the truths of what happens to women in Ireland.
@Celtic_Horizon: what are you smoking? the media have been giving a non stop pro abortion viewpoint on the referendum.
It’ll be the biggest shock ever if No manages to squeeze a win.
@eric nelligan:I gave up smoking 5 years ago this month actually :)
First of it’s not a pro abortion piece it’s not even an anti abortion piece. It’s explaining how the cost will be managed if abortion is legalized, problem with facts again I see.
But what can the No side say? There is only so many times you can abortion is “Bad”. What have Yes side got, 35 years of mistreatment stories. Are you suggesting they all stay quiet are you suggesting their view point should be remain silent.
In postcommunist Slovakia and still predominantly catholic country abortion is allowed up to 12 weeks with 2 days for reflection and consideration. Abortion is not paid by the state and it costs 250-500eur depending on the clinic (average salary in slovakia is 450-550eur). Girls up to 16 years of age must be accompanied by an adult person who gives an agreement for the procedure. Older girls 16-18 are allowed to make this decision independently. Abortion pills are only prescribed by the doctor. According to statistics for the last 10 years abortion rate decreased by 60 %.
@Laura Sova: because no woman wants abortion, contraception is far easier. It is the last resort for any woman girl. But I would never even think of forcing a 13-14 year old child give birth to another child, something most pro ifers seem no problem to do in their bubble of the world. Then that child would be left traumatized for the rest of their lives. Dont think they would be around to support.
@Marie McCormack: Sex act in certain age is against the law. It is a duty of a caregiver to explain to their children at certain age about sex and its consequences. Parents, not a school, church or state are primarily responsible for their children up to 18. I think a teenage mother given a family support who was ‘forced’ to keep a child is less traumatized than a sexually abused person suffering in silence. Cases of rape and incest are the hardest to deal with but in most cases, healthy women have the abortion for economic reasons or they simply don’t want to be a mother.
Abortion up to 12 weeks for any reason: At 12 weeks babies can feel pain. That’s enough to shut the argument for me or any person of good will.
@Charles Quinn: of course you know that assertion of feeling of pain by a 12 eeek foetus to be entirely false and contradicted by neuroscience. Another lie from the Pro-Lie side.
@Charles Quinn: You have been misinformed Charles. development of the necessary thalamocortical pathways that are required to consciously perceive pain.
You can read a summary of the science here if you are interested:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429
@Charles Quinn: You have been misinformed Charles. A fetus of 12 weeks gestation cannot feel pain. At that point, they do not even have a functioning spinal cord. Never mind development of the necessary thalamocortical pathways that are required to consciously perceive pain which develop much later on.
You can read a summary of the science here if you are interested:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429
While i dont agree with abortion and most likely will be voting no in the referendum for my own and not any religious reasons may I add, if the repeal is passed and abortions become an option in Ireland then surely it must be borne by the Health system. It isnt a cosmetic surgery. Its more like a procedure to have your eyesight corrected or something like that. Its not life threatening but it will enhance the persons life. Also i think if it is a private enterprise it will just be run for profit and if anything it wont make abortions more rare…it will if anything be driven by profits and the only way they enhance profits is make abortions very expensive or very frequent. In the end no private entity should be profiting off the instance of a bad situation for the mother or fetus.
@Kevin Tyrrell: Not every doctor will want to provide abortion. I doubt that doctors at abortion clinics force or try to convince women to have an abortion just to make a profit from it. Government is responsible for providing universal healthcare, affordable housing for young families and financially disadvantaged people and providing jobs. People must learn themselves about consequences of sexual behaviour and because abortion is so sensitive issue, not every doctor will be willing to do it. Teach, explain, protect and provide but do not infantilize people.
@Laura Sova: I mean being responsible for own sexual behaviour except for a rape.
I think this is an irrelevant discussion anyway. The money paid for child support are disproportionately larger. On the other hand, am sure women can pay for their given they already pay for flights and the procedure in another country. In any case, this is irrelevant conversation that only the no side seems to be concerned about. Healthcare should be available.
@Marie McCormack: it seems that it is the financial element which most concerns the NO side. The interests of the pregnant woman are conveniently ignored.
@Michael Lang: incorrect. Love both.
@Michael Lang: tony the article is about the abortion funding. Did you bother to read it?
