Abortion turndown is a constitutional issue


The ruling in the English High Court against free abortions for Northern Ireland women in England comes as no surprise. Have campaigners legally examined the situation in Scotland? This now seems like a case for  the Supreme Court where the issue would be: Are devolution powers superior to  UK  equal citizens’  rights? An aspect of the judge’s comments intrigued me:

He ruled that Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s duty to promote a comprehensive health service in England “is a duty in relation to the physical and mental health of the people of England”, and that duty did not extend “to persons who are ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland”.

Does that mean the English Health Secretary’s duty does not extend to “persons who are ordinarily resident” in Scotland and Wales, where unlike NI the Abortion Act applies, but also applies to their treatment in England for their physical and mental health generally? Has the idea of a universal health service been entirely abandoned?

, , , , , , , ,

  • DogInTheStreet

    This is a worrying precedent. Does it mean that a NI person who lives in England can be denied cancer care for example because they can get it in NI instead?

  • carl marks

    It would appear to be official, those who live in the colony don’t have the same rights as British citizens (and before anybody starts its obvious that the British legal system regards those who live here as second class citizens),
    When the idea for a bill of rights was going the rounds a few years ago Jimbo said it wasn’t needed as all citizens of GB had the same rights, seems he was wrong certainly if you’re a women or gay you don’t have the same rights as a women or a gay person in England.
    We need a bill of rights here and for god’s sake nobody consult Jimbo for advice.

  • Brian Walker

    Dog, That’s the question arising from the judgment as reported – but I wonder if it really means that. There are plenty of examples of cross channel and cross border treatment too. Needs clarification

  • Ní Dhuibhir

    If legal avenues aren’t getting us anywhere and we’re reliant on political leadership to secure proper NHS abortion provision for women from here, then Cameron inviting the DUP around to frolic with his children over canapes is not a good sign. It was his need for their votes that scuppered the last attempt to get this issue debated at Westminster.

  • Taoiseach

    Killing an unborn child is a serious criminal offence in Northern Ireland. That is a matter for Northern Ireland Assembly. This is just one more attempt by the pro-abortion lobby to circumvent our laws. They always try “guidelines” and the courts when they cannot drum up political support with their bogus hard cases.

  • Coll Ciotach

    Seems pretty straightforward to me, the 1967 Act allowing abortion did not apply here and that is that. The English will not pay for those who cannot accept democracy.

  • carl marks

    Terrible isn’t it when people try to get the same rights as others and have the cheek to take it to court, bet Martin Luther King had the same thing sprouted at him.

    Don’t really know how to explain this to you, but democracy includes the right to change things and the courts are there to give us the option to challange bad laws.(that’s why we have a law against rape in marriage)
    But of course you are right the anti-choice lobby has never used the courts to attempt to change those laws they disapprove off.

  • Taoiseach

    Carl amusing of you to talk about democracy and the right to change things and then proceed straight to court to overturn democratic processes. The abortion industry has always operated by stealth and by lying. I watched arch-abortionist, David Steel the other night talking about how 20 or 20 women died every year from illegal abortions before his act came in. He seeks to balance that against multiples of millions of unborn children killed for reasons of convenience.

    People should have the same rights and unborn children in Great Britain should have the same right to life as unborn children in Northern Ireland, not flushed out coz their mother is going on a skiing holiday or has fallen out with the father.

  • carl marks

    Delighted I amuse you, but surprised that you don’t seem to understand the concept of the courts acting as a balance to legislators (the courts have forced politician’s to change the law in the past because those laws were not constitutional)
    That is how the system works and it is what we call democracy, interesting that you seem to think that all laws are written in stone.
    Off course I am sure that this is a principled stand you are taking and will take this opportunity to condemn the protesters who gather outside the (completely legal) Brooke clinic and those protesters who have tried to get the courts to close the clinic, after all they are doing the exact same thing as the pro-choice lobby, and while I disapprove of their biblical intolerance I support their right to approach the courts.

    and this bit.
    “People should have the same rights and unborn children in Great Britain should have the same right to life as unborn children in Northern Ireland, not flushed out coz their mother is going on a skiing holiday or has fallen out with the father.”
    Really is this bit of silly hyperbole the best you can come up with?

