Pro-Choice Group Launched

by Prionsias Tue Dec 13, 2005 14:19

A doctor who commits an abortion with the women's consent is as guilty of killing a human being as someone who causes a pregnant women to miscarry with a baseball bat or an USAF pilot dropping cluster bombs on Iraqi children.

by pat c Tue Dec 13, 2005 14:28

thats known as faulty logic. do you also believe that this applies in all circumstances? what if a DR performs an abortion to save a womans life or deal with an ectopic pregnancy? what if the woman has been raped and is at risk of suicide? do you really think that a bunch of cells is equal in value to the life of a woman?

by pat c Tue Dec 13, 2005 14:34

i was proud to be present at the first activity of this group. Examine the pictures and you will see how normal the members of BODY look in comparison to those you see on the YD stall. I was just there as a veteran to hold an AFC placard and support BODY as were some other veterans.

Thanks to Joe Higgins TD of The Socialist Party for joining the protest.

Good luck in the future BODY!

by Cirs Tue Dec 13, 2005 14:57

Providing safe and legal abortion may be a good idea, but I don't believe that it should be free. The proposed grounds on which a woman can choose to have an abortion are not solid enough to prevent abuse of this option and eventual use of it as a form of contraception, as might possibly become the case if it were free. When all is said and done, you are ending a life.

by pat c Tue Dec 13, 2005 15:01

I dont believe you are being serious abou this, in fact i suspect that you are using different identities on different threads. no one would use abortion as a means of birth control as long as there is free acess to contraception including the morning after pill.

by Proinsias Tue Dec 13, 2005 15:15

not prionsias

by Dublin Exile Tue Dec 13, 2005 16:14

Could someone from BODY tell us what their preferred wording for a referendum would be and which article of the constitution they'd want amended?

Isn't it the case that the constitutional provision is already there but all thats now required is the political will to act on it?

Isn't it also the cast that an abortion related campaign at this stage would give the kiss of life to the looney right at a time when their whole church is in disarray?

These are genuine questions, im not a troll, and my record of campaigning on abortion information is a very long and honourable one.

by pat c Tue Dec 13, 2005 16:17

Dublin Exile is genuine, I know this from his previous comments on Indymedia so he deserves a full reply.

by eif Tue Dec 13, 2005 17:35

Dublin Exile, it seems you might be well equipped to answer these questions yourself and have lots of opinions. maybe you could contribute a short article? I think it would be important and interesting.

by Siabon Tue Dec 13, 2005 17:49

Just wanted to drop a few lines of encouragement. As an American Pro-Choicer, I fully support what is being done with Body.

There are many who do not see the problems created without legal and affordable abortion rights. The lack of such rights does little to prevent abortions from happening. Instead, woman either turn to other countries, or to "backdoor" clinics without proper training to have the abortion done. This alone leads to additional health problems, sometimes even death.

To those who are pro-life, I ask you this..If you are unwilling to accept abortion rights, how do you plan to take care of unwanted newborns, help young girls who happen to make one mistake, or those like my best friend, who find themselves pregnant with her rapist's child?

by a guy called satan Tue Dec 13, 2005 17:58

I don't agree Dublin exile . Now is the time to have a go at them . I always thought that the pro-choicers' attack on the anti-abortionists in the eighties and ninetees was premature. At a time when we didn't even have the right to contraception or divorce here we adopted the successful confrontational tactics used against YD by the left in Britain where contraception , divorce and abortion rights themselves had already been legal for decades.The pre- scandal hit church was able to mount a hypocritical and thuggish campaign against women's rights ,and, it has to be admitted ,they won control of the streets .
It takes about ten years for women (and men ) to cop on to the fact that contraception isn't foolproof and that abortion is needed as a back-up last resort for women with emergency pregnancies . IMO this new pro-choice group has timed things about right . I wish them well.

by tobie* Tue Dec 13, 2005 19:47

BODY is a diverse group of young pro-choice activists that are campaigning for safe and legal abortion services in Ireland.

On August 9th 2005 the IFPA launched their Safe and Legal in Ireland campaign (SLI) to secure women's access to abortion services in the state. Three Irish women will be taking a case to the European Court of Human rights to argue that their rights as assured by Article 8 dealing with the right of privacy in all family, home and personal interests,; Article 3 which protects individuals from 'inhuman or degrading treatment'; Article 2 which affords protection of the law to safe-guard the life of an individual and Article 14 which affords rights and freedoms without discrimination on any grounds, have been infringed. The issue of abortion is one with particular resonance with the youth of Ireland. From active participation of student unions and youth groups looking to secure information in the 90s to lobbying
for a no vote in the 2002 referendum, young people have strongly voiced their opinions on this divisive issue.

At present over 6,000 women travel to Britain each year to access abortion services. This number does not take in to consideration those who travel further a field to exercise choice over their bodies.
The statistics relating to the UK give us only the number of women who gave Irish addresses and so are not wholly representative of the numbers traveling. In 2004, it was noted that 2,761 Irish women and girls under 24 had traveled to terminate their pregnancies (from www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics).

The cost of travel for an abortion in Britain is prohibitive to many on lower incomes, such as students. When the costs of travel, accommodation and the operation are added the cost is in the region of €900. The majority of students are unable to readily access this amount of money and so are forced to go to parents or into further debt. As a response to the launch of SLI, a group of young people has come together to form BODY, an alliance to push the government to hold a pro-choice referendum. We believe that it is an individual choice and not for the State or churches to refuse women any medical procedure in Ireland.

We have held a number of workshops on law, media, advocacy and international links with various speakers who have previous experience in the area of abortion and woman's rights. These have included counselors, media training facilitators, solicitors and members of international women's rights and pro-choice groups.

Our hope is to highlight the interest of young people on the abortion issue and raise awareness among all members in society. It is our aim to push the issue with the government and continue to put pressure on the various parties to make commitments to addressing the issue and make it an election issue for the next general election.

17 women are forced to leave Ireland every day to
avail of abortion services outside the State.

by Sara Tue Dec 13, 2005 20:29

"To those who are pro-life, I ask you this. If you are unwilling to accept abortion rights, how do you plan to take care of unwanted newborns, help young girls who happen to make one mistake, or those like my best friend, who find themselves pregnant with her rapist's child?"

