The Fight for Abortion Rights in Ireland!

by anneka Fri Aug 12, 2005 18:27

http://www.altonweb.com/cs/downsyndrome/index.htm?page=praise.html

by peter brown - socialist environmental alliance Sat Aug 13, 2005 16:09 www.socialistenvironmentalalliance.org

Check piece by Eamonn McCann in Belfast Telegraph, August 11th.



The announcement of a new campaign on abortion in the South prompts me to wonder what’s become of the abortion issue up here.

In Dublin on Tuesday, the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) launched a 13-point plan to achieve legalisation of abortion, under the motto “Safe and Legal in Ireland“.

The campaign aims at the removal of Article 40.3.3 from the Republic‘s Constitution, inserted by the 1983 “pro-life” referendum. It will also be supporting three Irish women who have had abortions abroad and who are taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that their human rights were breached by their not being allowed have abortions in their own country.

Said IFPA chairperson Catherine Forde: "This campaign is all about ending the hypocrisy of exiling women in crisis pregnancy that choose to have an abortion".

It was the same thinking which led the Family Planning Association (FPA) in the North to go to court in May 2001 seeking clarification of the legal position. The Department of Health already accepted that abortion was lawful here in certain circumstances---but wouldn‘t spell out clearly what these circumstances were. This had resulted, said the FPA, in “confusing and inconsistent” medical practice.

Forty women a week were leaving the North to have abortions across the water.

The Department fought the case, arguing, in effect, that the situation was clear enough.

The case trundled its way through the courts until November last year when the Court of Appeal made an order which didn’t give the FPA all it wanted but required the Department to examine whether abortion provision was “adequate” and to issue guidelines on provision for the future.

To organise delivery of these requirements, the Department established a Working Group, with members including the Director of Child and Community Care, the Chief Medical Officer, the Chief Nursing Officer, the Head of Midwifery at the Royal Jubilee Maternity Service, the Departmental solicitor and three senior representatives of the Family Policy Unit. It held its first meeting on January 21st last.

What’s clear from the minutes is that nothing was clear.

The first suggestion made was “to carry out an audit of existing service provision so that we could have a picture of what was being provided.”

Now, many might have thought that the Department would already have had available a picture of what it was providing, that could be collated from records, even called up on screen. But apparently not. There followed a discussion of how to go about discovering what was being provided---“what might constitute a valid GP sample across Northern Ireland,” for example.

This wasn’t an exercise in checking or updating or filling in detail. It was primary research.

How then, one wonders, was the Department so confident back in May 2001 that there was nothing in the demand from the FPA for clear guidelines that it fought a three-and-half year battle to defend the status quo (whatever it was) in the courts?

As for the requirement for guidelines: “The group agreed to hold a workshop in approximately 6 to 7 weeks time. The purpose of the workshop would be to explore ideas on who might need guidance and what such guidance should contain, and then decide how best to take this work forward.”

It was also agreed “to confine the workshop to the health professionals selected within the Department, Boards and Trusts.” And, “to ask the four Directors of Public Health to act as facilitators for the workshop.”

No bolshie feminists in boots, then.

Anyway, the workshop hasn’t happened yet.

Which brings us to the next meeting of the Group.

“It was agreed that the next meeting of the Departmental Working Group would be arranged after the workshop.”

Forty women continue to leave the North for abortions across the water every week.

“Safe and Legal in Ireland” is the slogan of the campaign launched in Dublin.

Shouldn’t we join in?

by Brian Hogan Sun Aug 14, 2005 17:29 hogmeister at iol dot ie

Boo Hoo. So Irish women have to fly to England to kill their babies. I feel your pain, ladies. A quick tip to all those aspiring babykillers, though: If you don't want a baby, it really is easier, and cheaper, to use a condom.

by Shipsea Sun Aug 14, 2005 17:38

Well girls, dont know about the rest of you but Ive never been able to figure out how to get those condoms on...

by Al Sun Aug 14, 2005 17:55

Or the pill or injections or , or, or , or, or.

theres plenty of options but shipsea has just pointed out that abortion is needed to add to the already pretty good list of contraceptions out there.

