Abortion should be legalised in Ireland

JustHalf

Originally posted by Xterminator
I would refer each reader to the poll which shows (as i suspected) that the vocal 'pro life' (except the mothers life when medically endangered, of course) are in the minority.

Didn't anyone ever teach you about "sample spaces"? This isn't a statistic valid to the entire population of the country - it's a statistic valid to a very specific subsection of society.

If you think that those who are truly pro-life are against the life of the mother, you should think more. "Pro-life" means "pro" "life". Not just the lives of babies.

Originally posted by Xterminator
They are fanatical, well financed, and wield a disproportionate amount of power and influence.

I am pro-life. I am not "fanatical", at least not in the way you mean. I have no money. I wield more influence than some, but not much.

Please, back up your statement.

Originally posted by Xterminator
I fear that not enough 'ordinary' fair minded people, who actually have not been swayed by the blanket of tactics employed by those people, (from displaying obscene pictures in public, if fullview of everyone, such as my 3 young children, to picketing politicians houses, who dare to have a different opinion than the fanatics) will make it to the polling station to prevent this slide into 'state moralism' where the state decides what id right and moral, not the individual!

You should really go into politics. You certainly sound like you have the makings of a politician, at least in your speech. Associating your beliefs with "ordinary fair minded people" - to make your opinion seem the correct one, as opposed to making any sort of detailed and sensible argument.

And of course the "state" decides what is right and moral. Do you know that we have laws? It is against the law to murder, to steal, to defraud. Surely, they should not be allowed to impose their hideous "morality" on all of us?

Originally posted by Xterminator
I hope that the fear of such a state will motivate the majority to get out and make there vote count.

Whichever way this referendum pans out, it won't end up with some sort of dystopia.

Originally posted by Xterminator
I suspect the majority of these 'pro lifers' are the same people who opposed the legalisatuion of homosexuals, who indeed would see them persecuted for dring not to conform to the same morals.

This is what we call "slander".

Xterminator

Didn't anyone ever teach you about "sample spaces"? This isn't a statistic valid to the entire population of the country - it's a statistic valid to a very specific subsection of society.

If you think that those who are truly pro-life are against the life of the mother, you should think more. "Pro-life" means "pro" "life". Not just the lives of babies

The poll was posted to see what proportion of the votes cast by the boards users were or were not in favour. No one is coerced to vote 1 way or another, and abstension is allowed. Why then do you wish to discredit the results of a sample of over 100 of your peers?

I did not apply this poll to the entiore country, in fact I went on to say I am worried that the average voter may not turn out in sufficient no's ... hope that clears up that point.

I put the title pro life in comma's because i felt it is an ironic name. And your right , TRUE pro lifer takes the mothers life into account. A pity so may advocates of 'Pro life ' dont. There are examples in the thread aplenty of how a sucicidal young mother will not be allowed to havwe an abortion here, nor the victim of rapes, nor women with high risk pregnancies such as ectopic.

No will any health board be able o assist such a mother make these arrangements abroad. I can understand why mothers mightnot want an abortion in such extreme situations, but is it so hard for you to understand that they may need such a termination, and if it is needed, we should provide for such circumstances.

I am pro-life. I am not "fanatical", at least not in the way you mean. I have no money. I wield more influence than some, but not much.

I did not say all 'prolifers' are fanatics. The problem is that some are, they are active and very vocal! Perhaps yopu missed my mentioning odf the picketing of politicians houses, the use of extreme imagery in Public View on O'Connell st as the 2 examples i gave in my last post.
To show they have a disporportionate power, well they have forced a referendum,where i can choose a new law worded in ways that i object to, or no laws, and no choice.

Why was no middle ground provided for? Where was the consultation with all sections of society before putting this to the poeple?

Another post wanted to know why i might object to graphic pictures being shown in public on public streets, in large color prints.
The main reason is because I am a father and I object to having my children see such gruesome images. is there a vaild reason why they should? After all they cant vote!
Another is because it is cheap shock tactics.

And of course the "state" decides what is right and moral. Do you know that we have laws? It is against the law to murder, to steal, to defraud. Surely, they should not be allowed to impose their hideous "morality" on all of us?

Why should the state decide what is right and moral?
It used to decide that homosexualty was immoral, and now it does not. Instead we decided the individual should decide.
Of course laws are used to maintain public order and safety.
But do your really think one central state should decide what is morally right for each individual? Where is your freedom then?