There is no such thing as un-unwanted newborn. The waiting list are over 3 years in the states for ANY child regardless or race or challenges.
In fact, last month an adoption request went out for a special needs baby in Wisconsin, USA. The agency received over 3000 responses.

As far as your friend who was raped. Rape is a horrible thing, but an abortion does not un-rape someone. It comes down to, is it a baby. An identity with it's own DNA is a child.

I have adopted 3 babies from mothers who decided not to abort. The reason they have a home is because when my mother conceived me via rape (rare, but it happens) she made the correct decision after all (I was once abortion bound)

As my mother was thinking about aborting me, not one "feminist" was advocating for this woman’s rights.
Abortion ends a human life, plain and simple

by flamini Tue Dec 13, 2005 21:03

free abortions? There's no such thing. You mean that the general taxpayer will pay for them. This includes people who don't need abortions and people whose religion considers abortion to be evil. But you're gonna try to force them all to pay - never going to happen. A Catholic won't have their salary poached for abortion funds. And I don't want mine poached either. How about promoting the right to seek and provide an abortion, i.e. just make it legal. That way, you could attempt to convince moderate Catholics and others of the sanity of the pro-choice position without posing such a direct threat to them and their religious freedom. Governmental abortion clinics are not beacons of freedom but of atheistic socialism.

by sa Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:29

Unless services are free we will create a two-tiered system of eligibility, where abortion services are accessible only to those who can afford them. This is the current situation. Women with money travel for abortions. Those living in poverty, minors and asylum seekers can't. Women have a higher risk than men of living in poverty. The fact that they have to get together so much money (around €1000 depending on the stage) is one reason why so many Irish women have late abortions. Free and easily accessible contaceptive services (this is still a problem in some areas) would be a useful step too.

by Mick Flint Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:48

Looks like there's about 6 people involved in this - yet look at all the media coverage. Mind you, when has lack of public support stopped the bien pensants of the irish media giving their tuppence worth. Of course there would be an outcry if they were talking about foxes.

by pat c Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:52

there were 20 people present at the Event including Joe Higgins TD of the Socialist Party. Senator David Norris also joined the protest for about 60 seconds but he had to leave as he was meeting Cindy Sheehan from a taxi to bring her into Leinster House.

by sa(again) Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:27

Regardless of the numbers in a press photo, this is a major issue. While more than 6000 women a year travel for abortions many more experience crisis pregnancies and 4 Irish women currently have cases before the European Court of Human Rights. We saw the re-emergence of back street abortions last year with a couple of women ending up in hospital. One of the problems in Ireland has been that the rights of what the constitution calls the (undefined) 'unborn' have been allowed to supersede those of women to the extent that even women carrying non-viable foetuses have been forced to travel outside the state for terminations. Irish politicians have failed to take on board the the complexity of the issues around women's health, fertility control and choices the abortion issue involves. Many people do not engage with any of these issues until they, or someone close to them faces a crisis in pregnancy. Then they begin to understand things from a woman's perspective...and to see how draconian our laws are when they threaten women and doctors with up to life imprisonment. I think it should be emphasised that being pro- choice means being woman-centred. It involves arguing that women should have access to the full range of reproductive choices which includes abortion but also implies access to genuine alternatives and to the information, services and supports (before and after making the choice) required to make an informed choice between those alternatives. Well done BODY! This is an action that needed to be taken.

by Dublin Exile Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:54

Many thanks to Pat C for confirming that i'm genuine, we may not agree on everything but its nice to see such courtesy extended..

Can I ask again what type of referendum BODY want?

As far as I know, and i'm quite happy to be corrected, there is now no constitutional bar on legislating for abortion - there's just no political interest in doing so. Am I right or not?

Just like Pat C I remember taking on the church and the looney right in the 80s when they were strong and self-confident, things got dirty and nasty very quickly, all sorts of right wingers came out of the woodwork, but we prevailed in the end. All I'm asking is - is this the time to give them a platform to regroup? And are a younger generation on the left ready for the bitterness and visciousness that could ensue?

by Joe Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:59

Not involved in this campaign but I'll have a go at answering exile.

"Isn't it the case that the constitutional provision is already there but all thats now required is the political will to act on it?"

No - what is currently in the constitution would allow for abortion where the life or health of the mother was at risk. So while good legislation could be a vast improvement it would still leave the decision on medical grounds rather than on the wishes of the women herself.

"Isn't it also the cast that an abortion related campaign at this stage would give the kiss of life to the looney right at a time when their whole church is in disarray?"

The 'say nothing and they'll go away' strategy didn't work for the first 60 years of the state. Arguably it was only when large number came out to protest at the time of the X-case that the whole issue blew open to the point where other issues like clerical child abuse could appear in the papers. It's worth remembering that in the 80's the abuse was know about - it was just the cops and the press were too scared of church power to do anything about it.

Of course raising the issues will boost YD and the like as well - this also happened at the time of the X-case. But they represent a small minority of opinion today yet it appears the politicans remain too scared to act. So time to give the politicans another kick up the arse.

by historian Wed Dec 14, 2005 13:03

You would think listening to Pat C and Dublin Exile that they'd survived a prolonged period of military rule in some Latin American country!

A few grannies shouted at them outside the polling booth on the day of the referendums.

After which "Dublin" took himself into "exile" for fear of the Legion of Mary death squads.

by Dublin Exile Wed Dec 14, 2005 13:22

Thanks Joe.

by pat c Wed Dec 14, 2005 13:36

I have a different memory of the 1980s than yo have. I remember the lifers attacking our meetings. physically in some cases. in one case a Pro Choice activist had a bucket of pigs blood thrown over her. but we defended ourselves and survived to tell the tale.

we also survived the 9os by standing up to YD. this decade the fight continues.

by sa Wed Dec 14, 2005 14:21

At present the only interpretation of the constitution we have is the X case judgement that allows abortion in cases in which the woman's life is threatened. It specifically excludes health as a ground: "if it is established …that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible."
I hope the referendum BODY is campaigning for is one to get the 8th amendment out of the constitution. This is a women's health matter and should not be a constitutional one.

by plato Wed Dec 14, 2005 15:46

Look we already are having low fertility rates, thousands of couples wanting to adopt.
Abortion is Murder no matter what way it is put.

by Noel Hogan - Labour Wed Dec 14, 2005 16:28

Even those pro-lifers who call abortion murder don't really believe their own rhetoric.