BTW shipsea, Do you think the father has any say in this?

by shipsea Sun Aug 14, 2005 18:06

That was my whole point, Al!

by Al Sun Aug 14, 2005 18:14

I fail to see your point. I asked if fathers have any say in the life or death of their unborn child.

Your comment is about the ability to use condoms.

Your comment goes no further than the act of sex. Im talking about 5, 6 months and years after the event.

However seeing as you lay 50% of the blame at the fathers feet it will be interesting to see how you claim its now the womans choice alone.

by Someone who knows Brian Sun Aug 14, 2005 20:59

" If you don't want a baby, it really is easier, and cheaper, to use a condom."
Or do what you have done, Brian: Be such an objectionable human being that no one would dream of having sex with you.

by Joe Sun Aug 14, 2005 21:29

Many women considering the choice of abortion do indeed consult with the father. But this is their choice to do so as as obviously they are the ones who will end up carrying the foetus to term. Others don't - and don't forget that the reasons they may choose not to include rape and incest.

Are you suggesting Al that women should have to continue a pregnancy if they don't want to but the father does? Given that your a guard have you considered how this might actually be implemented.

Maybe your suggesting Guards like yourself should carry out pregnancy tests on any women between 12 and 50 leaving the country? I'm not being flippant here as what we are talking about is the legislation that exists and that you might be required to enforce next year.

The points about contraception as an alternative to abortion is pretty silly in Irish circumstances. After all the cost and hassle of going to England or beyond for an abortion is so considerable that it is impossible anyone would see this as an alternative to spending 10 euros in the local chemist (or using a machine in a pub toliet).

Of course as so many of the anti-choice bigots are also opposed to contraception its also a bit of a red herring.

by Al Mon Aug 15, 2005 03:30

Im not suggesting that it be a criminal matter so therefore the Gardai would not be involved anymore than they are for maintanance.

let me put it this way, if the father doesnt want the child but the mother does then the mother wins. Now I have no problem with that but what happens then? daddy is made pay maintanence for that child.

on the other hand if daddy wants to keep the child but mammy doesnt then mammy wins again.

its not equality. If a woman wants to keep a child that the father doesnt then she should be prepared to go it alone wihtout any support from the father. If he has no input into the decision then why should he have obligations that result from the decision?

And lets try to remember that full term is 9 months. Your life and your duty as a parent is considerable longer than that. Is an abortion really less painfull or traumatic than carrying a child? Couldnt a person last an additional 6 or 7 months and then give the child up for adoption? Therefore releasing you to continue on your life and sparing the child?
there are so many couples that are unable to have children that adoption in Ireland in modern days would not mean growing up in an orphanage, which is still better than being dead.