  • Newman

    Carl Marx..governments make laws..courts interpret them. Courts are not meant to change laws to fit in with their own views. Occasionally, other laws such as the ECHR have an influence on our existing leal framework and courts have to balance such factors.If devolution means anything, however, then it must allow for a local legislative assembly to deal properly with devolved matters. This latest case is palpably a further attempt to reduce the impact and effect of exiting laws on abortion in Northern Ireland. You cannot have a la carte devolution or we are back to direct rule. Further abortion is not a human right under the ECHR.

  • carl marks

    To say the least this issue is contentious, and people have the right to challenge laws which they think are unjust, claiming that to challenge laws (which incidentally were made by the old Stormount before home rule or devolution) and attempting to bring us into line with the civilised world is an attack on devolution is a bit strange,
    Can I take it that if those in Stormount who are creationists decide that all children should be told that the earth is only 6000 years old or that women cannot be teachers because that is what the Bible tells them, then to challenge these laws is an assault on devolution?
    I thought that Devolution was meant to allow us to do our own thing and change when needed not to slavishly follow the past.

  • carl marks

    (which incidentally were made by the old Stormount before home rule or devolution)

    should of course read,

    (which incidentally were made by the old Stormount before direct rule or devolution)

  • Newman

    Carl..No question that the issue is contentious, but while people may challenge what they believe an unjust law the answer cannot be for the courts to change the law. Judicial activism is in itself anti democratic and we do not want unelected judges deciding what is best for everyone. The line can be blurred at times but one must at least begin with the general principle. Change can of course occur but in NI terms we effectively need consensus.There is no evidence that any of the concerns you raise would ever remotely attract such a consensus and with respect they are a little far fetched. To suggest however that access to abortion is a sign of a civilised society touches upon a foundation issue for many people who view the life of the child and the life of the mother as equally worthy of protection. Despite the efforts of various UN Committees the idea of a reproductive rights will never gain the necessary traction to sit alongside the pantheon of other universally acclaimed rights. Roe v Wade in 1973 was truly a Judge made law and it remains the single most controversial decision in US legal history.Can you think of any decision which regularly attracts half a million people to Washington on an annual protest? Hardly the sign of a universally acclaimed right. Abortion based on choice will always be resisted by those who seek the common good. To do otherwise is to deny our humanity and yield to a worldview which sees personal opinion and autonomy as the supreme virtues.For all the alleged freedom of the sexual revolution it has produced much bitter fruit and abortion is at the top of the list. Did we ever think that no one would look sideways when the reason for abortion is gender selection as was recently demonstrated in England.

  • Coll Ciotach

    and here was me believing that the case was not about interpretation of the law on abortion in this region but whether anyone in the UK has a right to avail of abortions in England as a health issue, They haven’t. This will deeply upset the abortion referrers here as they cannot use this to supplement there revenue stream.

  • carl marks

    The judiciary free from political influence is in our society one of the safeguards of a democracy,
    as to my examples being farfetched while I admit the one about teachers is, let’s be honest many of our politician’s would love creationism taught as a fact, however they were there used as an examples of how stupid it would be to allow politician’s free rein without legal oversight.
    . Abortion based on choice will always be resisted by those who seek the common good.
    Just another way of saying that those who disagree with me are bad people!
    And for those seeking the common good they are a vicious and insensitive group (ranging from verbal abuse of young girls attending the brook clinic to bombings and murder in the USA) hardly the sort of people working for the common good.
    And I should point out that the sexual revolution did not invent abortion (it has been with us for a very long time) but instead took it out of the hands of back street abortionists and helped eliminate the horrors of that trade.
    As to the claim that reproductive rights will never gain traction well I would disagree with that and I am not alone.
    The anti-choice movement is noted for basing its arguments which are both emotional and quite inaccurate ,
    It should also be pointed out the fact that what we are talking about here is extending the rights of women here the same as those in England.
    And to be honest if those same rights were extended to Northern Ireland then the anti-choice lobby would be going through the courts and I presume with your support.