Consider - if Abortion really was murder, than there's about 20 murders taking place daily in Britain or Irish people.

If that was really the case, those pro-lifers wouldn't be content with having a stand on O'Connell street and handing out flyers - instead they'd be thousands of them out at Dublin airport trying to stop Irish women leaving for the UK. This is murder right? Extreme measures are needed to prevent it.

Instead, there's silence. No protests at the airport, not even a billboard trying to discourage people from boarding that plane.

If I was going to murder someone in the UK, the police would be at the airport to stop me. That nobody is trying says something about the TRUE beliefs of the pro-life faction.

by observer Wed Dec 14, 2005 16:41

Well said Noel Hogan. Pity the party rolled back on the pro-choice position.

by pat c Wed Dec 14, 2005 17:10

Labour Youth were along in support of the BODY demonstration. The Labour Party like Sinn Fein support Abortion in limited circumstances. This at least is an advance on the other Dail parties whih do not. Apart of course from the Socialist Party which supports a Womans Right To Choose.

by eif Wed Dec 14, 2005 17:30

I find choice/lifers arguments strange. they can never be resolved once people have different conceptions of life. Or just follow dogma, there's a lot of that. This (after lots of thought and some research -philosophical, not medical-) is the most rational and solid to me:

a foetus is part of the mother's body (and therefore the woman should have the and right to do what she chooses with her own body) until the point where the growing foetus either does, or could potentially, exist as a seperate entity, able to develope into a full human being independently of the mother's body.

supporting choice does not support abortion of near to full term pregnancies. It's about womens independence and bodily integrity. The arguement should not be about bunches of cells, but up to what point abortion is abortion and murder is murder.
and AT WHAT POINT A FOETUS IS A SEPERATE ENTITY FROM A WOMEN, I.E. ABLE TO EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF HER BODY. This is the start of life, when the life in question is not the mother's , but something new. this is when a child is born or when a child could survive (potentially) outside a womb.

In the same way, the end of life comes when a person is more dependent on machines than an independent life in his/herself. This, as far as i know, influences general medical practice.

The whole test-tube baby stuff makes this a bit more interesting.

a woman's body is her own and it makes no sense to me that she would be forced to carry a pregnancy. no one is forced to be a parent or (ideally) to have other bodily functions controlled (ie types of food, when to toilet etc -prison is an exception which ignores these essential freedoms)

If a woman decides she does not want to sacrifice her body for the best part of nine months (i'm not saying this is why people choose abortion -but this is one end of a potential scale) , she either makes a choice to terminate pregnancy through abortion or a child is born through caesarian , one that is capable to survive outside the womb. I don't , of course, advocate doctors perform loads of early pregnancies, but i'm talking hypothetically.

not a medical expert or anything, but isn't this point concerning start of life about 24 weeks (debatably) or something? the point up to which abortion is legal in britain ? Is this not the more important debate?

by Mary O'Donoghue Wed Dec 14, 2005 20:39 odonoghue.mary at gmail dot com County Dublin

Its not just as simple an issue as one likes portray it as being 'pro-choice'. There is a lot more to having an abortion than just the simplistic idea of 'pro-choice'. One has to stand back and see why the majority of voters voted to retain the law. The well being of the child has to be taken into account just as the well being of the mother is taken into account.

At present, one is free to have an abortion-in England. But unfortunately, (some) abuse it until they're for example, eight months pregnant and then they suddenly decide to end it. That needs to be taken into consideration. I don't think that the morning after pill should not be prescribed in Ireland. But having an abortion is more or less a unilateral issue where it only involves 1 person and does not take the health or well-being of the baby into consideration. Its a very sensitive issue indeed.

by Dee Wed Dec 14, 2005 21:31

I support whole-heartedly this campaign. It is time to be vocal about the reality of crisis pregancy, that for many years, has existed as a taboo issue in this country. Women who find themselves with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy and wish to terminate it, are effectively exiled from their country to recieve the medical assistance they require. This is scandalous, but reminds us of the underlying denial of the issue of crisis pregnancy in this society. This is evident in our history of the Magadelene Lauderies, where women in this position were shunned away, vilified and exiled.
The complexitiy of sexual relationships should not be subject to a black and white moral code and the state should realise that it does not have control over women's bodies.

by Cormac Wed Dec 14, 2005 22:01

Very creative and imaginative launching action-great idea!
Good luck with the group sounds brill,jus wish I was in Dublin to help!
Safe access to abortion advice and facilities is every woman's right.
Its about time the Irish state stopped discriminating and broke their bullshit connection with the catholic dinosaur.

by Dino Wed Dec 14, 2005 23:34

Dinosaurs are extinct. The Catholic Church has outlasted a multiude of royal dynasties, totalitarian parties and "liberal in form/ facist in substance" trends such as this launch.

There are over a billion Catholic according to a recent Guardian report. To live under the illusion that most people operate in a first world bourgeois agnosticism, is as deluded as proposing that abortion is not killing. Whether those involved in a specific abortion are involved in " murder" or not ivolves issues of intent etc (Note the jury's decision in Cork today, where the neighbor killer was acquitted of murder in the killing of the young boy). Christains are scriptually instructed "not to judge"

The choice of whether you are prepared to kill (born, unborn or undead) or not, is best thought through before the war breaks out, your loved one is slain or the pregnancy occurs.

Those who resist war, the death penalty or abortion are heroic. Heroism is not mandatory. All resisters to death demand our solidarity.

by Mary O'Donoghue Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:25 odonoghue.mary at gmail dot com Fingal, County Dublin.

