“Ireland must enact an abortion law” orders the European Court of Human Rights

As expected, the European Court of Human Rights has just ruled against the Irish State’s refusal to enact an abortion law. The ruling is precise and appears to dismiss the Irish government’s case in detail, adding that the State has  failed to uphold a woman’s constituional rights.  RTE reports that :

the ECHR concluded Ireland had breached the woman’s right to respect for her private life given the failure to implement the existing Constitutional right to a lawful abortion in Ireland.

The woman had feared her cancer would relapse as a result of her pregnancy. In Irish law, an abortion is permissible if there is a risk to a woman’s life.

The court found that the only non-judicial way to determine the risk to a woman’s life is the ordinary medical consultation between the woman and her doctor, but that this was ineffective.

It also found that the courts in Ireland were not appropriate for the primary determination of whether a woman qualified for an abortion.

The judgment also stated it was unclear how Irish courts would enforce a mandatory order for a doctor to carry out an abortion, given the lack of information given to the ECHR by the Government regarding lawful abortions carried out in Ireland.

The court also pointed out there had been no explanation as to why the existing Constitutional right to an abortion had not been implemented to date.

The woman was awarded €15,000 in damages.

As the rulings of the court are binding, it is now likely the Government will have to implement a woman’s right to an abortion if her life is at risk.

No doubt the Court ruling will be taken as another European stick to beat Ireland with (although the ECHR is not part of the EU) and is bound to feature in some form in the general election. Will any party face the reality of the end of a virtual ban or will they try to deny their legal obligations and continue supporting the hypocrisy of an Irish solution to an Irish problem which is described below? And what will be the ripple effect in Northern Ireland?

Statistics published by the UK department of health said some 4,422 women gave Irish addresses at clinics in 2009, down from 6,673 in 2001.

The HSE crisis pregnancy programme said the abortion rate of women giving Irish addresses dropped from 7.5 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 (in the UK only) in 2001, to 4.5 per 1,000 women last year (in the UK and Netherlands).

Most women who travelled to the UK for abortions last year, were aged 20-29 (2,398 women). A total of 38 girls under the age of 16 and 155 girls aged 16 and 17 who had abortions last year gave Irish addresses. A total of 258 women aged 40 and over also travelled to England and Wales for abortions.

Of those women giving Irish addresses, some 68 per cent terminated their pregnancy at between three and nine weeks’ gestation.

, , , , , ,

  • DC

    Good call.

    Leaving aside the cancer situation in the above case, any government in the EU should not have a health service run to theological outlook – that is to say the dominant Christian relgious beliefs held by politicians in both governments north and south should not also dominate the health service and restrict its services in this way.

    People have sex out of acts of love but passion and lust also – and what of it? Who are they to then rig a health service to God’s supposed outlook that protects the right to life, because the right to life they are upholding could cancel itself out if in the same breath if such people were told that the procreation was actually from the motive of ‘a sinful act’ (well sinful in their eyes); that is to say the baby was actually conceived in an act of lust or passion.

    The biggest deceit in all of this is the way such politicians attempt to augment their own power base by promoting their morally correct behaviour and righteousness – yet in the same breath don’t let on that they too have been up to stuff in their own private lives – like getting caught out doing ‘acts of greed and lust’.

    Think the Robinsons as a case in point. Claims of lining ones own pocket over property deals and indeed that of Iris commiting adultery. Nuff said.

  • pippakin

    Good result. The rights of women have been long ignored by government and church. A pity it took the European courts to do it for us.

  • slappymcgroundout

    “The rights of women…”

    Given the 1+/1 ratio of women to men, more human females are aborted than males. How’s that for the “rights of women”?

    Oh, and DC, not everyone who objects to abortion does so on a religious basis. You might try reading:

    J Reprod Immunol. 2004 Apr;61(2):67-77.
    Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase expression is restricted to fetal trophoblast giant cells during murine gestation and is maternal genome specific.

