Keep abortion out of Ireland

24-02-2012 1:25pm

PDN wrote: »

And, sadly, I'm old and cynical enough to suspect that Clare Daly was fully aware of this possibility when she phrased her bill as she did.

Clare Daly didn't decide on the phrasing, the Supreme Court did in 1992. There is a constitutional right to an abortion "where a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman exists". This legislation is twenty years overdue

SonOfAdam · 24-02-2012 1:27pm

@JimiTime - This is the crux of the issue. The Medical Council has stated that there is no medical reason that warrants an abortion (intentional terminationof life) but acknowledges there are rare cases where the death of the unborn is the unintentional side-effect of certain treatments.
It's time to leave the health issue to one side and be honest about the real reasons.

Baggio1 · 24-02-2012 1:29pm

well if theres a bill pending then obviously Our Lady IS correct in trying to get people to pray against it,
unfortunately the fools who mock this message and the website that has been set up to distribute the last seer's messages have no idea of what they are doing or dealing with. Nuclear war is only a step away as part of the chastisement for the world for ALL of our sins, prayer/fasting ARE the only things we can do to mitigate its effect on our country, but allowing the killing of the innocents here will only bring more pain to this country.
If the clowns of this country only knew how close this war is theyd be on their knees now.. Syria is the spark for this war,, and if people actually had a good look at the way its shaping up with Putin about to take power in Russia and his determination to oppose with China ANY intervention well again they might learn something, for those with no faith they will NEVER understand till its too late, for those so called catholics who mock this last see'r ,, well your in for one hell of a shock when all hell breaks lose from this war.

anyone with faith needs to read carefully and understand that these are the final messages from God the Father. Christ and Mary before the chastisement.. simple as... now throw al the abuse ya want ,,upcoming events will waken you all up to the reality of where we are.. abortion is evil to the core , anyone supporting it will reap what they sow simple as...

coffee_cake · 24-02-2012 1:37pm

Baggio1 wrote: »

well if theres a bill pending then obviously Our Lady IS correct in trying to get people to pray against it,
unfortunately the fools who mock this message and the website that has been set up to distribute the last seer's messages have no idea of what they are doing or dealing with. Nuclear war is only a step away as part of the chastisement for the world for ALL of our sins, prayer/fasting ARE the only things we can do to mitigate its effect on our country, but allowing the killing of the innocents here will only bring more pain to this country.
If the clowns of this country only knew how close this war is theyd be on their knees now.. Syria is the spark for this war,, and if people actually had a good look at the way its shaping up with Putin about to take power in Russia and his determination to oppose with China ANY intervention well again they might learn something, for those with no faith they will NEVER understand till its too late, for those so called catholics who mock this last see'r ,, well your in for one hell of a shock when all hell breaks lose from this war.

anyone with faith needs to read carefully and understand that these are the final messages from God the Father. Christ and Mary before the chastisement.. simple as... now throw al the abuse ya want ,,upcoming events will waken you all up to the reality of where we are.. abortion is evil to the core , anyone supporting it will reap what they sow simple as...

lol

by the way putin has been in power for ages, he just took a short break

Catxscotch wrote: »

I am a Catholic, but people must wake up to the scam of the Church,

you might be a christian but you sure dont sound like a catholic

Benny_Cake · 24-02-2012 1:39pm

Baggio1 wrote: »

well if theres a bill pending then obviously Our Lady IS correct in trying to get people to pray against it,
unfortunately the fools who mock this message and the website that has been set up to distribute the last seer's messages have no idea of what they are doing or dealing with. Nuclear war is only a step away as part of the chastisement for the world for ALL of our sins, prayer/fasting ARE the only things we can do to mitigate its effect on our country, but allowing the killing of the innocents here will only bring more pain to this country.
If the clowns of this country only knew how close this war is theyd be on their knees now.. Syria is the spark for this war,, and if people actually had a good look at the way its shaping up with Putin about to take power in Russia and his determination to oppose with China ANY intervention well again they might learn something, for those with no faith they will NEVER understand till its too late, for those so called catholics who mock this last see'r ,, well your in for one hell of a shock when all hell breaks lose from this war.

anyone with faith needs to read carefully and understand that these are the final messages from God the Father. Christ and Mary before the chastisement.. simple as... now throw al the abuse ya want ,,upcoming events will waken you all up to the reality of where we are.. abortion is evil to the core , anyone supporting it will reap what they sow simple as...