by Shipsea Mon Aug 15, 2005 06:35

Brian was offering contraceptive advice to us ladies which might more realistically have been offered to men, no? He also implies the responsibility for the state of affairs is down to women alone and wants it both ways. Its our fault if we get pregnant and we are for eternal damnation if we have an abortion. Does even the most ardent pro-choice person think abortion is a positively good thing? More of an unpleasant necessity, shall we say. Perhpas I'm wrong about that and some people think its like having a tooth out. Point being, most people at heart know that abortion is something that needs to be avoided as much as possible. Psychologically, emotionally, physically, it is infinitely better for us not to do it. There seems however to be a complete taboo on the part of pro-choice people about discussing the ethical and moral dimension. Why should that be? Despite the shrillness of some pro-lifers and the extremes to which they are prepared to go, there is a substantial middle ground which is legitimately concerned about whether abortion is an unatural thing and damaging to us all in the long run. Many of those people reasonably point to the idea that we should be more careful about how and when we have sex. Equally reasonably, a lot of people think sex should not be treated like some form of recreational sport, devoid of its true meaning and significance. Whatever your view, these are legitimate questions and it is not axiomatic that anyone who feels abortion is wrong is a right-wing lunatic. Equally, it is not the man who actually gets pregnant or the man who has to carry the child to term with all the attendant physical risks and more often than not, it is not the man who will have responsibility for the day to day care of the child. And, as things still stand, it is not the man who has to live with the opprobrium that is still too frequently visited on single mothers. Added to all that, the circumstances in which most abortions occur is as a consequence of casual relationships or other equally unsatisfactory circumstances for bringing a child into the world. How can most 'fathers' in these situations lay claim either to a paternal relationship with the child or demand a life-long committment from the mother? That's too arrogant for words. If men really want that control then here is what they should do: everytime they have sex where pregnancy is not intended they should make it clear that in the event things 'go wrong' they will expect their partner to keep the baby, will want full paternal rights and responsibilities and demand that their partner ignores any right of decision over her own body. I can tell you guys, that would be the most effective form of contraception ever devised.
Absent those clearly stated expectations and intentions, then men surely have no right to start laying down the law ex post facto?

by Gyro Mon Aug 15, 2005 13:44

When a working couple buy a house together, take out a loan to buy a car, possibly two, pay for honeymoon or holiday; there is no way that a pregnancy is wanted. Now, if a girl is only in a casusl relationship, finds herself pregnant; the law of averages state that it will be unwanted. The point is that pregnancies have been unwanted since time immemorial.

The difference today is that it is easier to terminate a pregnancy and the pressures of capitilism (mortgages giving out on multiples of both salaries etc) keeps any threat (expense of rearing children) to the cosummeriistic livestyle to a minimum. We as a society have failed to protect or hand on our inherited survival instiincts to our children. Our children will be left to carry the can in a very troubled world, partly created by the inability of fewer young people to defend a very wealthy part of the world. i.e. western civilisation.

This ability to abort a foetus is also killing the sexual attractiveness between male and female. Customarily, children resulted from such liasons. The bond and associated responsibility that holds such couples together is broken. Sexual attractiveness is precarious. Look around the canteen at lunch time, boys with boys, girls with girls. People of the same sex get on real well together. Society down through the ages was aware of this. They encouraged the sacrement of marriage between man and woman; the state usually backed this up by given tax benefits etc.

The wanted child is a myth. Is anyone in our society aware that our civilisation is under grave threat and we are in huge danger of pettering out? One of your correspondents above said that abortion is just another means of contraception!

This is the very point. With artificial contraception, abortion follows. This is another feeble exercise of the human ability to exercise the Use of Reason while completely ignoring religious teaching. There is a powqerful connection betwwen the person who lights a fire in the middle of the sitting room (contraception) floor, to keep warm and the subsequent burning (abortion) down of the house.

Sexual intercouse is a very responsible act. Just think about the direction we are heading in, by promoting condoms etc, allowing divorce, promotting sexual activity via advertisements etc. Doing without the annual expense of one child could get you an extra morthgage of €300,000 in today's Ireland. The youth(exploted in the creation of the Celtic Tiger) of today will have few workers to keep them happy in retirement!

Going to the EC for abortion rights is like going to hell and asking for a match to light up your cigarette (self harm). The EU is a disaster area; over two million less births per annum today then in the 1960s. The Pipe Piper is banging out the tunes, and we are dancing merrily over the cliff, we Irish are doing this with full knowledge off the eventual outcome; just look at the pension problems, economies up the creek, security worries in mainland Europe and they only have started rolling down the side of the hill!

by Al Mon Aug 15, 2005 14:23

If the father of an unwanted pregnancy must lay down the law, as you put it, prior to the act then should the mother do likewise?

Is the woman involved in, for example, a one night stand have the same obligation to claerly state 'If I get pregnant Im keeping the baby and you cant be involved but I want X amount per month'? And if she doesnt is that a legal/moral get out clause for the father?