There are a whole wider range of issues involved. Its not just the simplistic idea that one likes to portray like 'pro-choice'. There are many other matters that have to be taken into account. You have to take the well being and the right of the baby into consideration as well. If a woman was eight months pregnant and decided to end it, would that be an appropriate decision? Pro-choice, if so the case, should also include the choice of the baby when it comes down to decision making. I'm not saying this from a Catholic point of view. I am saying it as my own perspective.

by Harry Thu Dec 15, 2005 14:45

Its got nothing to do with the catholic church. How many times have you been told this by some of the previous posters? you are just tainting those who oppose it as old fashioned but they have a side to the arguement too.

by Cirs Thu Dec 15, 2005 15:19

"as long as there is free acess to contraception including the morning after pill."

By free access do you mean available freely? You have to pay to see a doctor and then pay for the medication, so how does it make sense not to charge for a more invasive course of action? Surely it would be better to have it the other way round??

By the way, I've never posted anything under another name.

by L Thu Dec 15, 2005 15:22

Your comment seems to be very similar to the rest of the ones well.

by pat c Thu Dec 15, 2005 15:35

ideally i would like to see the morning after pill freely available to anyone who requests it. at the very least it should be available through the health system the same way as other services are and be available free through a medical card.

there should be no need to go to a doctor, it should be available over the counter from pharmicies.

by AgainstPoliticalCorrectness - none Fri Dec 16, 2005 08:32

As an adopted person I am conscious I might not be here had abortion had been allowed in Ireland. I don't favour economic grounds for abortion, because adoption is a better option in that scenario. I don't favour abortion on the grounds of "well I don't want more children", for the same reason. However, if a woman has been raped, or if there is a physical threat to the mother's life as a result of the pregnancy, then maybe it should be allowed.

by ali la pointe - Reality Check Fri Dec 16, 2005 13:00

'as an adopted person... I might not be here had abortion been available in Ireland...'

You also might not have been here had contraception been more freely available, had sex education been more successful, or had any of the miryad of factors leading to your biological mother's pregnancy hypothetically been removed.

Yet you're not arguting against contraception, sex education etc. or are you?

by pat c Fri Dec 16, 2005 16:44

There is a wide ranging article on abortion trends in the US and throughout the world at the link below. I am posting an extract here.

pat c

****************************
In the News: Abortion in the United States and the World
by Sandra Yin

(December 2005) Roe v. Wade—the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case establishing that most U.S. laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy—will come under more scrutiny in coming months as a newly reconfigured Supreme Court hears arguments in an abortion rights case (Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England). Here is a look at some facts and trends regarding abortion in the United States and worldwide.

Almost One-Half of All Abortions Performed Worldwide Are Illegal
Many analysts argue that if Roe v. Wade were weakened or overturned and access to safe, affordable abortion services should shrink, the number of illegal abortions in the United States could increase dramatically. As a result, the number of maternal complications or deaths caused by unsafe abortions—those abortions performed by unskilled providers or in unsanitary settings—also could rise.1

Women have abortions regardless of whether the procedure is legal in the country in which they reside. Evidence shows that laws that restrict abortion don't guarantee low induced abortion rates: Nearly one-half of all abortions worldwide are performed in countries that allow abortions only in very limited circumstances.2 While abortion rates are high in Eastern European countries such as Russia and Romania where abortion is legal, they are also relatively high in some Latin American countries, where the procedure is highly restricted (see Table 1).3

Full article and tables at link.

by Cristian - YouAct and Youth Coalition Mon Dec 19, 2005 18:28 cristian at youthcoalition dot org

Way to go! This is how we all have to do to demand our rights!

Nobody than the women herself should be able to take such a decission.
Our responsability is to inform corectly the women in need and provide, if the women decides, a safe, legal and afordable abortion service.

by Sara Mon Dec 19, 2005 20:20

"Nobody than the women herself should be able to take such a decission"

That is like saying nobody but the Jews should have been concerned with Natzi Germany.

What about the child being killed? Do they have a say?

by pat c Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:44

"That is like saying nobody but the Jews should have been concerned with Natzi Germany.

What about the child being killed? Do they have a say?"

no its not, you are making a false analogy. the womans body contains the embryo (not a child) and she is the one who will take all the risks and face all the danger. it is her individual right to choose.

as for being involved in campaigns, no one says it should be just women. many men are pro-choice and involved (just as men are anti choice and involved).

anyway i hope we can agree on opposing war, racism and the Orange march in Dublin.

Happy Newton Day.

Pat

by Brénoc Tue Dec 20, 2005 18:13

"17 women are forced to leave Ireland every day to avail of abortion services outside the State."

You forgot to mention the 17 unborn children who will lose their lives as a result of these trips. That's seventeen extra-judicial killings against those who are totally innocent.
The modern abortion industry has been built up, for and by, those who want RIGHTS WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITIES.
It is the ultimate act of a consumer that society that sees EVERYTHING as a commodity, including human life. If you want a baby, they believe, you should be able to exploit the oversupply in the Third World to buy them over the Internet. If a child is an INCONVENIENCE, they want to choose to terminate that life, as if it was a magazine subscription they were no longer interested in.

If we accept their logic, then we are all mere commodities to be bought and sold at some one else's convenience and the concept of Human Rights is worthless.

by Elizabeth - Bay Area Communities for Reproductive Rights Tue Dec 20, 2005 22:10

Keep it up! And don't feel isolated- we, who fight for reproductive rights, which includes abortions, have an enormous job ahead of us, but there is no going back. You should know that In San Francisco, that bastion of liberal progressive thought, the Archdiocese of San Franciso is convening 5,000 anti-choice activists...
and for those individuals who insist on equating abortion with muder, youre wrong. It isn't. Abortion is not murder. Abortion is Abortion. It is its own act. And because the needs of women are so little understood, it follows that something as specific to them, would also be misunderstood and mis-classified as a mindless act of violence, which is what murder is (and abortion is not). I've had an abortion and it was absolutely the right thing to do-

by Toni Mendicino - Radical Women Wed Dec 21, 2005 01:30 rwbayarea at yahoo dot com

Wonderful to see your campaign for winning reproductive rights for women in Ireland! Our rights are under attack in the U.S. every day by the religious fundamentalists and the government , with poor women and women of color being hit the hardest -- every woman should have the basic human right to control over her own body without interference from the church or state. As a member of Radical Women, a socialist feminist activist group, It is heartening to be part of an international movement for reproductive justice and fighting for all our needs to be met, not just those of big business and warmongerers: free childcare, healthcare, decent jobs, peace, paid maternity leave, no forced sterlizations, quality safe contraceptions on demand, and so much more. We join you in solidarity and hope to work with you in this crucial struggle. Bravo to the young people spearheading this effort!

by Joana Wed Dec 21, 2005 15:49

I just love to see active young people stating their opinions: this is why we have built democracies.

