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.
GARDAÍ RECOVERED TWO firearms and arrested two people in operations in Dublin targeting drugs related criminal activity.
Shortly after 11pm last night a male cyclist in his 40s was stopped in the Shangan Gardens area of Ballymun and a loaded firearm was recovered.
The man was arrested and is currently detained under Section 30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, at Ballymun Garda Station.
Today a follow up search was conducted by the Ballymun and Finglas Drugs Units with assistance from other local units, at a house in the Finglas area.
In the course of the search a machine pistol, two loaded magazines, two silencers and a quantity of ammunition was recovered.
A woman in her 50s was arrested and is also currently detained under Section 30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, at Ballymun Station.
All of the items seized will be sent for ballistic and forensic examination.
A garda spokesperson said investigations are ongoing.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
This disgusting amendment has been in our constitution for three decades, and that is three decades too long.
It was outdated and backwards when it was voted on, now it is a dangerous and embarrassing relic of a past long gone and not missed.
1 in 5 pregnancies in the UK are aborted. How many people are happy, healthy and alive in Ireland right now because of this legislation which you call “disgusting”? For all your inexplicable sanctimony, that is a reality which comprehensively undermines any abstract arguments you care to regurgitate.
A the old 1 in 5 figure. Hello there Vince.
What you fail to mention every time you repeat that like a parrot is that those pregnancies where carried by women who did not want to be pregnant.
In terms of importance, “Want” is a relative term when contrasted with the term “Life”, don’t you think?
Once again you are operating on the assumption that we all share your view that an embryo has rights which outweigh the wishes of the woman carrying it.
We don’t.
But we all should.
And clearly the law does.
“Carried by women who did not want to be pregnant”…
Condom anyone?
Because of course contraception is always infallible…
Are you really that naive?
Exactly, they didn’t use contraception knowing that it could result in a pregnancy, which it did, so they should take responsibility instead of simply killing it because it’s a ‘nuisance’.
I think its more niave to assume unwanted pregnancies are the result of failed contraception. Of course you’ll have recorded peer reviewed sources to show it is I assume.
** that all unwanted pregnancies
First off I did not state that most unwanted pregnancies result from failed contraception. I said that contraception is never infallible, which is true.
Second, because pleasure is one of the primary reasons our species has sex, it is ridiculous to assume that having intercourse is the same as consenting to pregnancy.
Considering evolution evolved sexual pleasure that resulted in increased birth rates, it puts the responsibility onto it. Like drinking and driving. People drink for pleasure, not aiming to crash and kill people.
First off are your seriously comparing the scourge of drink driving to a woman’s medical procedure?
Such a comparison is grossly offensive to both women who have had terminations and the victims of drink drivers.
Second, a woman who chooses to have a termination is taking responsibility for her actions. She is making an adult decision not to bring one more unwanted child into the world, a child which she may be unable to afford given her socioeconomic position or the cost of raising children she already has.
This is even before we bring up the pain, stress and strain which come with pregnancy and childbirth.
Egg, do you have any statistics from a reputable source for people who are “happy, healthy and alive”?
There’s certainly evidence of women dying because of this disgusting legislation.
Daisy, I suggest you refer to the happiness index for that.
You’re the one who used pleasure as a motivation, and thus, justification for not taking responsibility. Getting rid of a human life is a way out. Again, you’re assuming everyone who has an abortion is not otherwise capable of raising the child happily and safely and unable to provide. Do you have peer reviewed statistics?
Rape, anyone? @Doey
Ok lets discuss failure of contraceptives
First things first, I personally disagree with the pill due to side affects to prolonged usage
I’m pro condom, no excuses no exceptions
All Contraceptives have on average an estimated 2% failure rate (fellas, know what size of condom you should where) most guys on average are 6-7 inches erect
Anyways,
Combine that 2% failure rate with the fact that conception for women under 35, “the window is open” for 12-24 HOURS after ovulation-that’s your time limit
Most of us believe that it is exceptionally easy to get preggers but it normally takes up to 6 months of trying for woman under 30, a year on average for woman over 30
As for the “rape” comment, rape in western society is actually rarer than most people think, and though incredibly tragic, when you add all the above numbers together, pregnancy out of rape though disgusting is exceptionally rare
In closing, I believe the emphasis should be on the message of safe sex
Daisy, I am sure there is evidence that people are alive due to this legislation also… Correct me if I am wrong of course.