  • Newman

    Ahh Carl you exemplify post modernism so well.Every person does what is right in their own eyes…there is no objective truth just my personal opinions and unbridled autonomy.

    We will disagree, but I did allow myself a wry smile about the “anti choice movement basing arguments which are emotional and inaccurate” The stock in trade of those who are pro abortion is to focus on hard cases. That is how we got the 1967 Act. And now we have Doctors who pre sign forms without knowing the details of the individual seeking the abortion and abortion being legally permitted for such dreadful birth defects as a hair lip right up to term.

    David Steel alleges he had no idea that the floodgates would open, but open they did and the argument has then shifted to personal choice because the appalling vista of hundreds of thousands of abortions is so difficult to explain on grounds that the mothers health was in danger.

    Unbridled deference to choice has a range of unintended consequences but we dare not unpack the consequences of the decision because the full horrors of what was legislated would have to be faced. Abortion is a sad reality , an unintended consequence, a personal tragedy..it is not however a right as defined by any group who seek to preserve truth for all people of goodwill.

  • carl marks

    at least you have dropped your bogus claims to the moral high ground (to be honest it was sadly predictable) and I don’t remember claiming that the only morality is choice but feel free to try to drag us down another diversion.
    I liked the line,
    “The stock in trade of those who are pro abortion is to focus on hard cases.”
    Strange that the anti-choice lobby has such a problem with facts (which of course is what you mean) and for a grouping that claims to be concerned with the “common good” they seem not in the least concerned about the misery they cause.
    And this line,
    “..it is not however a right as defined by any group who seek to preserve truth for all people of goodwill.”
    Take yourself down to Brooke someday when those “people of goodwill” are screaming abuse at young girls.
    I am reminded of a poster I seen in the seventies which had a picture of a man with a stomach shaped like a pregnant women with the wording,
    “If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament”
    I cannot help feeling that this is less about concern for the unborn than about control over women,

  • Comrade Stalin


    Courts are not meant to change laws to fit in with their own views.

    In a common law jurisdiction such as the UK courts can and do create, interpret, and change laws. The only laws they cannot change are those created by an Act of Parliament. Devolved assemblies can all theoretically have their legislation overturned by the courts. The most likely event where the state of law on abortion would be overruled by the courts would be a conflict with the Human Rights Act.

    I would remind you that abortion is now legal in almost all western countries. Apart from Poland I don’t think there is anywhere outside of the island of Ireland where it is wholly illegal. Whatever battle it is that you think you’re fighting, you’ve already lost it, and it is simply a matter of time before abortion laws are enacted here too.

    Regarding the matter itself, I think there is a constitutional issue here. The courts have upheld the principle of devolved government and I think this was the right thing to do. Voters in Northern Ireland are going to have to vote for different politicians if they want this area of the law to change. We can’t start asking the UK government to selectively overrule the devolved government when it fails to act in the way that we would like.

  • Comrade Stalin


    Killing an unborn child is a serious criminal offence in Northern Ireland.

    Not necessarily. The law is ambiguous, that is why the Marie Stopes clinic is legal and that is why the courts ordered the Department of Health to issue guidelines.

  • Newman

    Comrade Stalin

    We will leave the principle of stare decisis for another day but there is no legal authority abortion has been deemed a human right in an decision of the ECHR. The nearest equivalent is Article 8 but I doubt that the court will go down the route of abortion as a human or so called reproductive right. The ambiguity in the law relates to the question of certification of mental health as the reason and was why guidelines were ordered to provide same by the Court of Appeal. I agree with you about the constitutional issue.