Congratulations for your idea and courage to stand up for the legalisation of abortion!

You are making heard the sound of the voices of all women all over the world who need to hide and feel ashamed by making a unlegal and unsafe abortion.

It is a matter of public health and human rights, not of morals in our conscience - we need to be safe and respectuful of peopl's choices!

by A O'Byrne Wed Dec 21, 2005 21:12

I had a look at the photos of the inaugural BODY demo in front of the Dáil.
I only counted nine people in total actually taking part.
Some of the faces were the same old and tired ones who have been harping on about abortion for years.
Hardly a dynamic, new and youthful campaign!

I also notice the arguments on this site haven't progressed beyond the Neanderthal slogan "A Woman's Right To Choose", so nothing new there either.

Given that the Irish have voted in several referendums to reject your principle objective, abortion on demand, how does BODY propose to change the minds of 4,000,000 people?

by pat c Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:07

there were more than 9 people on the demo, that was reported in the it. as one of the old tired faces, i'd like to point out that all of the youths there are new to the campaign. joe higgins td who isnt visible in the photos was also in attendance.

the irish people voted in favour of the right to travel and the right to information on abortion, they voted against rolling back the x case ruling. in 2002 when another attempt was made to roll back the x case ruling this was also rejected.

by Sara Thu Dec 22, 2005 17:07

If the pro choice people had the courage to look at the truth they would do so

by pro choice lady Thu Dec 22, 2005 17:40

I looked at the ultrasound scan before my abortion. I was 7 weeks pregnant. The foetus resembled a kidney bean.

If you don't like abortions - don't have one! Just don't restrict other people's right to choose!

Reproductive rights are human rights!

by weapons of mass distraction proliferator Thu Dec 22, 2005 17:47

where on the screen is a breathing, thinking, sentient human being?

its a trick question, so becareful how you answer.

in the ultrasound: where's the breathing, thinking, sentient human being?

by Sara Thu Dec 22, 2005 19:50

"If you don't like abortions - don't have one! Just don't restrict other people's right to choose!"

And if you don't like slavery don't own one but don't restrick others

by Sara Thu Dec 22, 2005 19:52

As a medical professional if I was able to show you would you change your mind?

Surgical abortions can not be done to 8 weeks hotshot.

Look at one at 8 weeks and you will see for yourself.

Try getting the facts

by weapons of mass distraction proliferator Thu Dec 22, 2005 20:31

again, where on the screen is a breathing, thinking, sentient human being?

found a shot of 8 weeks, plus 6 days - so it should be easier for you.

by Sara Thu Dec 22, 2005 21:28

It's there (easier to see in a better ultersound)

What you can't see is brainwaves, working orgins, fingerprints, nerves (baby feels pain)
DNA, and it's own blood type.

Just because we can't see it (on todays machine it would be much cleaner) doesn't mean it doesn't exsist.


Go on killing you natzi.
You kill babies, that is a fact

by weapons of mass distraction proliferator Thu Dec 22, 2005 22:13

Sara

'Go on killing you natzi.
You kill babies, that is a fact'

sigh... I thought you want to have a discussion.

The thing is Sara - and I told you it was a trick question - you fell for it.

Like so many of those in the so-called 'pro-life' movement you forget not just what is in the picture, but also the bigger picture.

The Correct Answer
to the question: 'where on the screen is a breathing, thinking, sentient human being?'

- The woman, whose uterus the ultrasound is of.

You were so obsessively focused on the little blob of cells you forgot there was a female involved - and by extension, you forgot there was a male involved, too.

You also know nothing about this female.
Is she 24? or 54? or 12? Would that matter to you?
Does she have a job? Rich or poor? In college about to graduate?
Has she had kids before? Will this be her first kid? or potentially her 12th and does want or can't take care of more?
Who was the father? a loving boyfriend? a rapist? a turkey baster? does that matter to you?
Maybe she is in Africa and has the HIV virus and does not want her child to suffer with AIDS
Maybe she is married, maybe not.
Maybe the pregnancy was a choice, or not.
Maybe the father will be there always for her, maybe not.

You don't know - and frankly, I doubt you really care.

For you presume to know what is best for the rest of us - to take choices away from people who best know how to run their own lives.

Yes, it is a complicated issue - that's why people like you need to stop meddling in other people's business.

by Sara Thu Dec 22, 2005 22:33

"Maybe she is in Africa and has the HIV virus and does not want her child to suffer with AIDS"


So a mom can make the decision if their child with AIDS lives or dies???

by Grammar Police - Grassroots Dissent Thu Dec 22, 2005 22:58

There is no T in nazi.

by random domran Fri Dec 23, 2005 02:59

The debate over abortion always seems to centre upon what the foetus is considered to be; pro-life groups view it as an individual human being from the moment of conception. I disagree with this.

Embryos can split post-fertilisation, sometimes more than twelve days after the moment of conception - they become monozygotic twins. But if an embryo carries the potentiality of becoming two humans, then it can't already be one human. It's impossible for a life to begin at conception, because the example of monozygotic twins means that whatever it is that creates an individual human being hasn't yet happened. The embryo is not yet a life; it carries potentiality, but it is not a life.

So what do we know, then? We know that the coming into existence of a human being is definitely not at the moment of conception, and definitely not for the first twelve days. It occurs at some point after that, and I won't attempt to pinpoint the exact stage. I will note, however, that the concept put forward by the pro-life movement is flawed and cannot be true.

by pro choice lady Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:14

"As a medical professional if I was able to show you would you change your mind?

Surgical abortions can not be done to 8 weeks hotshot."