Finally as for my suspicion that the fundameltalists are the same fundamentalists who opposed the legalisation of consenting homosexual relations, as being the same ones in this case, well I dont belive there are 2 different sets of state facists in Ireland.
Thus I think its the same crowd

X

Typedef

Only in cases of medical danger to I subscribe to abortion being a legitimate remit. I don't support the theory that the individual is some kind of omnipotent force that has infallibility enunciated upon it to such an extent that it includes the right to decide that you can end someone else's life, that's not right and I don't think that it is a case of an individuals right to decide if it is right but the right of society to say, "Here are rules for what we find acceptable, so long as you remain within the rules you can decide on your own personal ethos in the bounds specified".

The notion of the supreme individual leads to a crass kind of anarchic society where every person is a law unto themselves which seems like a regression to when humans were packs of animals hunting other primates in the jungle, simply put a wholistically darwinian outlook.

Therefore I think it is the place of society to say, this person here you may find unacceptable in some shape or form, but you are not so important as an individual that you can decide that this person has any less rights than you.

That is how if the life of the mother is 'medically' in danger due to pregnancy I support the use of abortion to save her life, I think that it would be a further crime against humanity to terminate a pregnancy due to it arising out of rape, that child still has a right to live and it is of course awful for the girl, I'm not saying it's not, but it is infinately more awful to end the life of such a child, so I don't accept that allowing medical abortion is akin to allowing abortion for pregnancy due to rape.

I know people will disagee with this view and I respect that, what it is in my view is consistent, it's not some view arrived at to poke fun at other people's views, it's simply my view, I may modify it in the future, but it seems rational and fair to me for now.

Lemming

Originally posted by Typedef
I think that it would be a further crime against humanity to terminate a pregnancy due to it arising out of rape, that child still has a right to live and it is of course awful for the girl, I'm not saying it's not, but it is infinately more awful to end the life of such a child, so I don't accept that allowing medical abortion is akin to allowing abortion for pregnancy due to rape.

Typedef .. let me get this right??

You're saying that a woman that gets pregnant via rape/incest should be made carry that baby through to term

Just before I actually reply, I wanted to make sure I have you right.

Typedef

Read the post Lemming, exactly which parts didn't make sense for you?

Are you actually saying that there are circumstances where it is ok to effectively murder another person? The state won't even execute murders in this Republic, so what set of logical steps and consequences do you think make the ending of human life a permissable and venerable thing? When said life and it's enunciation offends your sensibilites? Does the a child concieved out of incest have any less right to be alive than I? If so why? Must a child be concieved in a certain way to have the same set of human rights as everyone else in society? If so why, who makes you entitled to decide that a child of incest does not deserve to be born?

I say that society can't force a woman to put her life in serious jeopardy for the all embracing principal of anti-abortion, that is illogical and cruel, the child in most cases will probably die if the mother dies, so I find no ambiguity in these cases, and really if you can't deal with the fact that people hold different views then that is your problem not mine.

meglome

My own cousin had complications during pregnancy some years back, they was no option but to have the baby or should I say no choice but to have the baby... she died shortly after giving birth... the child is severely mentally handicapped. He's a great kid but no one is going to tell me this is a good situation.

There has to be some choice...

kiffer

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Why is self-awareness important in determining a right to life? And how would you determine this? I think you'll find also that in most countries the cut-off point is set at a point where it is determined the baby could survive independently outside the womb and not at a point where it is considered the foetus becomes self-aware.

um . . .
if you read my post again ... you might not that i said "self aware / gains the right to life / it is no longer ethically permissamble to terminate the Child ..."
at the time I thought of putting whatever or etc. but then reconed that every one understood that I was regarding those things as seperate things... not saying that self-awareness gives the right to life , (not saying it does'nt, mind you.)

I'm not saying that self awareness is the desideing factor ... in fact out of that part of my post i think the words self-aware are not importent. a number of people had used self aware earlier in the thread and i just thought I should include it, and as i typed it was easier to use one word in stead of retyping all of the posible choises of deciding factors.

do you disagrea with the point (other than my use of self aware as the desiding factor) about the "point of ambiguity".

once again I've repeated my self and waffled crap ... but my point is still valid....

kiffer

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

What I don't understand is why pro-choice people object to pictures of aborted foetuses being shown. Does it not represent the truth? If you find those pictures "obscene", does the thought never occur to you that the practice is obscene?
There is an anti-vivisection group that often demonstrates outside the Bank of Ireland on College Green and they show gruesome pictures of animals that have been experimented on, but no one ever complains about them. Why?