How can you say that a woman wanting a termination is taking responsibility for her own actions. Surely taking responsibility would be using contraception herself and ensuring the male uses contraception as well to hopefully avoid the “unwanted child” as you call it. Also as our health service cannot handle the amount of patients it has at present where will the money come from to provide this service to those on medical cards etc… will we be left with, as one comedian put it, a 9 month waiting list..and then people suing the taxpayer as they were not seen to on time .,
Because sometimes contraception fails.
I can’t see the abortion issue resurfacing on the political map for a long time. In the interim a focus on bloody good sex ed and free contraception is the best way to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Feeding the troll McMuffin… But you have to call out a moron when you hear one.
Michael. Good point. You’re a moron.
John- I love the nobility you associate with the act of abortion. “Making a responsible, adult decision”. Not so much. It’s an exercise in responsibility obfuscation at the expense of another. Very little nobility in that. You are always so keen to get into the semantics of life and its definition. You do always seem to run when it’s pointed out that definitions of babies, zygotes, embryos are immaterial when the final outcome is all that is of relevance- one less human being. All your diversionary tactics fall asunder when the focus remains on that stark reality.
I couldn’t agree with you more. I personally think, that women who want to kill their child should thank the laws we have, that their mothers didn’t have that choice, or they might not be here today. Abortion of an unborn child because it doesn’t fit your life style, is Murder, end of
I agree re free contraception Niall. I was informed by a friend today that long term contraception is not covered by the medical card. The fee her GP charges is over 30% of her weekly social welfare payment. She said to me that as she satisfies a means test for a medical card, it shows that her income is insufficient to fully support just herself, let alone a child, and therefore the first thing her medical card should cover is long term contraception. I think she has a good point.
There was an interesting study I had bookmarked from the NY Times on just how hugely effective free contraception is. But they’ve gone behind a paywall and I can’t access it anymore.
The thing is though John, unborn babies are only designated as embryos until 12 weeks gestation, whereas abortion of foetuses in the UK is routinely allowed for twice as long as that, taking it up to a point where at 24 wks, babies have been able to survive.
Oh got another link to it Leanne. Here you go.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/us/study-finds-free-contraceptives-cut-abortion-rate.html?_r=0
Medical procedure???
I wasn’t aware long term contraception wasn’t covered by the medical card Leanne. Very shortsighted move on governments behalf.
You are assuming sex is always consensual with that condom statement
@doey ‘wear’ not ‘where’. Bit illconcieved like your statistical analysis.
Actually doey addressed the rape contribution already. Well done on reading everything.
And the law is an ass
Why is it that only men consider contraception, like the pope, to be infallible ?
I suppose it must have something to do with the fact that they cannot get pregnant themselves ……so applying the same principal to women…hmmm.
Failed pill, failed condom use, failed IUD , rape, statutory rape…the number of drunken irresponsible shags is getting lower by the minute ,Richard O Munchkin.
@ Doey, failure of condoms at 2 % relates to failure of the product itself in laboratory settings.
The real rate of failure is much much higher and down to incorrect usage the details include putting it on too late, after initial contact is made..taking it off between contacts to put on a new one but engaging in manual transfer…I could go on but I’m grossing myself out. Let’s just say its a case of a bad workman blaming his tools…
@Lorcmul. Are you saying that the financial cost of a termination is more than the cost of supporting a human being for their entire lives, 18 years or more of that perhaps by the mother alone?
Either she, the child or both could easily become a burden of the state, if in poverty, minimal education, in illness and through low pay, both become ‘beasts of burden’.
What if she does not want that?
What are the odds that the reason a woman is seeking the termination of an unwanted pregnancy is because she genuinely feels incapable of supporting a child by herself or with her partner and existing children?
Ethics are one thing , but financially your point is not logical.
You cannot predict the future or attach exacting value to the life of another human being.
Next thing you know women will be allowed to think for themselves.
without legal or medical interference……
In 30 years who’s been protected? “Unborn” children? No. 150,000 women who gave Irish addresses have travelled to the UK to avail of abortion services. Women? Definitely not. Sharon Hodgers died in agony. Her child didn’t last long after birth either. Michelle Harte was deemed by an ethics committee to be not cancerous enough to deserve a life saving termination in this country. By the time she had the procedure in the UK, it was too late.
This anachronistic, anti-women bill does nothing good for society. We need rid of it now.
What about your mate Savita,you have been exploiting that poor woman’s death to push your own evil agenda for the last few months.
I find it hard to take your comment seriously when you use the name “executioner”.
What bill is that, Daisy?
Clare Daly is an embarrassment
Anything to get their names in the papers.