    Pharmacologic inhibition of indoleamine 2,3 dioxygenase (IDO) activity during murine pregnancy results in rejection of allogeneic fetuses by the maternal immune system. Here, we show that IDO expression is restricted to perinuclear regions of primary trophoblast giant cells (TGCs) of fetal origin at mid-gestation (E10.5). After placentation (E14), no IDO expression was detected at the maternal-fetal interface. Matings involving IDO-deficient females revealed that paternally inherited IDO alleles were inactive in primary TGCs, presumably due to paternal genome-specific gene inactivation. Allogeneic matings in which both parents were genetically IDO-deficient produced litters of normal sizes at normal rates compared to IDO-sufficient parental mice, implying that compensatory or redundant immunosuppressive mechanisms protected allogeneic fetuses during gestation in IDO-deficient mice. Consistent with this notion, treatment with IDO inhibitor did not affect allogeneic pregnancy rates when both parents were IDO-deficient, confirming that IDO was the relevant pharmacologic target of the IDO inhibitor in matings involving IDO-sufficient mice. Hence, IDO is a key immunosuppressive mechanism in normal murine pregnancies, and it is regulated entirely through maternally inherited fetal genes.

    So, for the cruel irony here, the mother’s own DNA provides her child with the means of defending self against the autoimmune attack that would otherwise be made by the mother’s own immune system during the pregnancy. I’ll let you discern for yourself why abortion is appropriate when life of the mother is not at risk in light of the fact that the mother’s own DNA has provided her child with a protection against mom’s own autoimmune response, i.e., at the autoimmune level, mom has already coded for life, so why is your conscious mind in favor of destroying that life?

  • DC

    why is your conscious mind in favor of destroying that life?

    It isn’t; but, who am I to prevent others from having an abortion in Ireland after they have made up their minds to proceed with one and are forced to travel to Britain for it?

  • hfmccloy

    Human rights violations in regards to article 6 and 8 are not upheld domestically despite ruling from the human rights court in family law courts Ireland for children,

    It will be very interesting to see if the same is applied to abortion

    The biggest question I would have on this is where are the human rights of a unborn child, where is their human right to life ? is there a ruling?, a human right of a fair trail ? is their a ruling?

  • Turgon

    A few points worth noting here:
    1). Two other women did not have their right to an abortion upheld
    2). It is stated that the woman feared her cancer might relapse due to her pregnancy. I am unclear (and we may not know) whether this fear was regarded as with good grounds by the women’s doctors. If not then her fear alone may not constitute grounds to suspect that her life was at risk from the continuation of the pregnancy.
    3).The idea that a court could “enforce a mandatory order for a doctor to carry out an abortion” is also interesting. If no doctor felt that the procedure were appropriate or no doctor were willing to do it then it is difficult to see what the court could do. After all a court forcing a doctor to perform such an abortion would be infringing that doctor’s rights.

  • Alias

    The pro-life lobby are under the impression that the judgement isn’t enforceable in Ireland but they obviously didn’t read the Lisbon Treaty. The EU took on a legal personality in that treaty and can now join the Council of Europe as a contracting party and sign the ECHR, and has duly declared its intention to do so. Since EU law takes precedence over Irish law, the EU’s Court of Justice (ECJ) will accept the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights and they will duly become a part of EU law with all member states obligated to abide by them. Therefore Ireland gave up its sovereignty over its abortion law in that regard in the Lisbon Treaty.

  • Neville Bagnall

    @ Turgon

    In the two cases that were turned down, the life of the mother was not in danger when they traveled to the UK, and that fact was determined before they travelled. The ECHR in rejecting them, held that the legal distinctions in Irish law are compatible with European Human Rights.

    The ruling seems to say that the Irish Government has failed to vindicate the rights in the Irish Constitution, by failing to provide an appropriate process for the third woman to determine (in Ireland and without a court case) whether her life was in danger, and whether an abortion could be procured in Ireland if it was (as would be her right if it was)

    I’m not sure that abortions would have to be made available in Ireland under this ruling, even if a finding of life risk was determined. Paying for it in the UK with the treatment purchase fund might be vindication.