  • Comrade Stalin


    but there is no legal authority abortion has been deemed a human right in an decision of the ECHR

    No, but things change, and since we’re one of the tiny number of European countries where abortion rights are impeded, and in particular since Northern Ireland is part of a country where it is legal, it’s likely that we will see a challenge.

    I doubt that the court will go down the route of abortion as a human or so called reproductive right

    why do you doubt ?

    The ambiguity in the law relates to the question of certification of mental health as the reason and was why guidelines were ordered to provide same by the Court of Appeal.

    No, the ambiguity is much wider than that; otherwise the police would have raided the Marie Stopes clinic after it opened.

  • Coll Ciotach

    Absolutely nothing to see here, the decision was correct. Stormont decides how to spend its budget, and it allocates its health budget as it seems fit. The English have their arrangements and budgets. As we do not spend our money on killing children in the womb do we seriously think that we should be able to avail of the child killing service that the English wish to spend their money on, freeloadersrus? The judge quite rightly decided that was a nonsense. If this was allowed any region could decide not to spend money on any service and freeload on the others to provide it. Clearly not going to happen.

    If this was allowed it would allow Welsh and Scottish borders to be crossed by the English to demand free prescriptions. It would undermine the entire concept of devolution and the allocation of budgets to allow local govt to allocate them according to the needs and wishes of the region concerned.
    Of course our narcissistic liberals cannot, childish as they are, accept someone saying no and through their toys out of the pram. Too bad, so sad, I am glad.

  • Harry Flashman

    “The judiciary free from political influence is in our society one of the safeguards of a democracy,”

    And unless I am very much mistaken the judiciary has spoken and decreed that free abortion upon demand in England for residents of Northern Ireland is not available.

    It seems to me that whilst “progressives” are always very hot for using unelected courts to change laws that the democratically elected representatives of the people have drawn up, the traffic is always one way.

    Laws are free to be “interpreted” by a politicised judiciary, but a ploiticised judiciary can never be challenged by legislators on the grounds of judicial independence. Not so much check and balance as the judiciary believing it has the right to challenge the legislature but its own decisions once made must never be challenged.

    This is win-win for the left as they simply keep pushing the legal route year in year out until they finally get the result they want and then lo and behold laws are no longer open to interpretation but are now set in stone, never again to be challenged or changed.

    Like the old Afro-Marxist republics of the 1960s and 1970s;

    One man, one vote, one time.

  • DougtheDug

    Has the idea of a universal health service been entirely abandoned?

    Brian, you make the common mistake of thinking that there is a UK wide NHS.

    In 1948 three separate NHS services were created, one for England and Wales, one for Scotland and one for Northern Ireland. They have always been separate from long before devolution and in fact are now four services as England and Wales subsequently split into two separate national services.

    There never has been a “British” NHS.

    Costs for cross border patients are charged back to the original Health Service via service agreements so I assume if the Northern Irish Health and Social care servicer refuses to reimburse the English NHS for abortions then they have no obligation to perform them.

  • abucs

    ………..Whatever battle it is that you think you’re fighting, you’ve already lost it……

    ‘Battles’ are different from the ‘war’ Comrade. Unlike the secular, many of us do not see the law as the be all and especially end all of society.

    If you are enculturated in the ‘progressive’ culture, you are limited to thinking society will move in one pre-defined philosophical way.

    The most secular. progressive leading country of last century Comrade Stalin, is actually slowly moving back the (correct) way.


    Perhaps having spread her errors to the rest of the world, she is now becoming a beacon for civility and reason.

  • carl marks

    Interesting that you think a country that locks people up for speaking out, is controlled by criminals and likes to throw its weight about and threaten its neighbours is moving in the right direction.
    You should be careful about links to far right Christian websites they (as was proved last time we debated this subject) tend to egg the cake too much.
    I think C S is right, apart from a few remnants of the dark ages the rest of the world is moving on.
    Using your vision of God and your version of what he/she/it believes in as a central plank of your argument, at a time when the unbelievers outnumber any single belief group and are approaching becoming the majority in society is perhaps not the best tactic.
    The times they are a changing, it may take this backwater a bit longer to mature but it will.
    The Anti-Choice lobby no longer evens presents an argument based on reasoned debate but instead resorts to half-truths , shock tactics, and abuse, a sure sign that even they know they are losing.