You do realise that anyone can set up a website and say anything they want on it - it's a little much to call people fools simply because they doubt what some anonymous person says on a website. Throughout history, there have been wars, famine and suffering, at many times it was far worse than it is now. If I don't believe the Jehovah's Witnesses about Armageddon being iminent, you'll forgive me for not believing an anoymous online source either.

campo · 24-02-2012 1:42pm

Baggio1 wrote: »

well if theres a bill pending then obviously Our Lady IS correct in trying to get people to pray against it,
unfortunately the fools who mock this message and the website that has been set up to distribute the last seer's messages have no idea of what they are doing or dealing with. Nuclear war is only a step away as part of the chastisement for the world for ALL of our sins, prayer/fasting ARE the only things we can do to mitigate its effect on our country, but allowing the killing of the innocents here will only bring more pain to this country.
If the clowns of this country only knew how close this war is theyd be on their knees now.. Syria is the spark for this war,, and if people actually had a good look at the way its shaping up with Putin about to take power in Russia and his determination to oppose with China ANY intervention well again they might learn something, for those with no faith they will NEVER understand till its too late, for those so called catholics who mock this last see'r ,, well your in for one hell of a shock when all hell breaks lose from this war.

anyone with faith needs to read carefully and understand that these are the final messages from God the Father. Christ and Mary before the chastisement.. simple as... now throw al the abuse ya want ,,upcoming events will waken you all up to the reality of where we are.. abortion is evil to the core , anyone supporting it will reap what they sow simple as...

Step away from the keyboard......

I am anti abortion ( but I do agree with in certain instances ) but statement like the above only give pro choice ammunation

Sonics2k · 24-02-2012 2:20pm

I'm amazed people are more offended by the issue of Abortion, rather than someone pretending to be the Virgin Mary. Isn't that some kind of blasphemy?

oldrnwisr · 24-02-2012 4:24pm

SonOfAdam wrote: »

@JimiTime - This is the crux of the issue. The Medical Council has stated that there is no medical reason that warrants an abortion (intentional terminationof life) but acknowledges there are rare cases where the death of the unborn is the unintentional side-effect of certain treatments.
It's time to leave the health issue to one side and be honest about the real reasons.

The Medical Council position says no such thing.

From the "Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners":

Section 21 - Abortion

21.1 Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and
substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the
mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes
where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother
arising from a threat of suicide. You should undertake a full assessment
of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.

21.2 It is lawful to provide information in Ireland about abortions
abroad, subject to strict conditions. It is not lawful to encourage
or advocate an abortion in individual cases.

21.3 You have a duty to provide care, support and follow-up services
for women who have an abortion abroad.

21.4 In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where
therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy)
is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the
baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these
exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to
terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while
making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.

Furthermore, such a position would go against established research on the need for therapeutic abortion where the life of the mother is endangered either through a medical condition where the continuation of the pregnancy would be dangerous or through a foetal abnormality like a trisomy syndrome where the premature death of the foetus may present serious risk to the health of the mother.

Health issues are not the only issues involved in debating abortion but they should not be dismissed so readily.

JimiTime · 24-02-2012 5:41pm

bluewolf wrote: »

I am not "pro abortion".

As in, you are not in favour of abortion being legalised, or that you don't like that term being applied instead of pro-choice? If its the latter then we'll just have to live with the terms we apply. I think Pro-choice is a very misapplied term. Pro-abortion describes it much better. You are FOR abortion being legal i.e. pro-abotion, or you are for it being illegal i.e anti-abortion. Its a misnomer to think that pro-abortion sounds like you want everyone to have abortions, it doesn't. Just like being pro-gay marriage does not imply you are saying everyone should have a same sex marriage. The term 'pro-choice', is just how abortion advocates want to spin things. pro or antiabortion is a lot more accurate and descriptive. If you want to be super specific due to, in my opinion the wrong belief, that people will misunderstand what the term 'pro-abortion' means then pro 'right to choose to have an abortion' would be better .

Anyway, pedantry aside

I'm just using the term I think is most accurate.

And the OP bill is exactly about the health of pregnant women, not abortion in general.
legislation is required based on the x case supreme court judgement already - no vote is required

As has been pointed out by PDN, the reality is that there is an issue with the interpretation of the legislation.

And yes, I have more faith in the medical profession diagnosing suicide risks than random people on the internet who think they know better

That somewhat strawmans what was said. No-one mentioned that they were better than the medical profession at diagnosing genuine suicide cases.

The legislation would require it to be for suicidal risks (and presumably other risk of life) only.

Which is open to abuse. Spectacularly so.