    But it might require changes in the medical ethics rules. IIRC part of the problem in the case was a medical suggestion that the cancer could come back and kill her, but nothing concrete because consultants feared being brought before the medical council if they recommended an abortion.

    Pure hearsay, but I’ve heard that such unofficial suggestions are common when there is a risk to the health, never mind the life of the mother or child. The official position of the Medical Council is, I believe, that the scenario envisioned in the constitution, a risk to the life of the mother, never, or so rarely occurs that recommending abortion could involve malpractice. Hence the fudging.

    @Alias
    There is no applicable EU law in this area, therefore it would never come before the ECJ. The ECJ can only apply the ECHR to areas of EU competence, just as it can apply EU law to only those areas. This area has been specifically excluded from EU competence multiple times including in the Lisbon Treaty.

    The ECHR is incorporated into sovereign Irish law by statute. The Irish Courts (per our own act) are required to apply the ECHR in Irish law as far as possible. If there is a conflict between it and the Constitution, the Constitution is higher law and overrides it, but if an Irish law (constitutional or statute) can be interpreted in a way that complies with the ECHR, and in a way that doesn’t comply, the Oireachtas has decided that the law should be interpreted in compliance.

  • Alias

    Neville Bagnall, you’re completely mistaken on all counts. The EU’s Court of Justice defers to the European Court of Human Rights in human rights as defined in the ECHR so as to to avoid a conflict between the two courts. In all cases, the ECJ brings the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights into European law.

    When the EU joins the Council of Europe and becomes a contracting party to the ECHR, as the legal personality granted to it in the treaty allows it to do, the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights will have the status of European law. All of its precedents will be formally adopted as the precedents of the ECJ, and will thereby become European law, and EU law takes precedence over national law.

  • Alias

    And as you are not aware, the judgements of the ECJ have the status of EU law. Ergo, the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights will also have the status of European law when they are incorporated into the ECJ as its precedents.

  • Alias

    And for your further edification:

    “Protocol No. 14 of the ECHR entered into force on 1 June 2010. It allows the European Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights.[7] The EU’s Treaty of Lisbon, in force since 1 December 2009, permits the EU to accede to said convention. The EU would thus be subject to its human rights law and external monitoring as its member states currently are. It is further proposed that the EU join as a member of the Council of Europe now it has attained a single legal personality in the Lisbon Treaty.[8][9]”

    And here is this extract:

    “The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is not related to the European Court of Human Rights. However, since all EU states are members of the Council of Europe and have signed the Convention on Human Rights, there are concerns about consistency in case law between the two courts. Therefore, the ECJ refers to the case-law of the Court of Human Rights and treats the Convention on Human Rights as though it was part of the EU’s legal system. Even though its members have joined, the European Union itself has not, as it did not have competence to do so under previous treaties. However, EU institutions are bound under article 6 of the EU treaty of Nice to respect human rights under the Convention. Furthermore, since the Treaty of Lisbon has taken effect on 1 December 2009, the EU is expected to sign the Convention. This would make the Court of Justice bound by the judicial precedents of the Court of Human Rights and thus be subject to its human rights law, resolving this way the issue of conflicting case law.”

    I will make this point as clear as possible since it sailed right over your head in the post you responded to: EU law, as determined by the ECJ, takes precedence over Irish domestic law and over the Irish constitution. When the precedents of the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights become the precedents of the ECJ they will also take precedence over Irish domestic law and over the Irish constitution. One of those precedents will be this ruling on abortion.

    If you didn’t understand it that time then I can’t make it any easier.

  • Neville Bagnall

    @ Turgon

    Regarding Court Orders to carry out an abortion.

    It’s a question of balancing private conscience against public duty isn’t it?

    They would be being asked to perform a legal medical procedure. At worst a legal killing, something states and courts sanction in time of war and in defense of life. The doctor can always retire if they feel unable to perform that public duty.