I must disagree, nothing wrong with her argument there.
She is 20 years ahead of this country. I support her on this one.
Kevin are you the poet with that beautiful poem on Clare Daly’s facebook?
Wonder has any country ever had a vote with just women allowed to vote in it. I think it is a womans choice and they should have the ultimate decision.
If we look at it that way then post menopausal and women unable to fall pregnant should be excluded too. While I whole heartedly would love to see this overturned, you can’t exclude an entire section on the electorate based on gender.
Dave
How could it possible be just a matter of choice for the woman. Are you suggesting that there is no need for other parties to be involved at all? Forgive me but I did think that surgical facilities and qualifies surgeons and nurses and other allied staff would need to be included. This nonsensical idea that it is simply a woman’s choice is asinine .
Going off that logic people who smoke cannabis have the sole right to decide whether it should be legal or not. Which is ideal for people like me but its not democratic. It’s up to all Irish citizens to decide.
That was 30 years ago? How time flies.
How women fly…to the UK
Wasnt clare over for tea and chats with a gun runner recently?
Quite the myriad of positions on life and its worth…
Is that you saying you agree with the 8th amendment or disagree with Clare dalys moral standing?
It’s funny how people are so digusted when a child is murdered but when a baby is? No problem.
An embryo is not a baby.
‘…the baby (also referred to as an embryo)’ can be found in countless science and pregnancy books.
And when those pregnancy books carry the same academic weight as a paper published by the RCOG, your argument may carry some weight.
Regardless, it’s still a living human, but you feel it doesn’t have the right to live? My point is that you would feel its disgusting for a baby that’s 2 days old to be murdered by its mother, but if it was killed several months earlier you would think it’s acceptable?
It is more than obvious that most people in the developed world don’t equate abortion with infanticide.
If they did, abortion rights would not be the socially accepted norm in most of Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, and North East Asia.
This reactionary obsession with stripping women of rights while assigning them to the contents of her womb is a source of embarrassment for Ireland.
I only agree with abortion in the case of rape, incest or if its going to have a disability, when they know it might not have a happy life. Why not give it up for adoption?
JDee, as a medical scientist whose missus had an abortion, I can tell you that youre talking through your hole.
And why exactly should a woman go through a pregnancy just to bring another unwanted child into the world?
JDee, why not give it up for adoption? Because she doesnt want to remain pregnant or give birth. Clear enough for you?
John you seem to be very keen on killing things ,But rational doesn’t enter the discussions on either side of this issue .
“John you seem to be very keen on killing things”
Citation needed.
What I am keen on is allowing women to control their own reproductive systems. Most of the developed world thinks that is a perfectly rational position to take.
“This reactionary obsession with stripping women of rights while assigning them to the contents of her womb is a source of embarrassment for Ireland”
Or
This reactionary obsession with stripping unborn of the right to life. Round and round we go. I don’t believe it’s a source of embarrassment to Ireland either.
Aggressively downgrading the foetus has not helped the pro choice side win the argument John. I think you’ll agree that many people don’t see the foetus as a ‘person’ but nor do they see it as valueless {glut of cells etc}.
Tommy C, you must be proud.
Aborting on the basis of disability is eugenics.
Call away. Abortion is not going to be touched by politicians for a generation. Desperate miscalculation on the part of pro-abortionists this year. Not able to disguise abortion for all as a health issue any more.
You used the term ‘pro abortionists’.
The rest of what you said therefore warrants no attention.
As usual old bluenose is at it again. Waffle on all you like bluenose. its coming.
Stunning riposte, Kev. As always I’m in awe of your eloquence and the depth of your insight into the issues of the day. You are a true visionary.
John- you could at least have the courage of your convictions and not subscribe to the rebrand. What are you afraid to nail your colours to the mast? Your disdain for the term “pro-abortion” does suggest a deep seated need to distance yourself from the quintessential reality of that which you espouse. If you’re so embarrassed to be seen to supporting abortion perhaps you should not be so forthcoming in advocating its introduction? You should give that some thought.
No egg I object to the term because it is a despicable attempt to paint pro choice people as blood thirsty monsters who get off on the thought of abortion.
Having a termination is one of the most difficult things someone will ever have to do, a fact which is understood by people who favour full reproductive rights.
We support a woman’s right to choose, we do not support abortion against her will as that ridiculous term implies.
Grow up, stop throwing out youth defence slogans and tell us why you thing women are not entitled to decide if they want to be pregnant or not.
Spin…
No counter argument then? Ok, I accept your concession of defeat.