People do complain about them ... no-one has brought it up here because we arer not talking about it here , we are talking about abortion.`
um , If I went out tomorrow with hard pore corn on banners I'd be in trouble with the law in about two seconds flat ... no matter if I was campaining to ban it / promote it / whatever i might be doing with it ... the same should go for other obscene things ... or do you disagrea ? should it be legal to show obscene things where children might see them? pictures of dead mutalted babies are obscene, they should not be show in public places... even more so when children can see them...
after posting this post i'm going to rotten.com and stileporject , to get pics of dead people and porn and anything really obscene to put on banners and then go stand out side the GPO , if any one complains , I'll just point out that no-one stops dead baby photos and, I'm trying to get porn banned.

Lemming

Originally posted by Typedef
Read the post Lemming, exactly which parts didn't make sense for you?

... really if you can't deal with the fact that people hold different views then that is your problem not mine.

My my .... someone's very hostile aren't they TypeDef? I simply asked you if I had you right. You don't even know what I was going to post. So kindly stop jumping to conclusions in attempts to look good.

Anyway .. to what I wanted to say. I find your comment about not allowing women who've been the victims (yes .. "VICTIMS" boys and girls) of rape and/or incest have abortions to be very short sighted, cruel, and uncaring, and in typical fashion, a man not trying to look at or understand the woman's view point.

These women are already going to be VERYYYYY traumatised and emotionally unstable. You think that making them carry a baby through to term as a result of their abuse as being the correct choice. These women couldn't probably even CARRY a baby through term much less give birth and look after them due to what they've gone through

Look at is from the woman's angle. Do you have to worry about looking at a child and be reminded every minute of every day of what happened to you? No. You're a man. Do you have to feel trapped by the actions of another into such a grave responsibility? No, you're a man. Do you have to try and raise a child as best you can, whilst not even being able to look at them because of what they respresent, nor the fact that the father may come looking for them when released from jail? No .. you're a man.

Even worse ... can you imagine finding out that YOU were the product of such a heinous act?

Typedef

My problem with your line of reasoning is this.

You proport that it is immoral to require a person pregnant via incest to carry that child to term, whereas I say if a child who is concieved out of "love" and one concieved out of incest for example should have the same right to life, why should one life be less valuable than another?

I guess fundamentally I hold the moral value that says it is wrong to simply "terminate" a baby human life as if it were a tooth to be drilled. I would venture that if the unborn could stand up for itself you would hear thousands of derided and sociatally abased people standing up and screaming that they don't want to be killed and why does this society allow such things to happen to them, they would want to know if being concieved was crime enough to be put to death for? What would you say, "sorry kid you don't have a right be live as I, because society deems your right to be is lesser than this person overhere, because that person was concieved out of "love"!"?

That is amoral, and I would venture that it is very easy to forget that the unborn have rights because, they don't take legal action to defend themselves, they don't employ pr companies to extoll propaganda over the media, but that does not make them any less human and it does not make that person's right to be any the less because of the circumstance of that person's life.

So the argument follows, no capital punishment, war too is immoral, abortion is immoral, murder is immoral, in fact name any kind of forced taking of human life where it is against that person's wish and I would have to deried it and label it immoral there are circumstances where I accept a blanket on such situations would be fundamentalist, ergo abortion of ectopic pregnancy is not immoral, defending your person from someone trying to kill you or do you serious damage is not immoral, but as I say circumstancial ascription of human right [n] to person [x] is incompatible with how I regard human society should operate.

Lemming

Originally posted by Typedef
You proport that it is immoral to require a person pregnant via incest to carry that child to term, whereas I say if a child who is concieved out of "love" and one concieved out of incest for example should have the same right to life, why should one life be less valuable than another?

I'm not saying one life is less valuable than the other. But what I am saying is what will the repercussions be to THAT life, and all the lives surrounding it? Will the repercussions be so detremental that perhaps in hindsight an abortion would have been a mercy? (*note I'm not advocating this .. merely trying to put forward an angle of arguement here)

Could you imagine finding out that your mother was raped and you are the product? I certainly can't even try to begin imagining what would be going through such a child's mind. Could you imagine the life-altering consequences of such knowledge?

Could you imagine being a grandparent/familymember/mother trying to look that child in the eye, seeing a level of torment in there that no child should have to feel and try to explain to them what happened, and knowing that to do so is also robbing them of their innocence?