Both parties made the baby, neither party clearly outlined their plan in such an event yet only fathers must do so? Clearly a bias on the womans part.

Unwanted pregnancy is the small part of the equation, the bigger problem is the unwanted parenthood aspect. that lasts for a minimum of 18 years.

by Betty Mon Aug 15, 2005 20:03

All this talk of parenthood and the kids on school holidays. Nothing better to do with your time? Besides from working for the State?

by Al Mon Aug 15, 2005 20:30

Betty,
Please dont try to drag a discussion down to the gutter. If you have nothing to say on a subject how about just keeping your nose out and let the adults talk.

by Shipsea Tue Aug 16, 2005 19:14

‘If the father of an unwanted pregnancy must lay down the law, as you put it, prior to the act then should the mother do likewise?’

Absolutely. I don’t think either party should be carrying on as if they didn’t know what might happen. There is always a risk of pregnancy. Sex between a man and a woman isn’t a form of recreation but an expression of something meaningful precisely because it may lead to the creation of a life – with or without contraception. However, where people have had sex without responsible discussion then it does not entitle the man to dictate his partner’s actions subsequently. He is not the one who gets pregnant, his position is not the same as hers.

’Is the woman involved in, for example, a one night stand have the same obligation to clearly state 'If I get pregnant Im keeping the baby and you cant be involved but I want X amount per month'? And if she doesnt is that a legal/moral get out clause for the father?’

No,I dont think so. If you have sex with someone you may create a life. There are practical consequences that go with that . It’s your own fault if you were not careful enough to consider the possibility and discuss it beforehand. However, I agree that where a woman decides to proceed with her pregnancy she should not deny her child its right to know its father and should do everything possible to facilitate the best possible relationship between them.

’Unwanted pregnancy is the small part of the equation, the bigger problem is the unwanted parenthood aspect. ‘

Would you agree that that is one of the most important reasons why we should be a lot more careful about the circumstances in which we have sex? Heterosexual sex always implies possible parenthood and commitment – how can we ever forget that? It’s never simply about physical attraction and gratification, however difficult it may be to control those impulses at times. We corrupt our own integrity fundamentally when we don’t respect ourselves and our bodies in this regard. It damages us to use ourselves and our partners without involving our intellectual and moral sensibilities. The longer people behave otherwise the more distant they become from their own inner voice. Sex is such a potentially fulfilling and deeply important aspect of our lives, we should be extremely careful about how we manage it – for our own sakes and for our partners because people almost always get badly hurt otherwise – especially our children.

by Al Wed Aug 17, 2005 00:04

Shipsea,
Im not getting into the moral question of casual sex, multiple partners or any other question.

This is purely about abortion and as you yourself have stated, both people know the risk involved when they jump into bed together, they are also aware that abortion is illegal in Ireland however the choice of abortion is still there and many believe it should be offered in Ireland.

Now considering we are, in theory, talking about adults here then why is abortion such a necessity? In my opinion it isnt. Its not a requirement but an option. One I personally disagree with.

Now as for making decisions, Let me point out one thing. you are saying that both should be aware that a child is a possibility but neither mother nor father have discussed keeping the child, adoption, abortion, maintanence or any other plan. Therefore it could equaly be argued that the father presumed an abortion would take place and therefore shouldnt pay maintanence because the mother, and the mother alone, has decided to keep the child.