Surely the right to choose disappears when it takes a human life. Otherwise, why anyone has the right to do what they want, even if the outcome is the death of a human life.
Exactly right. Everyone should have the right to choose.
Everyone who is pro-”choice” has already been born.
As is everyone who opposes reproductive rights.
What’s your point?
John, of course women have a choice whether to be pregnant or not but there are other means by which they can exercise that right that don’t involve killing another human.
Clare Daly asks “how many more lives will be lost…” while advocating the wholesale destruction of early life without limits. Very sad.
I think the term ‘pro abortion’ John was coined by US feminists in the Late 60′s early 70′s. I stand open to correction on that, but I’m fairly certain it was.
For the record I have equal disdain for both the pro life and pro choice groups. Collectively they’ve done nothing but alienate me. I see them both as toxic.
I refrain from using the term personally unless I’m in a conversation where someone float the term anti abortion. Still, at least the terms anti and pro abortion refer to the subject at hand so it is a more accurate term. Semantics may change perceptions John – but not realities.
However the term ‘pro abort’ I think is intentionally offensive and antagonistic.
Wasting your time Clare. The last amendment was the worst thing the pro choice lobby could have pushed through. The issue will not be touched again by the government for a long time. They will be under no outside pressure because they have complied with the X case now.
Whoops, I mean the last piece of legislation not the last amendment
And what is the prize if these radical left-wingers and social liberals were to get their way, that we would be like Britain with sex-selection abortion?
Give me the liberals over the well heeled, well connected, in the know types that seem to run this country, Johnny.
huge controversy in Britain at the moment. I don’t think anyone wants to go down the road of what is happening in the UK.
Gender selective terminations are a horrible reality there, & yesterday British MPs admitted that the UK abortion laws have become ‘meaningless’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10290200/Abortion-laws-left-meaningless-as-doctors-put-above-the-law.html
Zoe, as nearly 95% of abortions occur within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy, gender selection doesnt come into it. Stop making this up.
It has been on the front pages of the UK Telegraph for the past few days – & is a major news story there.
The UK health secretary has written to the Attorney General, regarding the prosecution of doctors who have broken the law in this way.
Unless you want to accuse them of ‘making things up’
So even if 5% of abortions were sex selective, who are you to tell another woman that she must remain pregnant when she doesnt want to be? Most sex selective abortions had by non white women. I thought people like you would be happy that eventually these people will breed themselves out.
no need to get personal & start throwing insults.
the problem with ‘people’ like you’ – is that when faced with something that doesn’t fit in with your own viewpoint, you either go into denial mode, or resort to sarcasm & insults.
What’s happening in the UK is a horrible reality, – & no amount of denial, insulting & sarcasm will make that go away.
just keep your head in the sand & pretend its not happening.
The same attitudes that see women as rightless wombs once they become pregnant are responsible for gender based abortions.
The problem is attitudes toward women, not the availability of abortion.
in the first Telegraph report above
Britain’s biggest abortion provider was quoted as saying – ‘that the decision (not to prosecute the doctors) showed that terminating babies because of their gender, was not necessarily a crime’
this is a human rights outrage, pure & simple.
You are aware Zoe that no gender selective abortions were actually carried out and that those reports are based on a sting operation organised by The Telegraph.
I hope you are right. Because the alternative does not bear thinking about, in any civilised society.
Well I’m right about the 8 pregnant women that the reporters filmed visiting the doctors in the articles, that’s not to say it doesn’t happen.
“Women should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without medical interference”.
At no stage during the debate on the Introduction of Death in Pregnancy bill did anyone either in favour or opposed to the proposal seriously suggest that doctors and nurses should be excluded from hospitals and abortion clinics that would provide the service.
These people are fruitcakes.
I agree with it being womans issue but on a side note clare daly oh god whay a looker
What a looker even :)
I think we got it the first time:-)
Clare has no chance of getting pregnant. A guy would have to be cross eyed drunk before he would ever want sex with her.
If anyone has a chance it’s you- being a complete knob.
Go on brian… take one for the team!
Nice one Brian. Proving yourself to be a true misogynist over and over again.
Brian, the same was said about your Ma. She still managed to get knocked up with you.
Your ma jokes… thats where we’re at with this? Wow!
Because your “joke” about Ms Daly’s appearance was clearly an Edinburgh Award winner.
Just how drunk was your da, by the way?
Wow… I hear 15 year olds saying those same things.
Well done. Come talk to us big boys and girls when you’re finished your leaving cert.
Yes because using “you’re ugly” as a counter argument against a female of any age is a well known mature response.