    But what about doctors being ordered to perform mutilations in countries where it is legal and accepted or doctors refusing to treat someone despite being ordered to because of the patients race or infection. Any moral compass will have very different reactions to Court Ordered Medical Procedures, depending on the details.

    Medical ethics, culture and law will always throw up these types of problems.

    I wouldn’t like to see a Court Order forcing an individual doctor to go against their own conscience where an alternative is available, but then I expect enough medical staff could be found, even in Ireland, without risking a contempt of court.

    Further, the people have decided that the right to life of the unborn is not absolute. In fact, to put it crudely, they’ve put a pretty low price on it. Just do it abroad. Whatever you think of that, they also want women to be informed. I might not like it, but I can live with the current hypocritical principles. The people are sovereign. But the current situation does not meet even the low standards enshrined in the Constitution.

    I can understand individual conscience seeking relief from legal obligation. I don’t accept that the Medical Council should be allowed to establish rules that run counter to the Constitution and that actively inhibit doctors from performing legal actions that they are willing to do and that the people have positively requested they do. That is, to provide information, which I would have thought included an unambiguous prognosis and a clear medical recommendation.

    If that is their effect, as anecdote and now case law suggests, the Medical Council’s rules seem designed to prevent them hearing something from practitioners that they don’t want to.

  • Neville Bagnall

    @Alias

    You’ve missed my point. The Irish/EU legal relationship isn’t changing. Nor is the ECHR/Irish relationship. Only the ECHR/EU relationship.

    EU legal precedence over Irish law is limited to EU Competences. This matter is not an EU Competence. Its specifically excluded. Having a legal identity and the individual competence to join the C. of Europe as a member and sign the Convention in its own right does not give the EU competence over all areas on which the ECHR hears cases.

    Precedent of a higher court overrides precedent of a lower court, true. In some instances the ECJ is the next higher court after the Supreme Court, but not always. It is EU Statute and Treaty Law, not case-law, that overrides Irish Law, because the Irish Constitution grants it precedence. There is no EU Statute or Treaty Law in this area because the EU has no competence in this area. Which completely removes the EU and ECJ from the equation. This is a sovereign Irish matter.

    There is EU statute law and ECJ case law in regards to other areas we are not party to. Also in regard to areas the UK and other countries are not party to but we are. EU law does not override domestic law in non-participating member states because the EU does not have competence in those matters in those member states.

    Where Ireland has competence I can take Ireland before the ECHR, because its a signatory. Where the EU has competence I will be able to take the EU before the ECHR. Because it’ll be a signatory. Before I could only take a case to the ECJ, which tried to be consistent with the ECHR in its judgments. The ECHR will act as a HR watchdog on the EU where previously it couldn’t.

    Whether I take the EU or Ireland will depend on the area and who has competence. The areas of competence will not change when the EU signs up.

    These 3 women took Ireland before the ECHR rather than the EU before the ECJ because its an Irish area of competence – a sovereign Irish matter.

  • This ruling, which engaged Article 2 ECHR (right to life) might confuse some anti abortionists who will point out that an unborn child has human rights. The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that a foetus is not a human being

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3878135.stm

    This ruling only directly affects the extremely rare cases where the woman’s life is threatened. It does not support the clamour for change in the abortion laws generally. What about other parts of the convention?

    Article 3 (freedom from torture and degrading treatment), Article 8 (the right to respect family life) and Article 14 (freedom from discrimination) are the much more likely to drive the development of abortion law and pressure to change the abortion laws in Ireland.

    There was a case in Poland where a woman brought a case under all each of those rights. She won her case but only in relation to Article 8.

    http://humanrightshouse.org/noop/page.php?p=Articles/7884.html&print=1

    I have not read the full judgment on that case, so wont add to that.

    It will probably take quite some time for the case law to really put pressure on the Irish Legislature. For the forseeable future, those trips across the Irish sea by women seeking abortion treatment will continue.

  • Sean Og

    I believe that Neville Bagnall’s interpretation of the implications of this Judgement is correct.

  • pippakin

    Hmm. As far as I can tell I’m the only woman to comment on this thread.