My point here is if the mother chooses to keep the child against the fathers wishes then she should be prepared for the consequences. The father never stated he would support the mother or child either emotionaly or financially so why it is either assumed he will or expected? especially when you consider the amount of fathers denied equal access and parental custody but yet pay maintanence. On the other hand you have those that want nothing to do with the child yet are forced, by law, to pay maintenance

by Shipsea Wed Aug 17, 2005 06:34

I find your positon completely contradictory. If you disagree with abortion then you must believe that you have a responsibility to any child that might be born as a consequence of having sex. The only presumption that can be made when two peole have sex in a careless fashion, is that there are no presumptions. If the 'worst' happens it is to the woman that it happens - not the man. There is a huge difference there and any thoughtful man would recognise the particular difficulties that it presents the woman with - difficulties moreoever that he will never have to contend with and so he cannot dictate the outcome. It is a horrible dilemma. And I dont think you can divorce the rights or wrongs of casual sex from these issues. It goes to the heart of it. Isnt that attitude exactly why we seem now to have so many abortions and broken marriages etc etc? If you have sex in an idiotic and irresponsible way then your position is seriously undermined with regard to having any say. I suppose my point boils down to this: the possiblity of a child is understood at the point of having sex - not when a pregnancy is realised - that only confirms what both parties knew was likely. You should be talking then. If you dont have any true personal relationship with your partner you put yourself at the mercy of both possibilites: that she may have an abortion against your wishes or that she may have a baby against your wishes. There is no personal committment involved in casual sex - which is exactly why it shouldnt be happening in the first place. The possibilites are so hurtful and difficult for everyone concerned - most of all for any child that results from it without a stable loving partnership to grow up in. Whatever people like to tell themselves, that is still the optimum circumstance for any child to be born into. Where I would agree with you, I think, would be within a committed relationship that has anticipated children. For a woman to proceed to an abortion against her partner's wishes would be to annihilate their relationship. But even there, there may be good reasons why she would wish to do so. The fact is that women have a more powerful role to play in the process of reproduction and most men have not yet learned to respect that, by and large. It wasnt always the case but its been a very long time since it was!

by Al Wed Aug 17, 2005 13:09

the fact that I personally dont agree with abortion has no bearing on the situation unless its actually me thats in it.

The fact is that if the man has no say in the decision then why should he take any responsibility? The 2 are linked, cause and reaction.

cause = woman falls pregnant and keeps child against fathers wishes

result = single mother with no support from father.

The period of pregnancy is given far too much weight in this picture. As I have said before, the woman can walk away after 9 months regardless of the fathers intentions. A child remains your responsibility for 18 years minimum. Who has the bigger responsibility and sacraficed the most? The paternal mother or the person that raised the child?

If a woman chooses to keep the child then she should be prepared to do so without any support from the father, thats my view.

You say that he has an obligation as he knew of the possibility of pregnancy yet you then say he has no say in the decision. You cant take responsibility if you havent been involved in the decision making. Its unfair.

Now when I say that I am strictly refering to one night stands, obviously a commited relationship, regardless of how long it lasts is a different siuation.

by birds and bees Wed Aug 17, 2005 13:14

I doubt if she would just "falls pregnant" as Al suggests. At least not without a hard "shove and thrust" from a male. I suggest if you have your night of pleasure then you have to pay for it.

by Shipsea Wed Aug 17, 2005 13:38

'You cant take responsibility if you havent been involved in the decision making. Its unfair.'

But the man is involved in the decision to have sex - that's when his liability for the upkeep of any resulting child really arises - not at the point when the woman decides whether to proceed or not. You really cant deny that men know there may or may not be a child involved from the outset. The woman's subsequent decision is nothing more than an extentsion of that same uncertainty where he is concerned. A woman has to determine what she does in these circumstances - it is her body that is to be used. You make very light of the 9 months of pregnancy. Ive had two near death experiences from pregnancy - very lucky to be alive at all and its not that uncommon. Many more people suffer extremely debilitaing phsycial and health problems. Also the chldren of single parents suffer a dispropritionate number of health and other problems - from birth onwards. There are very few women who would carry a child to full term and then hand it over like a bundle of rags. The child's rights and needs are above either the mother or fathers'. I think your unwarranted sense of injustice on the man's account is causing you to forget the person who is most important: the child.

by esther Wed Aug 17, 2005 14:32

The majority of Irish people oppose abortion.