A doctor is not going to risk their career to hand these out willy-nilly.

There is no risk to a doctors career if they take a person at their word. It would only be at risk, if they didn't believe them (for whatever reason) and the person subsequently followed through with it. So in practical terms, doctors would not be turning people away if they claim they're suicidal.

Remember that this is a country where there are still doctors and chemists refusing to deal with contraception - it's not exactly going to turn into some kind of free for all.

I would imagine, they are the very rare exceptions, rather than the rule. I've never been to a chemist that didn't sell condoms. Also, in relation to the 'free for all'. If abortion comes in on this basis, then its in, Thats it. The misnomer of 'health risk to mothers' will only be the horse of Troy that brings it in.

Debates aside, the supreme court ruling was made a long time ago already and all that's left is to legislate for it

As far as I'm aware. the constitution still protects the right to life of the unborn, viewing the unborn as entitled to the same right to life as the mother.

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

So in that respect, it would be very difficult to legislate for abortion being legal in the case of possible suicide cases. It would be like saying 'I want to kill bluewolf, if I can't, I'll kill myself'. I can certainly see the issue with legislating for it.

24-02-2012 5:53pm

JimiTime wrote: »

As far as I'm aware. the constitution still protects the right to life of the unborn, viewing the unborn as entitled to the same right to life as the mother.

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

So in that respect, it would be very difficult to legislate for abortion being legal in the case of possible suicide cases. It would be like saying 'I want to kill bluewolf, if I can't, I'll kill myself'. I can certainly see the issue with legislating for it.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the interpretation of that article. Where there is "a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman, including the risk of suicide", the woman is constitutionally entitled to an abortion. There is no higher court to appeal to, no other interpretation to be made. That is what the constitution says. The only thing that would change that is a referendum, and twice the people of Ireland have been asked to change it, and twice they have rejected it. If this was any other issue, the outcry from the failure to legislate would be incredible. Imagine the government had gone ahead and signed the Lisbon Treaty after the first referendum had rejected it, or created the Oireachtas enquiries after it was voted against last year, that's how absolutely absured the failure to legislate is

JimiTime · 24-02-2012 6:19pm

28064212 wrote: »

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the interpretation of that article. Where there is "a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman, including the risk of suicide", the woman is constitutionally entitled to an abortion.

There is no higher court to appeal to, no other interpretation to be made. That is what the constitution says. The only thing that would change that is a referendum, and twice the people of Ireland have been asked to change it, and twice they have rejected it. If this was any other issue, the outcry from the failure to legislate would be incredible. Imagine the government had gone ahead and signed the Lisbon Treaty after the first referendum had rejected it, or created the Oireachtas enquiries after it was voted against last year, that's how absolutely absured the failure to legislate is [/QUOTE]

Ok, so how do you legislate for it? Is there someway of knowing if someone saying they'll kill themselves is serious or not? Or will it be some token examination and signature that gives the go-ahead? How many doctors are actually going to say, 'I think you're bluffing'. This idea that a medical professional is going to be able to have the knowledge to discern is nonsense. I suspect legislators don't want to touch this inept judgement with a barge pole.

Not sure how legal eagley you are, but does that supreme court ruling mean that thats it? Thats what the constitution means now, because the supreme court has spoken?

SonOfAdam · 24-02-2012 6:23pm

I don't see how that differs from 21.4

24-02-2012 6:24pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, so how do you legislate for it? Is there someway of knowing if someone saying they'll kill themselves is serious or not?

Do you really think there's not already existing laws that rely on a qualified person's opinion?

JimiTime wrote: »

Or will it be some token examination and signature that gives the go-ahead? How many doctors are actually going to say, 'I think you're bluffing'. This idea that a medical professional is going to be able to have the knowledge to discern is nonsense. I suspect legislators don't want to touch this inept judgement with a barge pole.

Are you seriously calling the Supreme Court's judgement inept? The highest judicial authority in the land?

JimiTime wrote: »

Not sure how legal eagley you are, but does that supreme court ruling mean that thats it? Thats what the constitution means now, because the supreme court has spoken?

Yes, that's the principal function of the SC

hattoncracker · 24-02-2012 6:54pm

I think abortion should be legalised. I think if it was put to the vote again, it may not be legalised, but the voting statistics would definitely be different.

You are withholding a woman's right to make a choice about her future.. If you don't believe in it, don't have one. But you shouldn't be able to take that decision away from someone else.