    The judgement does not go far enough to give women the right to choose which should always be theres but it is a step in the right direction.

  • pippakin

    Here is a man in a frock pontificating on what the government can or cannot enforce:

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1217/abortion.html

    If Brady had any decency in him, which he does not, he would have slithered under some rock by now.

  • Alias

    “You’ve missed my point.”

    You are confusing a point with misinformed europshile gibberish. The judgements of the ECJ have the status of EU law which takes precedence over Irish law and its constitution, and all of the ECJ’s precedents form a body of EU law. When the precedents of the European Court becomes the precedents of the ECJ they will also become EU law, taking precedence over Irish law and its constitution. It is not required that any case in human rights should be heard by the ECJ for that to occur so competence to hear those cases is irrelevant. As already pointed out, the two courts avoid a conflict by the ECJ acceding to the judgements of the ECJ in human rights law (which is the regional supranational version of human rights law and not the universal version of it)

  • Alias

    Typo: “…the two courts avoid a conflict by the ECJ acceding to the judgements of the European Court in human rights law…”

  • Alias

    “The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that a foetus is not a human being.” – SM

    And the Irish constitutional amendment of 1983 (now Article 40.3.3) declared that the unborn child is a human being with the full rights of an Irish citizen.

    European ‘human rights’ law has no moral authrority since it exists in opposition to universal human rights law and is an attempt to curtail those rights to a regional agenda.

    Any so-called human right that rejects the right to life is by definition not a human right but a perversion of rights and a debasement of human life. Any such document would be rejected by all right-thinking people.

  • DC

    Interesting RTE clips – one guy calling for a referendum on it – surely part of the problem is that a minority group of people or those with highly individualised circumstances have been denied access to health services as a result of the tyranny of the majority?

    How could a national referendum address these individualised concerns?

    Also referendum = referendumb!

  • pippakin

    DC

    Agreed, I can’t understand why anyone would think the subject of abortions should be decided by referendum, especially when as long as the RCC has control of most of the older generation that generation will do as its told and vote against.

  • joeCanuck

    I wish there was no need for an abortion anywhere, at any time.
    But I fully support a woman’s right to decide for herself after, presumably, considering all of her options.
    The government has to act. Rights cannot be decided by referendum otherwise you end up with the Dictatorship of the Majority that DeToqueville warned about 160 years ago. Rights
    are absolute.

  • HeinzGuderian

    Pro choice !!!!!

  • Alias

    Joe, human rights law doesn’t violate sovereignty of nations, so all nations decide whether or not to ratify the various conventions. Much as you might long for it, there is no global government to decide the rights of people and to impose them. Therefore sovereign nations will continue to decide the issue.

    The EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe’s ECHR on which it is based both accept that the right to life is a human right. Nowhere is it stated that a human being is the disposable property of another human being, so the type of freedom to kill that you long for does not exist in human rights law but only in the national law of some states.

    Part 2 of the EU’s new constitution makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding on member states in the EU’s supranational law, giving the ECJ the authority to decide human rights in all areas covered by the Charter. However, the nation retains the sovereignty to remove itself from its obligations by revoking the treaty that gives effect to it so the fundamental principle of sovereign nations remains unchanged.

    The EU is a political organisation, not a human rights project so neither it nor its institutions should have any role in deciding what human rights are or how they are to be qualified. A biased court such as the ECJ will interpret and qualify the rights in Charter in accordance with its obligations to promote the EU’s interests under the Treaty of Rome, and that is what it has consistently done in other areas, so your rights will be whatever your highest constitutional court (the ECJ) declares them to be. In effect, you have no ‘fundamental’ rights at all. That is in stark contrast to universal human rights. As it is politics, it’s about power, not rights.

    The Irish Constitution should not be rewritten by a corrupt court against the will of the nation, and it’ll be interesting to see how much of that is allowed to occur before the nation exercises its sovereign right to revoke the consolidated treaty.

  • joeCanuck

    Alias,

    Thank you for that explanation.