Biffa Bacon

Another post wanted to know why i might object to graphic pictures being shown in public on public streets, in large color prints.
The main reason is because I am a father and I object to having my children see such gruesome images. is there a vaild reason why they should? After all they cant vote!
Another is because it is cheap shock tactics.

If you don't want your kids to see them then fair enough but then you have to ask yourself why? Surely they are not pictures of dead human beings are they? And what is "cheap" about it? And what's wrong with shock tactics?

Why should the state decide what is right and moral?

It's not simply a question of morals, it's also a question of human rights. The state has the right to intervene if peoples rights are being contravened.

swiss

I know this discussion is supposed to be about abortion in general, and is not specific to the upcoming referendum, but Mills asked for a link that can point to information sources dealing with the legislative text of the proposed amendment.

For the benefit of others, here is a useful link

www.refcom.ie

Click for text.

I believe that I will vote yes to this amendment after perusing the document. I will need more time to finalise my decision, and reading through a highly technical Irish government document is enough to confuse Steven Hawkings - yet from what I can gather, the amendment actually seeks to reverse the X case ruling by disallowing suicide as a grounds for abortion.

In fact the only allowable circumstance in which abortion would be permissible should this amendment be passed is if the mothers life were in physical danger should the pregnancy be brought to term (due to medical complications etc.)

From the 'information campaign' or lack thereof that was evidenced in previous referenda, I would encourage everyone to look carefully over the actual document and decide for yourselves the implications rather than trusting propoganda machines to provide those interpretations for you.

Jackoman

Nice to see so many mixed opinions of it all.

All I can say is that I would hate to see all you people in a live debate. Would get pretty nasty.

Everybody has different views on abortion, hence giving us all the choice to vote. You wont win anybody over to another side of the vote, so because we all think differently and feel differently about this particular topic then the outcome will be what the general public wants - unless it gets rigged - which I hope to hell doesn't happen.

Of all the comments from everybody I am sorry not to have read one from people who have gone through this very difficult decision in life. Because when it comes to the crunch, that is the only time I think a person's view of abortion may change. It is one of the toughest decisions in life for a person, or couple to make, and wether it is right or not, dont forget that they have to live with that decision.

There are numerous pros and cons to abortion and none will ever outweigh the other. Everybody has completely different thinking and rational about everything.

Personally I believe that the emotional dealings with abortion are higher than the theoretical ones which a lot of you are writing about.

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

If you don't want your kids to see them then fair enough but then you have to ask yourself why? Surely they are not pictures of dead human beings are they?

That has to be one of the most idiotic statements I've heard on this thread Biffa, I'm sorry to say. What's wrong with letting 10 year olds watch 18's movies? What's wrong with letting a 6 year old watch a porn movie. What's wrong with swearing yoru mouth off in front of a 5 year old?? What's wrong with letting a 12 year old down a bottle of Vodka whilst smoking his/her lungs off? What's wrong with letting an 11 year old have sex with another 11 year old?

Answer those, and then you've got the answer to your question on why its not right to all ow children see such pictures. They STILL can be disturbed by them. You're also destroying childhood innocence by forcing this issue on them at such a young age. And you still can't see why these tactics are sickeningly wrong?

And what is "cheap" about it? And what's wrong with shock tactics?

Cheap as in it plays on shock, not logical thinking. It's trying to make a quick buck off catching people off guard, not informing them. The best word I think I can use here is to call such people "ChickenHawks"

Typedef

Abortion.

1.-(1) In this Act, "abortion" means the intentional destruction
by any means of unborn human life after implantation in the womb
of a woman.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, abortion does
not include the carrying out of a medical procedure by a medical
practitioner at an approved place in the course of which or as a result
of which unborn human life is ended where that procedure is, in the
reasonable opinion of the practitioner, necessary to prevent a real
and substantial risk of loss of the woman's life other than by self-
destruction.

In other words, unimplanted but fertilised human zygotes are not afforded protection. The difficutly I have with section 2 is, is termination of ectopic pregnancy considered (abortion) or (medical procedure)? Will this ambiguity lead to yet another referendum on this issue and will that referendum take place the next time this government wants to get itself re-elected?

Lemming

Originally posted by Typedef

In other words, unimplanted but fertilised human zygotes are not afforded protection. The difficutly I have with section 2 is, is termination of ectopic pregnancy considered (abortion) or (medical procedure)? Will this ambiguity lead to yet another referendum on this issue and will that referendum take place the next time this government wants to get itself re-elected?