Benny_Cake · 24-02-2012 7:29pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, so how do you legislate for it? Is there someway of knowing if someone saying they'll kill themselves is serious or not? Or will it be some token examination and signature that gives the go-ahead? How many doctors are actually going to say, 'I think you're bluffing'. This idea that a medical professional is going to be able to have the knowledge to discern is nonsense. I suspect legislators don't want to touch this inept judgement with a barge pole.

Not sure how legal eagley you are, but does that supreme court ruling mean that thats it? Thats what the constitution means now, because the supreme court has spoken?

It's the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. This goes back to the X case where the Court found by a 4 to 1 majority that Article 40.3.3 of the constitution:

"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right"

allowed for abortion where there was a "real and substantial risk" to her life (and it was stated that this included the risk of suicide, but didn't include non-life threatening health issues). Looking at the constitution dispassionately (nearly impossible to do in relation to this issue), it seems to me that the conclusion they drew was the correct one, I don't think that they can be accused of being inept.

JimiTime · 24-02-2012 8:46pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It's the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. This goes back to the X case where the Court found by a 4 to 1 majority that Article 40.3.3 of the constitution:

allowed for abortion where there was a "real and substantial risk" to her life (and it was stated that this included the risk of suicide, but didn't include non-life threatening health issues). Looking at the constitution dispassionately (nearly impossible to do in relation to this issue), it seems to me that the conclusion they drew was the correct one, I don't think that they can be accused of being inept.

I think its inept on a grand scale. The unborn child has a right to life or it doesn't. If it does, then a woman who threatens suicide is basically making a threat against a person that the constitution says has a right to live. Don't get me wrong, I empathise greatly with certain circumstances, such as the one in the X-Case. I'm not looking to judge anyone for making a decision to abort their child due to such horrendous circumstance. I very much understand why they'd want to do it, and if it was a friend of mine that decided to go to England and get one, I'd be there to support them in empathy, not judging them (I know that may seem hard to believe due to my vociferous opposition to abortion, but my issue is with the system that allows it. We should be looking to support women, as well as defending the lives of our unborn).

Zombrex · 24-02-2012 9:00pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, so how do you legislate for it? Is there someway of knowing if someone saying they'll kill themselves is serious or not? Or will it be some token examination and signature that gives the go-ahead? How many doctors are actually going to say, 'I think you're bluffing'.

Your issue seems to be more about not trusting the motivations of doctors than this legilsation.

Doctors and social workers assess the suicide risk of patients all the time.

Often it is a very difficult decision (don't accept they are serious and they might kill themselves, do decide they are serious and you might lock someone up on suicide watch for days or weeks, possibly under medication).

But your assessment of this as some "token examination", either because the doctor doesn't want the responsibility of actually assessing if they are suicidal or because the doctor is super pro-choice and just wants to rub stamp an abortion through technicalities, is quite dismissive to doctors and what is expected of them.

These are not light decisions, and I don't think doctors or other medical staff take them lightly.

Benny_Cake · 24-02-2012 9:35pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I think its inept on a grand scale. The unborn child has a right to life or it doesn't. If it does, then a woman who threatens suicide is basically making a threat against a person that the constitution says has a right to live. Don't get me wrong, I empathise greatly with certain circumstances, such as the one in the X-Case. I'm not looking to judge anyone for making a decision to abort their child due to such horrendous circumstance. I very much understand why they'd want to do it, and if it was a friend of mine that decided to go to England and get one, I'd be there to support them in empathy, not judging them (I know that may seem hard to believe due to my vociferous opposition to abortion, but my issue is with the system that allows it. We should be looking to support women, as well as defending the lives of our unborn).

The number of cases where a woman is suffering from an illness where a termination is required to save her life is incredibly small I would imagine (I'm not including cases where a woman requires a standard treatment or procedure which may or will, as a side effect, result in the death of the unborn child). Now, the Supreme Court including suicide as a reason was controversial in many quarters, and did lead to a referendum where the government proposed to remove suicide as a risk which would allow a woman to seek an abortion. This was rejected by the electorate. I don't think we have any way of knowing whether this would be abused or not, or to what extent - given that a woman would still be able to travel to Britain and get an abortion on demand, it seems unikely that it would be abused in an Irish context. In any case, ruling out suicide as a risk to a woman's life would seem to tie the hands of medical professionals. Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to abortion and I don't think there is any perfect answer to this - it could be abused if allowed, it could lead to suicides if not allowed.