  • Taoiseach

    “The Anti-Choice lobby no longer evens presents an argument based on reasoned debate but instead resorts to half-truths , shock tactics, and abuse, a sure sign that even they know they are losing.” Carl, I presume that was a typo and you meant “Pro-choice”.

    You accuse me of hyperbole after your nonsensical argument about creationist promoting teachers, and your attempts to link all those opposed to abortion with a tiny number of bombing incidents in America. You want facts – the facts are that millions of unborn children are killed every year for convenience. Not because their mother was raped, not because they are disabled, not because their mother has any problemmatic health conditions, physical or mental, but because their continued existence will be inconvenient. And if any of the wonderful judges had the integrity you think they have they would look at the application of the 1967 Abortion Act and declare that almost all of the abortions carried out under it are in fact in breach of the act.

  • http://redfellow.blogspot.com Malcolm Redfellow

    I’m late to the party again.

    I recall that, back at the time of the Devolution Bill — which would make it late 1998 — precisely this issue arose.

    The House of Lords divided over whether Scotland should have powers over abortion and euthanasia. The Tory and LibDem Lords argued for these to be not to be devolved, and lost.

    In that debate, too, a pledge by Lord [Alf] Dubs was quoted — that, as part of the devolving of law and policing to NI, abortion (and presumably euthanasia) should also be returned to the NI Assembly. Which is where we are now.

    I cannot help wondering if, as is implicit in Mr Walker’s intro, we should not be following the money. At the moment restricting any right of choice in NI can (and should0 be laid at the door of Stormont. Quite frankly, there is no great cost to the NHS to take on the small exodus of NI women seeking abortions in England. Moreover, many could, may well do and probably will conveniently establish English residency.

    Scotland, though, is a different magnitude. In 2012 in Scotland, there were 12,447 terminations. A third of these were not the first procedure, either.

    The SNP must have considered cuddling up to the Catholic hierarchy in exchange for #indyref endorsement. I’d also venture the SNP didn’t niggle over that for more than a few seconds, considering how it wouldn’t play with the “progressives”.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Sorry lads, you’ve gone into full-on dog whistle fruitcakery with your ranting about “progressives”, “secularists” “baby killing” and so on (the idea that the Soviet Union was even vaguely progressive, or that Russia is some sort of barometer of the likely direction of public opinion in the western world, has to be the biggest joke of the lot).

    I only hope your respect for the courts and the devolved government survives the inevitable loosening of abortion regulations that are likely within the next couple of decades.

    But more than anything else, I can only repeat once again – you’re losing your argument. It’s no wonder Bishop Donal McKeown felt the need to say ‘stop screaming over abortion’ because he knows as well as anyone that you guys are simply sabotaging whatever case you have left. All you are doing is underscoring the pro-choice case by ensuring the pro-life cause is more and more associated in the public mind with wild-eyed, spittle-flecked maniacs screaming at young women visiting family planning clinics.

  • abucs

    When the story of abortion is covered Comrade Stalin you have more than once come out with the line – ‘you’ve lost, stop fighting’. That’s not going to happen.

    The mention of the successor power of the Soviet Union (Russia) and its direction is to highlight that having introduced the divisiveness of manufactured morality into our universities last century, they are now in a unique position to

    1) know that it is bullshit and
    2) know how destructive to society it is

    Hopefully all of those brainwashed children of the west who were fed this Soviet manufactured culture – Comrade Stalin and Carl Marks, will come to realise that they have been had.

    The oppressed communities that suffered under the politics of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin have woken up.