It is also deeply offensive to many faiths including Catholicism, Islam, and others.

by figureitout Wed Aug 17, 2005 14:39

...the "majority of Irish people" are not under any obligation to have one.

by Hymm Wed Aug 17, 2005 15:57

'But the man is involved in the decision to have sex - that's when his liability for the upkeep of any resulting child really arises - not at the point when the woman decides whether to proceed or not.'

Equality just ain't there in this arguement

by Al Wed Aug 17, 2005 16:12

No thats wrong Ship,
At that point there is a possibility not a reality. The reality only comes into play when the woman makes the decision. The decision to have an abortion, should you choose, has as much impact on the equation as the initial task.

I dont make light of pregnancy but you cant have it both ways.Either the mans not involved or he is.

Let me put it this way, Which is the point where you commit murder? Is it buying a gun or shooting someone? The decision to buy the gun was not when you decided to shoot someone. When you aimed it was the decision point. Put it down or fire. Likewise, is the person that sold the gun to you involved in murder? No, even though there is a possibility at that point that you might shoot someone.

Note: Hard to argue with the 'majority' comments above. religion has played far too big a part in humanities history as it is.

by Bemused Wed Aug 17, 2005 16:40

Are you really a cop Al? Just obey, rather then understand the law.

"Let me put it this way, Which is the point where you commit murder? Is it buying a gun or shooting someone? The decision to buy the gun was not when you decided to shoot someone. When you aimed it was the decision point. Put it down or fire. Likewise, is the person that sold the gun to you involved in murder? No, even though there is a possibility at that point that you might shoot someone."

You could have bought the gun after you decided to commit murder. If you told the person who you bought the gun off, why you bought it then that person is complicit in the murder. First year certificate law. Don't you do it in Templemore? Don't you know about conspiracy?

by Al Wed Aug 17, 2005 19:11

Thats clearly not the case for the very, very simple reason that I state "decision to buy the gun was not when you decided to shoot someone. When you aimed it was the decision point" see that? decision to buy the gun WAS NOT when you decided to shoot someone. When you aimed IT WAS the decision point, get it now?

It doesnt make sense to speak about planned and premeditated actions when we are discussing UNPLANNED pregnancy.

Yet another person who attempted feebly to attack me without actually having anything to say about the subject. Now run off with Betty and let the adults talk.

by Shipsea Wed Aug 17, 2005 20:57

(and Im really sorry to labour this analogy - its just that its too apt not to), didnt you actually 'shoot the gun' so to speak when you had sex? The question afterwards is whether it was a hit or a miss. Ive said it before, but its the woman who gets pregnant - who cops the bullett so to speak - of course she has to decide what to do!

by Al Wed Aug 17, 2005 23:35

Oh man thats bad, thats really bad.

But to get on, at the end of the day I think both people had an equal share in making the baby and that should continue. To force a man to pay for a child he didnt want is wrong. you wouldnt force him to spend his days in the zoo would you?
You wont force him to any commitment except financial, what does that say?

by drunken rant Thu Aug 18, 2005 01:33

in eyerland except financial ones?

none would be my answer

does not mean it's right that things are so

long time ago in dublin cops were given a straightforward and immediate choice - arrest me and two women - or legalise selling condoms in toilets without the supervision of a chemist/doctor so there was a fucking choice

they caved and legalised an already existing reality

choice is what it comes down to and it does not work if men never get criticism for making choice including most especially the most selfish economic ones

just like the old guns situation

ireland needs to legalise the already existing reality

so police and ffers can continue pretending that it never happens to their daughters

by AL Thu Aug 18, 2005 02:50

Never has a persons name suited what comes out of their mouths so much ;)

by drunken ranter Thu Aug 18, 2005 03:29

"choice is what it comes down to and it does not work if men never get criticism for making choice including most especially the most selfish economic ones"

Should read

"choice is what it comes down to and it does not work if men never get criticism for making choices including most especially the most selfish economic ones"

sorry al if i created any confusion

by Mark Thu Aug 18, 2005 06:07 sparxz at excite dot com

Why not kill all children up th the age of ten ?
I mean, like what's the problem ?
Morality is no longer a barrier.
"right and wrong" are so `out of date' ideolgies.