Well surely as a 'medical professional' you have heard of something called a medical abortion. The abortion pill (RU486) can be used up to 9 weeks.

by Setanta Fri Dec 23, 2005 16:24

It always amazes me how people get so rattled about this. I mean, it's not something to get that rattled over if it does not affect you directly. And certainly does not grant sufficient ground to resort to baiting and childish name calling. Sarah, you made some very good points and then you go and throw it all away by degrading all reasonable sense and calling someone a nazi.

People are complicated creatures and you should defend their right to an opinion as you would expect yours to be defended. If someone does not agree with you it does not automatically mean they are wrong.

That is a big problem in this debate. People are so emotionally charged on on the rigeous paths that a sensible debate is yet to materialize that does not decend into the type of anarchy we have here.

Abortion to me is a personal question and not something for society at large to dictate. I'm pro-chice personally. I think women should have the right to choose. If you are against abortion that's fine. You don't have to go for an abortion if you ever find yourself pregnant. I don't think anyone should have the right to dictate to others what they should do or not do in any situation (within reason obviously) or that anyone should have the right to force their beliefs or ideas of right and wrong onto others. I am doubly amazed at men who are out there protesting. I really don't think that this is a male issue. Sure the father should have some consultation but it's not really a man thing is it.

I have a baby son and I love him and his birth has not changed my perspective on the issue. I'm still pro-choice.

by sara Sun Dec 25, 2005 16:08

"Well surely as a 'medical professional' you have heard of something called a medical abortion"

As a Pro abortion person you have heard of the people dying from RU486

So much for safe

by Safety - Safety Tue Dec 27, 2005 17:49

Under certain circumstances, childbirth isn't safe, but you would never claim childbirth was murder or that it ought not to be engaged in- deaths from childbirth, RU-486, abortion are not indicators that the thing that caused death are somehow immoral...you look at the causes and make changes from there...in the case of RU 486, I know that here in America, a 19 year old died because, when she noticed she was bleeding and cramping heavily, she called the dispensing clinic but failed to heed their call to come back into the clinic to get looked at and cared for! She didnt follow the clinic's instructions to come in and get looked at!

by pat c Tue Jan 03, 2006 17:08

An interesting report in todays Irish Examiner. No doubt the "lifers" will be enraged. Its good to see that the HSE is taking its responsibilities seriously.

pat

*******************************
"State paid for teen’s abortion abroad

By Shaun Connolly Political Correspondent
THE State paid for a teenage girl to travel abroad for an abortion in 2005, the Irish Examiner has learned.

The Health Service Executive, which succeeded regional health boards last autumn, confirmed a teenager had been taken to Britain for an abortion.

The HSE would not discuss details of the case to protect the anonymity of the girl in their care, however, a court order was secured for the termination.

If females in care have been victims of rape or incest, health boards, and now the HSE, can make court applications to take them abroad for abortions.

It is not clear on what grounds the 2005 termination was sanctioned.

The Labour Party has again called on the Government to fulfil the promise it made in March 2002 to legislate for the Supreme Court X Case after the abortion referendum it called failed to clarify the position fully. "

Full story at link.

by Shannon Wed Jan 04, 2006 18:01

It is unbelievable to me that a country would legalize abbortion for very specific circumstances, but not bother with legislation that would alow their doctors to preform the opperations.

While personally, I am pro-life, I believe very strongly in legalizing abbortion. Many politically pro-lifers focus purely on the unborn child, and suggest that abbortion is murder. They refuse to take into consideration that the pregnancy has a huge impact on the woman carrying the unborn child. It's as if the woman loses all rights to make a medical decision about her body as soon as she conceves.

by redjade Thu Jan 05, 2006 13:24

Slovak-Vatican abortion deal criticised by EU experts

Slovakia has been challenged by EU legal experts over an agreement with the Vatican, aimed at reducing the number of abortions in the country.

The Guardian reports that Bratislava has come under EU fire for signing a 2003 draft treaty with the Roman Catholic church, allowing doctors in catholic hospitals to refuse to carry out abortions.

The EU’s Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, a group of member state analysts created by the European Commission, has indicated Slovakia could be "violating its obligations" as an EU member, according to the UK paper.

The Slovak-Vatican "concordat" would enable health workers in hospitals founded by the catholic church to refer to "conscience" grounds in saying no to women demanding abortion or in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

more at
http://euobserver.com/9/20629

by Brénoc Tue Jan 17, 2006 22:08

"While personally, I am pro-life, I believe very strongly in legalizing abbortion"

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S LOGICAL!
What kind of mind thinks that you can be pro-life and in favour of legalising abortion.
This is obviously a pathetic attempt by a pro-abort to confuse matters, instead of trying to put forward their own arguments.
If you have nothing intelligent or logical to add to this debate, perhaps you should just shut up and read!

PS The word is spelt abortion, a bit more research needed there.

by booms Wed Jan 18, 2006 00:57

I would consider myself pro-life and pro-choice. I do not think it is anybody's business, and certainly not the state's, to intervene in whether a woman wants to carry through on a pregnacy or not. The choice is for the people involved to make - that should mean both people, but usually means just the woman. I would hope that the decision would be for birth rather than termination, but if anything has been shown by Ireland's experience over the last twenty five years on this subject is the futility of marching the state into the womb. The point is not whether one believes that abortion is right or wrong, but rather can the state sucessfully intervene on this matter? From Ireland's example, the answer is no.

by joanne Sun May 14, 2006 22:06

I am a 22 year old woman. I am in a monogamous relationship and I use two forms of contraception. Despite my best efforts to avoid pregnancy there is still a small but not insignificant chance that I may become pregnant. I have taken adequate steps to avoid pregnancy. Why should I be faced with the prospect of an expensive and clandestine trip to Britain if I was unlucky enough to become pregnant despite all this? Why should I be forced to travel home again shortly after a medical procedure (which would be inevitable not having the money for an extended stay)? Wouldn't that put my health at risk? I don't want to have an abortion but until fail-safe contraceptives are developed I need to have the option.

by tomski Wed Nov 01, 2006 22:58

Poor you, why should I be forced to drive under the legal speed limit when I have taken ample steps to ensure that I will not be killed in the event of a crash? The reason is I may kill other human beings.