    In 2014 I would have hoped that the western dupes of that oppression would have also.

  • http://redfellow.blogspot.com Malcolm Redfellow

    Slugger O’Toole is a workshop investigating extensions of Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies, with particular reference to the 20th century history of Russia. Discuss.

  • abucs

    If we create a new blog Malcolm then I’d be happy to discuss.

    On the issue of abortion I would just say that it took the insane Progressive Soviet Socialist view of mankind as no better than an animal to be ruled by an all powerful state to introduce the concept of state sponsored abortion to Europe.

    It took the insane animal view of the Progressive Nazi National Socialists to be the first to introduce the concept of state sponsored abortion to Western Europe.

    It took the take over of Western European education and media by Socialist Progressives to extend the insanity of state sponsored abortion as a human right.

  • carl marks

    Oh dear, would seem that there is no telling some people,
    Obviously since I use the name carl marks and CS use’s Comrade Stalin we are communist, secular, mass murdering, hate filled illogical dupes, didn’t I mention that failing to be able to present a proper argument the anti-choice side loves to go straight to personal abuse and hyperbole, (by the Abuccs I think you should know that Taoiseach is not really a Taosieach)
    LET us hear you defend this ridiculous statement!
    “Perhaps having spread her errors to the rest of the world, she is now becoming a beacon for civility and reason.”
    Really so you think Putin’s Russia is a Beacon,
    And of course the major Religions never killed anybody, didn’t mistreat children and unmarried mothers in a brutal and sadistic manner.
    Really Abuccs before you start to accuse any group or philosophy or wrong doing (murder, mass or otherwise, mistreatment or torture) then you would do well to look at the history of religion in general and Catholicism in particular and remember people in glass houses should not throw stones.

  • http://gravatar.com/joeharron Mister_Joe

    I imagine they do exist but I wonder where the “pro-abortion” people hang out. I’m 66 and have yet to meet one.

  • Comrade Stalin


    The reason I approach the argument in this way is because there is no way to rationalize with the contributors above on this issue. The door is firmly closed on the issue to the single-minded, almost obsessive attitudes articulated above. All that is left to do is to remind everyone that these attitudes are dying out in this country just as they have died out in so many others.

    The facts remain inescapable. Even in Ireland and Northern Ireland the existing regime is being chipped away, by legislation in the south and the opening of Marie Stopes up here; the availability of abortion pills over the internet are another hole in the dam. No western democracy is seriously considering reimposing abortion restrictions. No political party in the UK, including those waaay over to the right, could adopt a pro-life policy and be electable. Feel free to gainsay any of those facts if you want.

    The desperate attempts to draw comparisons with the Soviet Union and modern day Russia are symptomatic of the way this argument is approached. Claiming that the pro-choice side derive their views from communism is no different from claiming that Jimmy Savile was inspired by some of the priests in the Catholic Church.

  • abucs


    your parting analogy does not make much sense.

    People who support widespread government abortion do not go home at night and read the little red book of Communism. Nor do they say three Hail Hitlers to a National Socialist shrine.

    But the historical connection between where our societies are today with regards to abortion, and those insane philosophies pioneering such state sponsored murder is irrefutable.

    That alone should be reason to reflect.

    Ireland has not yet succumbed to the insane manufactured morality of last century and there are still today western states looking to reduce the circumstances and access to abortion. It is also likely that better scientific access to the realities of unborn children will only become clearer.

    There are reasons why in some Western states media are forbidden to screen abortions and yet are allowed to screen other forms of death.

    There is a definate disconnect between a growing section of European citizenry and politicians of all stripes.

    Insanity cannot prevail without the destruction of civilisation. We saw that with the regimes who spearheaded the philosophical origins of state sponsored government abortion.

    We will see it also with the intellectual inheritors of that madness.

    Ireland would do very well to keep its sanity. Many in Europe and around the world will continue fighting regardless of any regression by an Irish cultural cringe to a failed philosophical tradition.