Not meaning to be cynical, but if the referendum is a "no" which I suspect it will be (regardless of my own opinion), we'll keep having referendums as long as Mildred & Co. are running around feeding from the governments pockets.:rolleyes:

JustHalf

Typedef, it's clearly covered under (2) as a medical procedure.

smiles

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

What I don't understand is why pro-choice people object to pictures of aborted foetuses being shown. Does it not represent the truth? If you find those pictures "obscene", does the thought never occur to you that the practice is obscene?
There is an anti-vivisection group that often demonstrates outside the Bank of Ireland on College Green and they show gruesome pictures of animals that have been experimented on, but no one ever complains about them. Why?

Ok, well firstly people do object to both the pictures of animals that are experimented on and those of aborted fortuses.

Perhaps those pictures do represent the truth, but a lot of them are doctored to look more gruesome than they are, and are taken from extreme cases.

Lots of picutres are horrible to see, amputation for example, but that does not necessarily mean that the practice is obsene.

"I'm wet, therefore it is raining" logic is pointless!

<< Fio >>

smiles

Originally posted by Lemming

Will the government haul her(the mother) up before the courts to prove that she had a miscarriage and not an abortion? Will they force her(and the father) to relive the agony of loosing their child whilst accusing them of being criminals?

This happens in a lot of different cases, I know that when my brother died at 6 weeks from unexplain causes ("cot death" i think was the eventual verdict) that there had to be a postmortem to establish the cause of death. It is something that affected them incredibly.

i hope that the government wouldnt be that cruel, but i think it would be much more of a case of "what they cant see they dont are about".

[edit] after reading the referendum website info:

4.-(1) This Act does not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state or freedom to obtain or make available in the State, in accordance with conditions for the time being laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

(2) This Act does not operate to restrict any person from travelling
to another state on the ground that his or her intended conduct there would, if it occurred in the State, constitute an offence under section 2 of this Act.

I _think_ this means that they would not interfer with people travelling aboard to have abortions so long as they did so legally. (somewhat confusing however)

[/edit]

<< Fio >>

Lemming

Originally posted by smiles


I _think_ this means that they would not interfer with people travelling aboard to have abortions so long as they did so legally. (somewhat confusing however)

very confusing

But here's the sticking point:

(2) This Act does not operate to restrict any person from travelling to another state on the ground that his or her intended conduct there would, if it occurred in the State, constitute an offence under section 2 of this Act.

What they're saying is "Obey OUR laws in another country where we have no jurisdiction or we'll have you". If they tried that one on in court .. I wonder how far it would get before the case was thrown out of court. In fact, I'm not entirely sure that's even legal?? If you are in another country, you are bound by that country's laws and no other.

With what the state is proposing we'll have to arrest everyone who goes to Amsterdam, and anyone who goes abroad to get a "quickie" divorce, since that's not allowed under our laws either.

[edit - MAJOR sarcasm alert]
In fact .. why not stop there. Lets arrest EVERYONE who goes abroad and have them prove that they've not indulged in drugs or prostitution (or if they're under 18 alcohol too). Lets make sure that they haven't been "drunk and disorderly" in Spain or wherever too. F*ck it .. lets jus tarrest the entire country cause we're all guilty of something at some point.
[/edit]

Victor

I have put up some information source on this topic.

Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42500

Can people keep discussion off that particular topic and leave it as an information source and at most a querying point for formalities not opinions?

Is it now time to refocus the debate and create a new separate thread (poll or not) to exclusively discuss the Referendum?

koneko

Originally posted by Lemming


What they're saying is "Obey OUR laws in another country where we have no jurisdiction or we'll have you". If they tried that one on in court .. I wonder how far it would get before the case was thrown out of court. In fact, I'm not entirely sure that's even legal?? If you are in another country, you are bound by that country's laws and no other.

Nope, at least they're not going *that* far:

"The crime of abortion as defined in the Act will apply in the State of Ireland. Abortions which take place in other countries (including Northern Ireland) are governed by the laws of those countries. A person may not be prosecuted in Ireland for having or carrying out an abortion in another country.

The Act does not limit a person's freedom to travel to another country to have an abortion. It does not change the current rules about the availability of information on abortion."
(According to Refcom.ie)

Aspro

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
If you don't want your kids to see them then fair enough but then you have to ask yourself why? Surely they are not pictures of dead human beings are they? And what is "cheap" about it? And what's wrong with shock tactics?