  • Alias

    And thank you for not saying that it was a rant. 😉

    The shorter version is that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not a list of human rights but a list of constitutional rights since they are determined by a supranational body with a legal personality and are interpreted and imposed through its constructional court on its citizens, just like states determine constitutional rights in that manner.

    Human rights are universal, whereas the UCHR is regional, applying only to the 37 European states that have ratified them. There is no reason why Europeans via the Council of Europe should have a separate body of rights that exist in opposition to universal human rights as determined by the 193 member states of the UN, and plenty of reasons why they shouldn’t.

    We need to remove these political projects and only ludicrous treaties and conventions as there is more than enough government and confusion already…

  • andnowwhat

    I am mostly with Turgon on this. I do not do so from a religious point of view though.

    The lack of responsibility is killing the UK and the ROI. It was my own mother who taught me responsibility when it came to sex (among other things).

    Abortion allows abdocation of personal responsibility to the state. Funny how the supporters of abortion react when the state becomes involved in people’s private life in other ways.

    Abortion a feminist issue? Surely feminists should be sending the message of pride and taking care of oneself.

    I donot come from an “every life is special” perspective but from a position of social and personal responsibility.

  • joeCanuck

    there is more than enough government and confusion already…

    Alias,
    Have to agree with that. There seems to be a whole mess which Is why I have opposed a seperate BOR for N.I.

  • pippakin

    andnowwhat

    I’m not in favour of the imo obscene ‘abortion on demand’ but there are exceptions: life threatening illness, rape, incest etc. I believe it is up to each woman to decide on very personal and vitally important issues.

    A long time ago in an Opera House a stranger and I started to chat. She mentioned abortion in the third person of course. At first I was cool and dismissive, and then suddenly I knew exactly who we were talking about. It was quite a ‘tightrope’ as I tried to give my opinion and at the same time not give it for fear of imposing my opinion on hers.

    It must have been over a year later in the same theatre a woman appeared, grabbed my hand, thanked me and assured me she would never forget me. She then rushed down the aisle to her seat. I stared, it took me a few minutes before I remembered where we had met and what we had discussed. I am thankful I remained non committal and let her talk it through. Btw I don’t know what decision she came to but I know how much it meant to her.

    Sadly, even in London, for some women there is only the rare moment of kindness from a stranger.

  • joeCanuck

    The simple fact is that some women, for different reasons, will have abortions. Such being the case, I would rather that they have it in a regulated medical environment rather than allowing an unqualified person poke around inside their bodies in an non-sterile environment with a metal coat hanger.
    It is disgraceful for a Government to say well it’s ok if you want to but you have to go to another country to have it done so we can do a “Pontius Pilate” and say “Nothin’ to do with us folks”.

  • andnowwhat

    Pippa, of course I agree with abortion on those circumstances. What woul;d happen though if girls pretended they were raped to get free abortions? I know it is horrible but, frankly, I put little by this generation.

    We have the morning after pill and such, so I feel that there is provision given the right support.

    I just want society to say to the young and whomever, sex is fun, it’s great crack (now, be mature) but, as you would with riding a motorbike, put a helmet on.

    I have no moral stones to cast but I do have when it comes to social responsibility. I messed about big time but I took the precautions.

    As I said before, I am not indulging in the right to life issue here, i am indulging the social and personal responsibility agenda.

    If you fall down I will pick you up, if you throw yourself down I will walk past you

  • joeCanuck

    Has a girl who is slipped a GHB dose fallen down or thrown herself down?

  • andnowwhat

    BTW”, off topic but I cannot start blogs, the very first ever AIDs patient was, apparently, cured the other day using stem cells.

    I would love iot if someone could put a blog up about that.

  • andnowwhat

    Please do not bve silly Joe.

    Extremes are no place to base a debate on.

    The man who gave it to her and had sex is a rapist!!!!

  • slappymcgroundout

    Some handy-dandy info from here in the US:

    “1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).”

    On that note, andnowhat is correct and so here’s Joe peddling the standard absurdity, to wit, using the 1% of abortions owing to incest or rape to justify the 93%.