It would save their parents a fortune in footware,
and they could buy a nice new car, maybe go on a nice `well deserved holiday'.

Why not kill the mothers, then we would't have the problem of them getting pregnant, would we ?
But isn't that the truth ?

If we are really sincere in this website/postings, then let the killing begin in earnest, and stop pussy footing
with things like the law. Laws can be changed on a whim any way. Look at 1930s Germany as an example. It has
been done before, and since (eg Cambodia) !

If we killed more people then threre wouldn't be all this moaning, and complaining.
Because there wouldn't be anyone to moan !

But anyway look on the bright side,or dark side, depending
on your perspective. The world is changing.
At the present, irreversable Demographic population changes are in progess, as I write.

Young people will be a rare sight in 2025 (just 15 years away !) No problem with Uni-fees ! Slight problem
for pensioners like us though. Nobody to raise tax money !
But we can push/enforce liberal laws for euthanasia, to solve that problem.
Property prices will be very cheap, with all those emptied houses !

Total Fertility rate in Europe
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_tot_fer_rat

World population projection/forecasts
http://www.fathersforlife.org/world_population_policies_demographics.htm

by Cirs Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:42

"The child's rights and needs are above either the mother or fathers'" - if this is so then surely the child has the right to live??

by Caoimhin Ni Mheadar Fri Oct 21, 2005 15:08 soundscore at graffiti dot net 087 9589906

I think that abortions should not be made legal in Ireland. It is indirect murder of an innocent unborn child. Since we live in a free society, freedom is clearly denied when an unborn child has their life taken from them in cold blood. It is immoral to legalise abortion because it is murder.

by sean Fri Oct 21, 2005 16:51

Again the prolife argument tries to reduce the argument to morals and scientific opinion both of whicjh are inconclusive. The moral issue is rubbish as morals are subjective and the scientific opinion seems to be equally subjective.
What we should deal with is fact, in such a serious issue. There is one definite person in the scenario of pregnancy- the woman. It can be her and her choice only. she is the only one who can know what is the right choice not anybody else.
Secondly even if you personally are opposed to abortion the right to choose is actually a seperate issue totally. You are merely acknowledging that you don't contol anyone else.

by - Fri Oct 21, 2005 17:57

is it immoral to deport a child whose mother chose to have him/her in Ireland where abortion is illegal?

by shocked Sat Oct 22, 2005 22:35

why are we even discussing, this murderous act! if a woman gets pregnant and doesnt want to keep her baby then give it up for adoption, why be always tortured by the memory of the day you murdered your own child!!! i know plenty of people who would give their right arm to have a baby, be it theirs are adopted. Ireland should never lower itself to become like England or America. ------------GIVE LIFE!!!!!

by Chris Bond Sun Oct 23, 2005 15:51

First of all a feutus is not a sentient being, it is a clump of cells that is a part of a womans body. The welfare of the woman should take presidence over the ''life'' of the unborn. It is ludicrous to compare the two as equal forms of life. Secondly pro choice activists do not encourage women to have abortions they merely want to make it an option open to them. Many pro choice activists argue for supports for single mothers to be expanded such as childcare and welfare benefits whereas many pro lifers treat single mothers with nothing but stigma and disdain.

by Emma Sun Oct 23, 2005 18:32

Why should over 6000 women every year have to travel to England to avail of abortion?.It is against human rights not to allow a woman an abortion. The state or otherwise has no right to dictate to what a woman can and cannot do with her body and that does not only apply to abortion. The whole point is a woman's right to choose, what might be right for one woman may not be for another and as you can see we do not have one of the basic human rights that is entitled to us, its another way of oppressing women
we need to have control over our own bodies.
I dont buy the religious argument its completely irrational.

by Damien Wed May 31, 2006 00:58

It's this simple - no more debates with Napolean or Hitler.