  • carl marks

    I’m afraid that you shot your bolt when you made this quite ridiculous statement,
    ““Perhaps having spread her errors to the rest of the world, she is now becoming a beacon for civility and reason.”
    Which it is to be noticed that you now make no attempt to defend it!
    CS’s statement about Saville is relevant in that it shows how silly your stand is.
    Of course the old shout of; there be communists, is a classic of the Christian right, when they are unable to bring reason to the debate the red scare is always worth a try.
    But times change we in Ireland are slowly shaking off the influence of the Catholic Church, the horrors that was visited on our children is at last coming out into the open and the brain washing of children in schools is also coming to an end.
    A major tool in the armoury of the pro-choice movement is the manner in which the anti-choice group presents it arguments, in this age of Google it is no longer good enough to make sensational claims which have little or no founding in reality add to this the mixture of venom and self-righteous diatribe which they present as argument and you have a recipe for losing an argument, you have certainly not disappointed in this debate.
    Don’t put your hope in Putins Russia and any moves he is making to woo the Christian right, he has plans to restore the lost glories of Russia and this will involve a war or two and the church is always a good supplier of brainwashed cannon fodder for the battlefield and of course if you can convince your own population they are fighting a holy war then you get less trouble on the home front.
    So to summarise you can shout Communist or Fascist at the top of your voice (please do) all you like it just makes you look desperate and out of touch.

  • carl marks

    Remember what I was saying about the age of Google makes ir easy to prove an arguments bogus by giving us access to the facts, well a quick check of the history of abortion brings us back to the ancient Greeks and shows us he throughout the majority of history abortion has been legal and available,
    Sort of makes a nonsense of your fantasy that it was introduced by the old Soviet Union,
    You gotta love the internet, best bullshit detector ever.

  • Taoiseach

    Carl marks, notice in the midst of all the bluster, and dead-end debate about the Soviet Union no attempt to refute my central point that vast majority of abortions are for convenience and in breach of the 1967 Act.

    How do you know I’m not a taoiseach?

  • carl marks

    If the vast majority of abortions are in breach of the act, then it begs the question as to why no one has ever mounted a successful legal challenge.
    When you consider the lengths that the anti-choice lobby will go to oppose availability its stretches belief that such a well-funded collection of groups has not taken it to court especially if as you claim the law is being broken, so Occam’s Razor would dictate that the legal advisers to the various anti-choice groups have done their job and told the groupings not to waste their money.
    If you are indeed the Taoiseach then I must ask; why are you on slugger and not sorting out the problems facing the country, but I jest it was just my dig at Abuccs for taking the names used on slugger seriously and basing an entire argument around them.

  • Comrade Stalin

    But the historical connection between where our societies are today with regards to abortion, and those insane philosophies pioneering such state sponsored murder is irrefutable.

    The historical connection between where our societies are today with regards to road traffic deaths, and those insane philosophies which wanted to build long, high-speed motorways is also irrefutable.

    Your argument is ridiculous. Abortion was not a Soviet innovation. Change in western society in the 20th century, especially around birth control and family planning, is also not a Soviet innovation. Women demanded equality and these things are among the means they have to achieve it. I think that’s where your real problem is. You’re a man who thinks that women should be consigned to the status of incubators. That’s why your argument is lost, and cannot be won unless you foresee a complete reversal of these changes.

    These arguments about decadence and manufactured morality date back to when the RC church was trying to ban rock music. All I can say is – good luck with that plan.


    no attempt to refute my central point that vast majority of abortions are for convenience and in breach of the 1967 Act.

    No abortions in the UK that take place in under 24 weeks are in breach of the 1967 Act. Any pregnancy carries with it the risk that the life of the woman may be endangered if it continues.

  • abucs

    You try to equate the insanity of killing millions of unborn children with the building of roads?

    You try to call the killing of millions of unborn children a human right and those that object are branded as haters of women?

    Can there be anything more insane?