Claire Daly has done more for women with crisis pregnancies than most other people. Adopted any unwanted children lately? Offered to support any single mothers with another baby on the way? No?
Didn’t think so.
You asked a question and then answered it with a prejudged conclusion before anyone could answer… I see what you did there. Well done.
That’s because I’ve never actually met a single pro-lifer who has adopted an unwanted child or taken responsibility for any of the lives they insist on saving, or made some gesture of practical assistance to a pregnant woman who couldn’t afford another child. I’ve never heard of a pro-life group speak out against the cuts to child benefit or single-parent allowance, offer to support families of disabled children (despite their horror that some families might abort given the lack of support for these children and the added pressure it can put on already struggling parents) or part-funded a palliative care unit for babies incompatible with life.
well put Penelope…..the anti-choice brigade are only interested in the foetus in-utero,once it’s born,it can go to hell,it seems.The draw for them is control over women,not a concern for the foetus,….
Plenty of adoptive parents are pro life. And there are many pro lifers involved in fostering too. Pro lifers are involved in every sphere you mentioned. And I know of a pro life couple that rather than see their daughter have an abortion they themselves raised the child and the child still doesn’t know his sister {to him} is his actual mother.
Truth is Penelope it’s the abortion industry that offers no alternatives to women except abortion .Does Marie Stopes do what it is you say pro life groups don’t?
“the anti-choice brigade” “The draw for them is control over women,not a concern for the foetus,….”
Very unhelpful language.
I note your fondness for the logical fallacy of making simplistic binary outcomes the product of myriad considerations. ”You are anti-abortion so you hate women / want women to die/ you want to control womens bodies”.
Heard it all before.
“That’s because I’ve never actually met a single pro-lifer who has adopted an unwanted child or taken responsibility for any of the lives they insist on saving, or made some gesture of practical assistance to a pregnant woman who couldn’t afford another child. I’ve never heard of a pro-life group speak out against the cuts to child benefit or single-parent allowance, offer to support families of disabled children (despite their horror that some families might abort given the lack of support for these children and the added pressure it can put on already struggling parents) or part-funded a palliative care unit for babies incompatible with life.”
@Penelope Wizzlehurst
You obviously don’t know that most people who do actually care about these children are very much pro-life.
Seeing as you are misrepresenting everything with your blanket generalisation and explicit lack of life experience and/or meeting and finding out about people outside your narrow scope, I might take the opportunity to just throw it in there that we will probably in the future see less pro-choice people caring for disabled children, because they will never exist as persons as their right to life has been decided by another who believes they have a choice over the right to life of a developing human being.
@Audreyanne Brady
“once it’s born,it can go to hell,it seems The draw for them is control over women,not a concern for the foetus,….”
Amazing statement to make, and what’s your concern for the foetus?
Rape is usually cited by pro choice activists as a ground for allowing abortion. Rape is not stated as one of the grounds for allowing an abortion on the UK doctors permission sign off form. The reason is that Rape can only be Alleged Rape until proven in a court of law. This can only happen when the case goes to court maybe a year or more later. This is a common mistake. Check it out.
In the UK, women can cite a threat to their mental health if they’re forced to go through with a pregnancy against their will and not just in the case of rape. The difference between the UK and Ireland is that a woman in the UK won’t be forced to go to a tribunal and prove she’s suicidal.
Why should there be a ‘rape’ box to tick on the form? It is cited as a reason by pro-choice activists because it happens and pregnancies occur from it. I applaud that it is unnecessary to continue the trauma by having to cite it as the reason why an abortion is being sought. Why? Because some women will never say it happened to them. That we passed legislation that would have an emotionally vulnerable girl/woman put in the position of having to jump through hoops to prove she’s suicidal ‘enough’ to warrant help in her country makes me livid. I have close personal experience of this so can state categorically that the adoption solution hailed as the answer to this is not always possible, or wanted.
Might have had done credence if that clown Daly wasn’t involved.
Surly it’s about equal rights… The man can walk away, why not the woman?
She should have stayed in Lithuania.
You should have stayed off the journal.
This world is wicked enough for new beings, they should just ban Sex itself, it is creating more problem for the world at large.
Sounds like china. Or worse a fictional china that’s really mean. We have a world resource problem not a population problem.
ooohhh i get it now TD stands for TOTAL DEVESTATION
poem ‘Irish Government Minister Unveils Monument To Victims of Pro-Life Ammendment’ https://www.facebook.com/ClareDalyTD/posts/701249433224326
have your say