If your a pregnant woman, it concerns you and only you and your body. If you decide to come to an arrangement with a willing doctor, to end your pregnancy - it's between you, and your doctor.

If you don't like the idea - tough. It's nothing to do with you anyway. It may be a sad moment for many men, who thought they were fathers-to-be. Condolences, but keep your your grief from becoming downright fascism. If there was something growing in your body that you wanted removed, you could come to an arrangement with your doctor. Who elses business would it be? No-ones! And that's the way it should be! But for some inexplicable reason, the idea of allowing the same rights to any pregnant woman is not a given. Sanctimonious assholes!

Butt-out! And if you are unfortunate enough to have a woman abort your unborn without discussion - then dump her and move on.

As for women who insist on interfering with a woman's right to abortion - you should know better, and throw yourselves under a horse! Remember Ms. Pankhurst.

Anyone with religious reasoning for their self-perceived right to prevent a woman from governing her own body? - your days are numbered, as is your antiquated, male-dominated, unenlightened, and anti-evolutionary religion.

Grow-up, and butt-out!
Abortion is between a woman, and her doctor, so step off.

Sincerely,
Damien.

by Paddy Wed May 31, 2006 03:12

Damien,

It s not about religion its about life, it about preservation of morality in human society. Human Pregnancy does not need to initiate an equal amount of treatment from all camps, it just needs to initiate care from society at large. We are very far away from this. We, as a society, are negligent to young, pregnant women in need of help.

Your solution provides no help here.

Some animal species will eat excess young to deplete the burden on mature individuals. , so that they can maintain the same life course.
This is animalistc and devoid of human morality. You need to think about morals.
I love animals, even when they eat their own young to survive longer , but I expect more from humans.

Yours righteously,

Paddy.

by john Wed May 31, 2006 12:24

i would love to know Brian's attitude to lone parents, particularly lone parent women who didn't opt for abortion or didn't consider it. Usually you will find the people most vocal against abortion are the same people that are complaining about "lone parents getting too much". The reality is that most who articulate Brian's opinions are just anti women - the keep them barefoot and pregnant brigade

by Damien Wed May 31, 2006 20:40

Paddy,

Who can dictate morality? What human can enforce their own ideas of morality on another in a fair and equal world. Live and let live, is as far as anyone should go. Obviously if someone is infringing the rights of others, then this simple axiom has been broken, and those affected have the right to seek justice. Now before I see it written, because I can already hear it - what about the 'let live' of the unborn?!
- let me clarify. A person's body is their own affair, regardless of how you personally feel about abortion. Sure, I may think it's a tragedy that abortions happen, but I know beyond question, that I have no right to interfere, because I understand the difference between freedom and fascism.

As far as your animals go - we are animals. If we could understand that better, then maybe we could better understand ourselves and each other. I'll accept the portayal of the demi-god 'Pan'. Yes, animals sometimes eat their young, but it's often another dominant male who will eat the young of a desired female, in order to replace them with his own offspring. The secret fear of most men against the rights of women to have abortions, is that maybe their own efforts to propagate their DNA will be thwarted by an abortion. This, however, does not condone their insisted infringement of others rights, in this case - women.

Your body, you life, your business. Their body, their life, their business.

Sincerely,

Damien.

by Paddy Thu Jun 01, 2006 02:49

Damien,

The use of the word -Fascism- is Sensational,.
Fascism was a political movement from Italy.
This thread is not dealing with Fascism.

"Live and let live" , you said. But thats all you say about that.

You say : "As far as your animals go - we are animals. "

I said we are not animals. Animals do not have morality, humans do

We must focus on human morality. Here's a definition,

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

You said : The secret fear of most men against the rights of women to have abortions, is that maybe their own efforts to propagate their DNA will be thwarted by an abortion.

I think you may be right here.