Your closing sentences hit the nail on the head for me - far more should be done to support women in order that over time, they may no longer feel the need to seek an abortion. Whatever side of the debate someone is on, surely we can all agree that abortion is not a desireable outcome. It annoys me when I hear judgemental, spiteful remarks against single mothers who are often being very brave in difficult circumstances.

24-02-2012 9:35pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I think its inept on a grand scale.

Are you saying the Supreme Court was wrong in its interpretation of 40.3.3? That your interpretation is more accurate than 4 Supreme Court justices?

philologos · 24-02-2012 9:45pm

Liamario wrote: »

I'm neither for, nor against abortion, but this "message" is pushing me towards pro choice.

There's not really much middle ground in this issue. You either tolerate it or you don't essentially.

I can see Ireland legalising abortion within a decade. People simply have rejected sexual ethics, and as a result the fall out from that will result in this happening whether people like it or not.

If people lived by what the Gospel teaches concerning sexual ethics, then there would be no abortion, no marital unfaithfulness, and no unplanned pregnancies. The very fact that these things exist are a result of a fallen world, and are truly lamentable.

There will be no end to abortion until the end of time, unfortunately. It's a human injustice and it's a fundamental denial of human rights. The most critical of all.

PDN · 24-02-2012 10:08pm

hattoncracker wrote: »

I think abortion should be legalised. I think if it was put to the vote again, it may not be legalised, but the voting statistics would definitely be different.

You are withholding a woman's right to make a choice about her future.. If you don't believe in it, don't have one. But you shouldn't be able to take that decision away from someone else.

No, it would be witholding a woman's right to eradicate her baby's future. If you don't want a future, don't have one. But you shouldn't be able to make that decision on behalf of a baby.

gimmebroadband · 24-02-2012 10:19pm

Pope Paul VI in his Humanae Vitae Encyclical was somewhat prophetic, when he said contraception would lead to:

1. An overall lowering of moral standards.

2. A rise in infidelity and illegitimacy.

3. The reduction of women to objects of men's pleasure.

4. Government coercion in reproductive matters. (contraception/abortion)

http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/popepaul.htm

Sonics2k · 24-02-2012 10:33pm

PDN wrote: »

No, it would be witholding a woman's right to eradicate her baby's future. If you don't want a future, don't have one. But you shouldn't be able to make that decision on behalf of a baby.

Do you oppose all forms and reasons for Abortion?

Actually this isn't aimed directly at you PDN, but all those here who oppose it.

If so, why? Is it purely for religious reasons?

For the sake of clarity, I do support Abortion under strict reasons, eg, pregnancy as the result of rape/mother's safety or life/incest/early teens or even medical reasons.

newmug · 24-02-2012 10:38pm

This whole thing is fcukin sick. Its bad enough when humans kill other humans, but this is parents killing their own babies we're talking about. Is this 21st century Ireland, or blatant-human-rights-abusing China?

There is zero "health" reason for an abortion. Mothers with terminal cancer can still have survivng babies by c-section and intensive care. That leaves only one other possibile excuse, that of suicide risk. In that case, the mother should be taken into compulsory care and be given a compulsory c-section for the sake of the baby, and at least then if she ends her own life, she wont be taking someone else with her.

Mothers can often have post-natal depression. Should we cure this by taking their newborn 6-week-old and sticking them head-first into a mincer? Would that do the trick?

lmaopml · 24-02-2012 10:40pm

I think that sometimes 'hard cases' make bad laws, always have - I agree with Jimi speaking of the 'Trojan Horse' - It's not difficult to either, we've seen it elsewhere in reality being honest no?

It's a minefield really. As a woman, my heart goes out to any woman who finds themselves in a situation where they see no way out because they are pregnant, and due to bear a new tiny life within months. I think as a 'Christian' community we need to really offer support rather than abrasive outright condemnation, it's more productive imo. These womens feelings are very tender, no woman must surely not think of her own mum too and her own life - it's a very difficult time, and the world, neither the pro-choice or anti-abortion will comfort her - she is desolate in her decision. It's huge, and leaves scars.

However, I don't think valuing the child and being pretty much anti abortion is essentially a 'Christian' only trait. I have met people who are Atheist/Irish, well informed that are very very uncomfortable about devaluing life, any form of human life, even the most early with all it's potential.

Abortion, is not the fault of women who are scared, or even numb - it's the lack of humanity in people to support and love the woman imo. I'm not willing to trade down in the name of being in the new century, and ask anything less of people to regard any abortion as not only a sad thing, without also recognising that it's a failure on our behalf that every single person is guilty of - and neither to solve it by a 'fix' that is totally unacceptable to me as a human who was allowed their full potential because of a consequence of a mum who took the chance on being able survive to no. eight.