@Caz 17: funding assumes that the 8th Amendment has been repealed. The Repeal Referendum has not yet been held. It is not until the 25th May. If the Referendum is passed, then funding will become relevant. Until then, funding is moot.
@Dermattg: it all about loving the foetus and casting the interests of the pregnant woman aside.
The debate ends up focusing on the foetus but our shared primary concern should be with the interests of the pregnant woman.
@Michael Lang: absurd statement unless you speak for us all. You may have 10 Journal accounts Tony but you do not speak for anyone who is against abortion. I have the capacity to care for both!
@Caz 17: I speak only to the rational. I don’t seek to reason with the irrational, such as you.
The problem is that the pro-life side care far more about the foetus than about the interests of the pregnant woman.
Q&A: Who will pay for abortions if the Eighth Amendment is repealed?
.
Ultimately, the baby…
.
When does the soul enter into someone?
If we fund abortion publicity people will complain but the same people will complain if private companies made profits from providing the service. So the only point is that people who don’t want abortion don’t want it funded at all.
@DorkOfCork: no…not all of us. I dont favour abortion and am pro-life but we do have to account for what might happen…so yes if the 8th is repealed I believe it should be publicly available unless the mother chooses private or they offer the service on Health Insurance plan. In the end if this is a private service it will be run for profit pure and simple and that does a disservice to both the mother, the fetus and our society. Besides can you really see the private clinic sitting down with the woman and asking her is she sure she wants to go through with this??? Hell no…it will be a tick that box and…oh we will say we tried to convince you otherwise and see you in 72 hours!! Nobody should profit from this situation. We have a socialised health system for that reason.
@Kevin Tyrrell: As I said above NOT EVERY doctor will be willing to provide abortion. The state can regulate a number of abortion clinics but the government cannot force all doctors to provide abortion. Doctor’s responsibility is to explain the procedure in detail and explain ALL possible consequences of abortion.
@Laura Sova: i would never force a doctor to provide this service for anyone. Im sure certain doctors will and maybe certain doctors wont want to or feel they have the necessary skills to. But plenty of GPs will probably sign up for this. I would never agree to anybody holding a gun to a doctors head and forcing them to provide abortion services. And I never said that I would.
@Kevin Tyrrell: My understanding is that in case of universal social healthcare abortion will be provided for free and all obstetricians will be obliged to do it. Therefore there are specialists in private clinics well prepared. It is a very sensitive issue not just for a woman but for doctors as well and they have right to refuse to participate in abortion or even to prescribe abortion pills.
@Laura Sova: i would imagine if the 8th is passed there would have to be some form of conscientuous objector protocol for GPs who didnt want to provide the service. They would simply refer to a practitioner that does. GPs refer all the time. I would imagine this would be no different.
Knowing the HSE, they’d probably put women on a 9-month waiting list.
will doctors and nurses who have a moral objection to abortion be required to bury their morals
It is important to note that the numerous problems with the 8th Amendment were anticipated by the staunchly Roman Catholic Attorney General in 1983. The anticipated difficulties have materialised.
@Matt Baitman: the financing of abortions in Ireland is entirely moot, irrelevant and pointless unless or until the 8th Amendment is repealed.
@Michael Lang:
Peter Sutherland said the 8th would introduce abortion on demand up to viability. He was spectacularly wrong wasn’t he.
The Sutherland alternative was rejected by pro-life campaigners as it would have left the mother unprotected.
if we’re doing down the route of who’s going to pay for the abortion and the tax it places on the health service then should we consider denying medical treatment to people who are smokers, alcoholics or obese? Just another desperate excuse the anti choice zealots have come up with
For most people it’s all about the money. Everybody is obsessed about money and how it’s spent. Shane Ross thinks we should shuttle people to pubs – now how mad is that?
Reading between the lines there are two things coming in the event of a Yes vote:
Marie Stopes & BPAS Clinics.
The HSE providing public funds to the above.
Better than piling bodies of dead illegitimate children in a sewer tank because their lives were worthless, Tuam hasn’t the only septic tank graveyard in the country I fear.
@John Walsh: It sounds pretty much the same to me actually.
Different timing, different societal coercion, different facilitation and methods of disposal but the same ultimate result.
have your say