If you ever become pregnant what will have happened inside your womb is not the unfortunate cancellation of your beauty therapy appointment but rather the beginning of another (as in someone else, not just you) human being's life. Is that a dogmatic statement, am I being judgmental? Unless the science of embryology is dogmatic and judgmental, no.

The right to choose is the right to kill another human being. If you were to argue against this statement you could only do so by disregarding science (especially genetics and embryology) and common sense and appropriating for yourself the ideology of dogmatic self-determinism.

The real question is this, is it right to kill innocent human beings? I am pro-life and my answer is no. If you are pro-choice you are inconsistent if your answer is no too.

If someone wishes to bring the philosophy of "person" into the debate and ask them to conduct an etymological investigation into the origins of that word, originally Greek for "face" (prosopon) and later used as a theological tool for discerning the nature of Jesus Christ (c430 council of chalecedon). Never intended to discriminate against any human being.

by lesser of two evils... Thu Nov 02, 2006 01:54

The trouble with all those YD types is that they want to ban contraception, divorce and they are generally Catholic arseholes...seems to me that they're preoccupied with curtailing clandestine sexual activities! I don't believe their real concern is for human life (although there are probably some good hearted individuals). At the same time, I don't like the idea of abortion...at some point in the pregnancy the bunch of cells is a separate human being, with, feelings and possibly thoughts. I have carried a full term pregnancy and I defy anyone to tell me that after 5 months there is not a separate person inside you. How about abortion being an option for an unplanned unwanted pregnancy up till 12 weeks? It seems that late term abortions come about by first injecting something into the womb to kill the foetus before inducing the dead baby. If somebody decides that they don't want to be pregnant anymore at a late stage in their pregnancy as happens, then labour can be induced and the baby adopted. That is my tuppence worth...

by ab06 Mon Feb 25, 2008 01:02

Hello. This goes out to the person who asked where the living human being was in that ultrasound image.

First, the lumpy white shape is the baby. The thin white and black lines next to it make up the umbilical cord. Next, that baby has had a fully functional cardiovascular system for over a month. It also has working abdominal organs, muscles, and lungs. The embryo’s brain can even be assessed by ultrasound at this stage.

Now that we have this little bit of knowledge, let’s have another look at this discussion, shall we?

by elizabeth Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:22

when I was younger and growing up in this infernal country of sexually repressed males who converted their
fear of women's bodies into a sacramental marriage they adage was 'keep your rosaries off our ovaries'
I think it is time we had:
'Keep your cameras out of our wombs'
stop using imagery for propagandic purposes and understand unless you are Solomon, it is not your right
to decide that the mother's life is less than the foetus-because it is not your right to invade the body of a woman
with your cameras to justify your misogony.

by ab06 Mon Mar 03, 2008 00:50

If you think ultrasounds are performed as propaganda, you are sorely mistaken. Ultrasound is a life-saving diagnostic tool. Also, just because a person is prolife, that does not make them anti-mother. Prochoicers have this notion that prolifers do not care about the well being of mothers. We care about ALL life, meaning that fetuses should be included in that group, since they are, in fact, life.

by elizabeth Mon Mar 03, 2008 09:50

I clearly said that the use of 4d imaging to justify anti-woman misogony by those that
believe a woman has less rights than an unborn is wrong.

in RC canon a mother is defined as someone who carries a foetus in her womb-
doesn't matter if she is nine- 16.

there is a difference between diagnosis (which can be utilised to justify medical abortion
not currently available as legal right in ireland)
and pro-life groups who voyeuristically disect and propagandise the female womb to
justify their hatred of women which is disguised as respect.

The pro-lifers who stand on the streets of my city waving aborted fetuses in the face
of my daughter and refuse to sex educate their children are anti-woman.

pro-life use 4d imaging to talk of the beauty of life in the womb, while at one and the same time
supporting the visual use of aborted foeutus, anti-woman language and Canon to justify
resisting the human right to abortion in this state.

Face it- you look into women's wombs because you do not respect the privacy and dignity
of the female. diagnostic imaging is not a tool of negative anti-female propaganda.

by Mark C - Males (who don't hate females) Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:49

I'm delighted that there is such a device as ultrasound, and, although I don't want to speak for her, I believe my wife is too.

Without ultrasound we may not have known that she was having twins (a higher risk pregancy than singletons), much less that they were mono-chorionic (a higher risk pregnancy than di-chorionic), much less that there were mono-amniotic-mono-chorionic (a very high risk pregnancy indeed (1-in-70,000 chance of having this type pregnancy) which leads to many premature babies (amongst other worries) - ours were 7 weeks early and had to spend their first month in a SCBU - Special Care Baby Unit - but are thankfully home now and seem healthy, although I should add that they are due to go back for a scan check something else. Ah, benefits of scanning technology).

I also hope/believe that my wife did not feel "invaded" by having an ultrasound every second week by a male (of all things) doctor and having her male (of all things) husband looking on.

Best Wishes,
Mark.

by C Murray Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:33

and I agree with you. The place for diagnostic imaging is in the hospital with the people
who are trained to read and act on the images. I , as many women ,have had the tech used
in the course of our pregnancies. We would show the images to partners, family and
friends.

The 4d image and ultra-sound is a tool for diagnosis.

In the case of high -risk pregnancy or in the case of chosen abortion, or in the case
of medical induction of a foetus the images are sometimes all that is left for people
in the grieving process- I consider their use by people who highlight the positives
of birth and partruition and cannot speak of the negatives to be abhorrent and
to be an invasion of familial privacy.