Women are not the baddies, it's just biology - and how we value life that is at stake. I think Ireland doesn't need to follow the sheep, we could do it better - we just need some imagination.

Jumpy · 24-02-2012 10:44pm

newmug wrote: »

This whole thing is fcukin sick. Its bad enough when humans kill other humans, but this is parents killing their own babies we're talking about. Is this 21st century Ireland, or blatant-human-rights-abusing China?

There is zero "health" reason for an abortion. Mothers with terminal cancer can still have survivng babies by c-section and intensive care. That leaves only one other possibile excuse, that of suicide risk. In that case, the mother should be taken into compulsory care and be given a compulsory c-section for the sake of the baby, and at least then if she ends her own life, she wont be taking someone else with her.

Mothers can often have post-natal depression. Should we cure this by taking their newborn 6-week-old and sticking them head-first into a mincer? Would that do the trick?

Ah yes. Wait for the baby to be born before going on life saving Radiation or Chemo.
Thats a great idea. Waiting will kill both mother and baby, but dont let that get in the way of a good pro-lifer rant.

hattoncracker · 24-02-2012 10:47pm

PDN wrote: »

hattoncracker wrote: »

I think abortion should be legalised. I think if it was put to the vote again, it may not be legalised, but the voting statistics would definitely be different.

You are withholding a woman's right to make a choice about her future.. If you don't believe in it, don't have one. But you shouldn't be able to take that decision away from someone else.

No, it would be witholding a woman's right to eradicate her baby's future. If you don't want a future, don't have one. But you shouldn't be able to make that decision on behalf of a baby.

Well imo, if you have that opinion, you would have no problem making it illegal for single fathers to immigrate or leave the country without informing the Gardaì until their child turns 18, and supporting that woman in the upbringing of her child while she goes back to work or education.

Sonics2k · 24-02-2012 10:47pm

newmug wrote: »

This whole thing is fcukin sick. Its bad enough when humans kill other humans, but this is parents killing their own babies we're talking about. Is this 21st century Ireland, or blatant-human-rights-abusing China?

There is zero "health" reason for an abortion. Mothers with terminal cancer can still have survivng babies by c-section and intensive care. That leaves only one other possibile excuse, that of suicide risk. In that case, the mother should be taken into compulsory care and be given a compulsory c-section for the sake of the baby, and at least then if she ends her own life, she wont be taking someone else with her.

Mothers can often have post-natal depression. Should we cure this by taking their newborn 6-week-old and sticking them head-first into a mincer? Would that do the trick?

The hell o.O

There are loads of health reasons for abortion!

Benny_Cake · 24-02-2012 10:49pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Pope Paul VI in his Humanae Vitae Encyclical was somewhat prophetic, when he said contraception would lead to:

1. An overall lowering of moral standards.

2. A rise in infidelity and illegitimacy.

3. The reduction of women to objects of men's pleasure.

4. Government coercion in reproductive matters. (contraception/abortion)

http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/popepaul.htm

I'd question much of this. It is impossible to prove or disprove a rise or fall in moral standards, but taking Ireland as an example, it is possible to argue that we are a more moral society than we were 100 years ago. Poverty has lessened and people have access to food, healthcare, a roof over the head in most cases, and a lot more political and personal freedom. Capital punishment is a thing of the past. What is more, most people would reject the notion of taking these achievements away. Now we do have some problems specific to recent years such as the oversexualisation of children at too young an age, obsession with physical appearances and so on, but sometimes a little perspective is needed.

I prefer not to talk about illegitimacy in this context - for a long time the stigma of illegitimacy was so great that it was quite understandable that a woman might feel an abortion was the only way out. Infidelity is as old as humanity, as the Bible shows.

The advances in the rights of women in the last century have been remarkable and to say that they have been reduced simply to objects of men's pleasure simply isn't the case.

I'd add that I'm against abortion, but we can't turn the clock back to some imaginary golden age. We need to deal with the world as it is and focus on the reasons why abortion is in demand, and seek to remove those reasons.

Deank · 24-02-2012 10:56pm

Please tell me why a religious organisation should have dictate on deciding whether a woman can or cannot have an abortion, that decision is purely up to her and her partner to decide, church, religion, politics should not come into it.
I'm get increasingly tired of the church / Vatican still running / ruining this country. IMO no religion better life for all on this planet.

Keep abortion out of Ireland

Comments