  • abucs

    The Communist Soviets were the first to introduce government sponsored abortion to Europe. As far as I am aware the Nazis were the first to introduce it to Western Europe. If this is incorrect then please tell me the European governments who introduced it before these two enlightened, progressive and oppressive murdering regimes?

    Just like building roads? God help us.

  • carl marks

    the new found concern for children which was nowhere to be seen when we discussed the widespread abuse of children by the church whose moral guidance from, I checked your profile not a word about the priests and nuns who done this and covered it up,
    Where your outrage was when the evil of the laundry’s where discussed?
    So no problem with abusing kids but a problem with women controlling their own bodies, I must admit Abuccs you are a textbook right-wing Christian.
    And I also note no attempt at a rational argument ,now try hard forget about Russia (it was silly and I hope you see that now)

  • carl marks


    Now your argument was partly based on Nazi Germany introducing abortion to Western Europe, here is one of those things called a fact (not made up propaganda but what really happened)
    “In Nazi Germany, the penalties for abortion were increased again. In 1943, providing an abortion to an “Aryan” woman became a capital offense. Abortion was permitted if the foetus was deformed or disabled.”
    So it would appear that the whole basis for your argument is bogus, really you would look a lot less foolish if you bothered to check your facts before you post.
    It would appear that you have more in common with Adolf and his cronies than those supporting the right to choose.
    But maybe I’m wrong so please explain how by legalising abortion the west slavishly followed the third Reich by doing the opposite to what they did.

  • Taoiseach

    The West has rendered a whole group of people (the unborn) “life unworthy of life”. They have been dehumanised in the same way as the Nazis did with the disabled, the elderly, the Jews – and then having duhumanised you can kill without mercy or conscience.

  • carl marks


    So the pro- choice section is like the Nazis,
    Let’s look at this, Nazis were right wing anti –choice, homophobic (you forget that hundreds of thousands gays where murdered in the death camps you also forget the trade unionists and socialists) and were into claiming
    that they were doing gods work.
    Now who does that remind you off, I will give you a clue it’s not the pro- Choice groupings (but I must admit that many moderate religious people are pro-choice)
    I believe I pointed out before the tendency of the anti-choice to engage in hyperbole instead of reasoned argument, and I’m still waiting for your explanation of why no one has taken it to court that the 1967 abortion act is being broken.

  • carl marks

    By the where is Abuccs he seems to be avoiding answering my questions?
    Which is strange I would have thought that someone as sure as he is about being right would at least have the guts to put up a argument but he has by his absence from debate admitted he is wrong!
    Maybe the whole facts thing puts him of!

  • Seamuscamp

    Reading what the judge is supposed to have said, I can see how conspiracies are so popular on Youtube. If ever a judge set up an Aunt Sally, this is one. He is in effect giving the NI Assembly extra-territorial rights. “If the Assembly says you can’t have an abortion over there, then you can’t have a free one over here.” Following this logic, if the Assembly fails to provide money for, say, a proper cardiac service, then if you drop down on the street in London with a heart attack, don’t look for an ambulance to take you to hospital unless you’ve got deep pockets.

    Much of what is said (both sides of the argument) is simplistic. “Pro-choice” sounds so progressive, so liberal, so modern; “killing babies” is morally loaded so as to eliminate any possible debate. Each side is trying to foist its own morality on the other, in the certainty of their own rectitude. The Divine Right of Certainty.

    For me, it isn’t that easy. In theory I oppose abortion where the pregnant person’s life is not at stake. And yet….. Who am I to judge? I cannot know the state of mind, the motives, the good faith, the stresses that bear on someone who cannot face having a child. If abortion means nothing to such a person, it isn’t any sort of sin to abort – and I cannot know. If abortion is genuinely the lesser of two evils for the person contemplating abortion, how can I know? And if I cannot know, how can I presume to judge.

    And we aren’t talking about theory, we are talking about people; often suffering people who are in despair. So how about a bit of Christian charity?