I would add to that that their utilisation on the streets of dublin and in cinemas
to further a pro-life agenda lacks empathy for those of us who have suffered loss
and at best shows a complete insensitivity towards women and extended families
who have had stillbirths and or foetal death syndrome.

not to mention the guilt involved when confronted with highly financed campaigns
which ignore the issues of abortion and choice that are consistently discussed
on this newswire.

http://www.safeandlegal.blogspot.com
http://www.choiceireland.blogspot.com

by ab06 Wed Mar 26, 2008 22:10

Last time I checked, abortions were not on the list of basic human rights. I do, however, recall LIFE being on there. Some people's opinions of prolifers absolutely apalls me. Do you honestly think that we encourage women not to have abortions in order to punish them? That is inane. Also, by definition, prochoicers should support any choice the woman makes. Have you ever seen any centers for women (having troubled pregnancies) that offer services excluding abortions? Yes, there are lots of those. Well, are any of them headed by prochoicers? None that I have seen. In fact, there are a large number in my city alone that are strongly supported by the Catholic Church. There is another point to be had here. Childbirth is not easy, and it can be dangerous. However, it is an integral part of human life. Have you ever heard a woman say, "wow, I wish I would have had an abortion. I really don't like this baby?" I think not. On the other hand, the larger part of women who have abortions regret them. Also, having an abortion can cause health problems. The incidence of breast cancer is higher in these women. The chances of having a successful pregnancy is seriously decreased if the woman had a previous abortion. I understand that people have different opinions, but you can't argue with the facts.

by Niav - Choice Ireland Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:12

"On the other hand, the larger part of women who have abortions regret them. Also, having an abortion can cause health problems. The incidence of breast cancer is higher in these women. The chances of having a successful pregnancy is seriously decreased if the woman had a previous abortion."

This is all completely untrue and is another example of how anti choice people will blatantly lie and deliberately mislead women about the effects of an abortion on their health.

Overall, studies of the long-term physical effects of abortion based on groups of up to several thousand women show that abortion does not affect subsequent pregnancies or reduce fertility. Some of the one or two women in every 1,000 women who have a serious abortion complication may experience reduced fertility or may be unable to conceive again.

Several studies have shown that having an abortion does not lead to psychological problems. Although women may regret having to have an abortion the vast majority find that they have no emotional problems after it. A small number - about three per cent - have long-term feelings of guilt and some of these feel that the abortion was a mistake. But for these women the unwanted pregnancy was usually one of many problems in their lives, and these problems continued after the abortion. There is some evidence that for most of these women not having the abortion would have made matters worse.

Many women feel relieved once it is over and, looking back, view the decision to end the pregnancy as regrettable but necessary.

Several studies have provided very strong data that induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. Also, there is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) in most of the studies that have been published. Scientists invited to participate in a conference on abortion and breast cancer by the National Cancer Institute (February 2003) concluded that there was no relationship.

by HEBGB Mon Mar 31, 2008 22:42

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/02/26/pro-death/

by KP - me Thu Jan 20, 2011 04:19 Kandi07 at aol dot com

I would have to disagree with the statement that people don't use abortion as a form of birth control. Besides rape, what do you call abortion when a woman and a man have not taken the proper precautions to not conceive? Birth Control... Because she and he were irresponsible either about taking birth control or using protection, at that point it is an immediate form of birth control.... Should be called Plan C.... I do not believe in it for that reason... And I believe that a woman should only be allowed to have one MAX 2 abortions in her life and I think it should have to be for a good reason.... Not because oops I didn't a condom ... but because someone rapped me... or because She is going to have an ectopic pregnancy and by continuing the pregnancy could possibly harm mom and baby. I personally no someone that got an abortion because they weren't responsible enough to wrap it. or take the morning after pill....... Open your eyes and don't be close minded.... I personally don't believe in abortion for myself unless medically necessary... I don't believe in abortion really at all.... but I also know that I am not everyone else and cannot make a decision for everyone else.

by More fact than fiction Thu Jan 20, 2011 14:49

KP, I’m sure your favourite song in the karoke bar is probably ‘papa don’t breach’ and wailing, ‘I’m gonna keep my baby!’
Your opinions are based on some gossip you picked up:
"I personally no someone that got an abortion because they weren't responsible enough to wrap it..."
(Sure maybe they didn't have XXLL condoms with them that night).

You also don’t mention the man’s responsibility which is common amongst pro-lifers who are always putting the blame on women and never wonder where some of the men are when it comes to crisis pregnancies i.e. they’ve absconded and don’t take any responsibility either if a teenager gets pregnant. Also most people would know that Contraception does not ensure 100% protection against pregnancy. But you would know this if your opinion was based on fact and not fiction.
Also the fact that foetal abnormalites cannot be detected until a woman is 20 weeks pregnany, ectopetic pregnancies can result in a woman’s death, the issue of cancer as in the recent case of Michelle Harte, and there are many other reasons why a woman might need an abortion and they’re all personal. No one should continue with an unwanted pregnancy if they don’t want to. Put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a change.

But very good news for women with Boots recent announcement that they are now offering the Morning after pill.

by Mr Man Thu Jan 20, 2011 15:32

"And I believe that a woman should only be allowed to have one MAX 2 abortions in her life and I think it should have to be for a good reason.... Not because oops I didn't a condom ... but because someone rapped me... or because She is going to have an ectopic pregnancy and by continuing the pregnancy could possibly harm mom and baby."

Ok, so woman gets raped over a number of years, and aborts two kids, but the third time she gets pregnant by her rapist she is out of luck? What is this arbitrary MAX number?

"what do you call abortion when a woman and a man have not taken the proper precautions to not conceive?"

The contraceptive pill, nor condoms are 100% protective aainst pregnancy. In fact, of all the contraceptive choices available, none are foolproof and a pregnancy can result, not from 'improper precautions' but throught the virtue of chance.

KP, I respect the fact that you recognise the validity of opposing arguments and allow for alternative views to be heard. As such, I will venture that the agumentative point here is the definition of abortion as birth control. Many people, inculding myself would not consider abortion as a means of birth control, mostly for the fact that the vast majority of right thinking people would not think "ah sure, if I/she gets pregnant, there's always the abortion option". However, if you are going to be finickety, technically it IS a form of birth control in the fact that you are controlling your own birth, and this viewpoint, equally valid, is also held by many people.

This can be argued for days and days, but the crux of all these debates is not something that can be wrought out logically. The concept of termination and whether it is permissable or not is not a black and white situation and depends largely on ones own moral and ethical relativism. Both arguments have their valid points, and neither are wrong. In the end, what will determine the outcome of any legislation will be what it has always been - democratic - If the country turns to a state where the majority of voting public thinks terminations should be allowed, since the moral and medical stances are equivocal, then it will be allowed, just as it has been disallowed in the past.