I thought you were in favour of censorship? Society needs to be protected?
The last thing traumatised women in a crisis pregnancy need is these mysogynistic sanctimonious bigots shoving guilt in their face. They need compassion, caring and advice to come to a decision that will affect THEIR lives, not the life of any politician, priest or 'pro-lifer'.

Lemming

Originally posted by koneko


Nope, at least they're not going *that* far:

"The crime of abortion as defined in the Act will apply in the State of Ireland. Abortions which take place in other countries (including Northern Ireland) are governed by the laws of those countries. A person may not be prosecuted in Ireland for having or carrying out an abortion in another country.

The Act does not limit a person's freedom to travel to another country to have an abortion. It does not change the current rules about the availability of information on abortion."
(According to Refcom.ie)

Hmmm .. that';s in complete contradiction to what they said in the above quote I gave. No wonder the government are staying VERRRRY quite on this referendum :rolleyes:

gandalf

Lads keep this discussion on topic or else I will close the thread again

Gandalf.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Aspro
The last thing traumatised women in a crisis pregnancy need is these mysogynistic sanctimonious bigots shoving guilt in their face. They need compassion, caring and advice to come to a decision that will affect THEIR lives, not the life of any politician, priest or 'pro-lifer'.

Slander, through and through.

How is saying 'if you have an abortion, you'll kill a baby' being a bigot?

Aspro

Because this is all about the X-case. The 'pro-life' movement come from a 1950's Ireland mentality where women should be confined to the home, be subservient to men and should have no control over their own bodies. After all they're only baby factories, aren't they? They're not to be trusted - they'll fake suicidal tendencies, won't they?

And as for bigots, I didn't hear a whisper from them when it was a pregnant Nigerian woman, as opposed to an Irish one. Surely if they're the main proponents of equating foetuses with the same rights as human life outside the womb then they should have been at the forefront in demanding the right of the woman to stay in Ireland? Returning to Nigeria may well mean death for the woman and the foetus. They're hypocrites.

Lemming

Originally posted by JustHalf
Slander, through and through.

How is saying 'if you have an abortion, you'll kill a baby' being a bigot?

I can see where Aspro is coming from here. A portion of the pro-life movement seems to go out of their way in shoving guilt into the face of these women instead of perhaps questioning their motives for even thinking about such a desperate measure. These women must be in an EXTREME state of mind and/or panic to feel that this action is their only choice.

Typedef

Originally posted by Aspro
Because this is all about the X-case. The 'pro-life' movement come from a 1950's Ireland mentality where women should be confined to the home, be subservient to men and should have no control over their own bodies. After all they're only baby factories, aren't they? They're not to be trusted - they'll fake suicidal tendencies, won't they?

Aspro, you have a very jaundiced view of the Pro-Life opinion, I myself vote Pro-Life (which is why I will vote for abortion in instances of medical danger to the mother), but I am an atheist, I was born in 1979 I could continue to point out the obvious and totally bigoted nature of what you are posting, but I think I have made my point.

People who are Pro-Life are not exclusively from the sanctamonious papist camp, some people actually arrive at a decision based on what they believe to be the merits or lack thereof of a situation, it is a flaw of logic to tar everyone with the same socio-political view as having the same motives for the view therefore your rebuff seems to hold no water.

And as for bigots, I didn't hear a whisper from them when it was a pregnant Nigerian woman, as opposed to an Irish one.Surely if they're the main proponents of equating foetuses with the same rights as human life outside the womb then they should have been at the forefront in demanding the right of the woman to stay in Ireland?

Actually if you look on the politics forum you will find that I had said that the deportation of the Nigerian woman was because of a policy however tacit of racial discrimination in Ireland, and yes as I am one of 'them' apparently I had been saying the lady should be allowed to stay in Ireland and that I think that essentially a reasonable and logically evaluated Pro-Life stance is reasonable, so your argument that 'Pro-Lifers' opinions really don't count, because they are all a load of fanatics is defunct.

I can't seriously believe that you are saying the Pro-Life movement should have interviened in this instance, in fact if you look up some really basic information on that particular case you will find that the ladies barrister had argued that her unborn foetus would stand less chance of being born in Nigeria due to lower survival rates (proportionally) in Nigeria to Ireland and therefore the right to life of the unborn in Ireland precluded deportation of this woman, I suspect that if that had passed through the courts you would have found that the some of the more rabid people within the movement would have attempted to impede the right to travel of women to Britain for abortions so I find error in your premis that the Pro-Life movement would have wanted that woman out of the country especially since staying in the country would have opened the whole right to travel can of worms again.