    To continue:

    “47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.”

    I can’t help but presume that andnowwhat wishes to speak with some about notion of personal responsibility, since maybe there ought not be a second time. And note also the “at least”, so for some it’s number 3, or 4, or 5.

    Now, to add to my prior remarks about mom coding for life, well, women are entirely different than men in one fundamental respect. The male testes continuously generate sperm from puberty until late in the game, as it were. Not so with women. Women are born with all of the eggs that they will ever have, matter of fact, women lose more than half of their peak store of eggs before they are even born. So tell me, those saying that the unborn female human isn’t human, if she isn’t, then why is she producing human eggs and why does she have more eggs before she is born than after?

    So there can be absolutely no mistake:

    “In contrast to males, the initial steps in egg production occur prior to birth. Diploid stem cells called oogonia divide by mitosis to produce more oogonia and primary oocytes. By the time the fetus is 20 weeks old, the process reaches its peak and all the oocytes that she will ever possess (~4 million of them) have been formed. By the time she is born, 1–2 million of these remain. Each has begun the first steps of the first meiotic division stopping at the diplotene stage of meiosis I.”

    So, again, DC, this isn’t about God, but about our biology. The mom codes for life and her unborn 20 week old female child has more eggs than female humans of any other age. You’d think there’d be a lesson there…

    Next, Seymour, but form two groups. One, your child or children. And two, the members of the court. Ask them what they see here:

    http://www.medicinenet.com/fetal_development_pictures_slideshow/article.htm

    I can tell you what your child or children will see. You see, while I was growing up in West Hollywood, California, over on the other side of the Hollywood Hills, out in the San Fernando Valley, in Van Nuys, an abortion clinic was disposing of aborted humans in a dumpster out back. That discovery was made when some discovered that some of the neighborhood children were playing with the aborted humans after having retrieved them from the dumpster. With a look of shock and horror on her face, the local network affiliate newswoman said that she had asked the children what they had been doing. Their reply: “Playing with little people.” So, as I said, I know what your child or children will say, as I already heard the one newswoman tell me what they said one evening while I was eating dinner while watching the evening news. Some things one never forgets…

    Lastly, hear this soul speak on how at the same gestational age, there’s an operation to correct a spinal problem, in one pregnancy, while with the next one, someone’s killing the unborn human:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raQy3LPrM9M

    So, Samuel Armas gets surgery to repair his spine in utero, while the other child gets ripped to shreds. Oh, and Seymour, if not human, just was the Dr. operating on when he performed the spinal repair? And don’t say “fetus”, as that is a term that defines state of development, and so there is human fetus, cow fetus, pig fetus, etc. The fetal pigs that we otherwise dissected in biology lab looked like pigs to me. Didn’t mistake them for any other mammalian species.

  • slappymcgroundout

    By the way, here’s some info on a friend of mine from Los Angeles who is looking for his birth mother:

    http://registry.adoption.com/records/166281.html

    He’s anti-abortion as well, since as he so aptly put the matter way back when, If abortion was legal when my mom was pregnant with me, I likely wouldn’t be here speaking with you now. On that note, we as a society need to do everything we can to ensure that all pregnancies are desired, and when not, we need to incentivize the giving of birth.

    Sorry, for one more, for some trivia to lighten the mood, my man Mike was adopted by Umeki Miyoshi and her then husband. Miyoshi was the first Asian to win an Oscar, for best supporting actress for her role in Sayonara. She also played Mrs. Livingston on the old American television series, The Courtship of Eddie’s Father.

  • joeCanuck

    slappymcgroundout ,

    Are you a man or a woman?
    I don’t peddle anything. I don’t like abotion but i believe a woman has the right to decide on her own health and wellbeing. nothing more, nothing less.

  • pippakin

    SMGO

    The last thing Ireland needs is the opinion of anyone from the American pro life lobby. The vast majority of women/girls take the decision desperately seriously.

    Abortion has always been available if the woman had enough money, including in America.