Uniting Ireland: no #abortion, no #equalmarriage

Some revealing attitudes in the debates on equal marriage and abortion either side of the border this week.

Last night the heads of the proposed Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 were published in Dublin (full details here courtesy of the Journal.ie). Initial reaction has been mixed on both the pro-choice and anti-abortion sides, with most emphasis on the decision-making process being resolved to unanimous agreement between three psychiatrists (not the six suggested during last week’s flag-flying exercise) in cases where the pregnancy, or circumstances of the pregnancy, is prompting suicidal ideation in the woman.

Not that that is particularly clear from the public debate around what is actually happening here, which is legislating to comply with the X and ABC case rulings, requiring clarity in the guidelines for doctors when a termination of pregnancy is required by medical circumstances, including where suicide is a risk. The Iona Institute and Life Institute, effectively religious lobby groups, are quoted by the Irish Times as emphasising the issue of suicide but representing it rather crassly as one where somehow abortion is being used as a ‘treatment for suicide’ (as opposed to something closer to my description above). On the other hand, pro-choice groups are still concerned that the proposed methodology is deliberately unwieldy and designed to put off women. They are also noting that in any case it is a medical practitioner, rather than the woman, who makes the decision on whether the pregnancy can be terminated and that the Act includes unduly severe penalties for anyone in breach. Many instances, such as a foetal abnormality, pregnancy due to rape or incest or non-viable foetuses still appear to be excluded by the proposed Act.

The most ironical references in the current abortion debate are by those who claim that any acceptance of legislation for terminations or abortions will ‘open the floodgates’. Reports of the most recent statistics, for 2011, show that 4,149 Irish women travelled to Britain for abortions in that year. That’s about 80 women a week, meaning all of the pressure being brought to bear to prevent legislation to even comply with the European and Supreme Court rulings on ABC and X is purely a vanity project to avoid official acknowledgement of the reality around abortion in Ireland.

In the parallel universe that is Stormont, further attempts to extend the right to be unhappily married equal marriage to gay couples has failed again. Patrick Corrigan, of Amnesty International, has identified the potential unBritishness of it all, saying:

“States may not discriminate with regards to the right to marry and found a family, on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. That obligation is clear in international law. This means that marriage should be available to same-sex couples in Northern Ireland just as it appears it soon will be in other parts of the UK… Should politicians fail to act, there could be a straightforward legal challenge on the basis of inferior treatment of same-sex couples in Northern Ireland with regards to the right to marry and found a family.”

There is provision for civil partnerships but not same-sex marriage in the south at the minute either, just as the abortion provision in the north (and the attitude towards it) is closer to the south than Britain. Amid the standard protestations over identity and economics (despite the fact that Stormont eternally and, Leinster House, regularly, relies on the financial kindness of strangers), public debates over issues like abortion and equal marriage reveal the shared moral values and conservatism that dominates society on both sides of the border. Uncomfortably for unionists, it exposes attitudes they hold dear that resonate very deeply in the south but barely, if at all, in Britain.

This is all the more ironic given that the parties that operate on an all-island basis like Sinn Féin, the Greens, éirígí, the Workers Party and People Before Profit all support the progressive rather than conservative side of the debates.

, , , , , , ,

  • aquifer

    This looks like a vanity project for anti-choice factions.

    Can the states really afford more less-loved children who are less likely to become useful taxpayers?

  • Great insights. Even if some are familiar, well worth revisiting these social issues regularly as attitudes and the law are changing at a rapid clip, particularly on same-sex marriage.

  • BluesJazz

    The simplest option, in either case, is to travel to ‘the mainland’. This suits all concerned -politically-, not the person(s) involved. But the wicker man politicians in Ireland (NI and Republic) can smugly wash their hands as the easy option is availble online or an easyjet flight.

    Abortion pills can be bought for under £20 on the net.

    Sadly, intelligent progressive-non patriarchal anti medieval bigotry pills are not yet available.

  • BarneyT

    Seriously…..do you think unionists from the official camp fall in line with Catholic and DUP thinking with respect to abortion and gay marriage?

    What I will call Anglicans, surely hold views on both of these issues that more closely aligns with those in Britain.

    Again, elements of the Unionist population not gaining true prepresentation in my view. Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly.

    I’d love to see the results of a female only poll across the island with regard to abortion. Yes I know fathers have rights but not enough to enforce the carriage surely…and therefore perhaps this can and should be for women to decide alone??

  • seamusot

    Come the 12th of July certain members of the unionist persuasion will march provocatively in unwelcome districts to blast their perceived inferior Fenian neighbours with the message “lie down croppies”. Whatever similar views on controversial subjects such as abortion and gay marriage with other folk on the island will be completely obliterated during this studfest. A beleaguered community reaches out for retention of traditional dominance – not reconciliation. Census trends, economic decline and educational deficits are the fundamental issues and matters concerning “morality” are incidental.

  • How is it progressive of Sinn Féin – or the Workers Party – to support ‘abortion’ on demand as the poster seems to advocate? He says that the statistics – 4000+ Irish women travelling to Britain for abortions per annum – doesn’t support the ‘opening the floodgates’ argument proposed by anti abortion advocates when in fact it proves that limited abortion always leads to more extensive availability. That’s what happened in the UK where up to 95% of those seeking abortions of their pregnancies claim to have some mental anguish because of their pregnancy in order to obtain the life-ending treatment. Britain has opened the floodgates – but that doesn’t mean we should open them in Ireland.
    As for same sex marriage, that’s a different matter. A life ends when there’s an abortion but that isn’t the case when two of the same sex join together in matrimony. I don’t think churches should be obliged to marry two of the same sex if that’s contrary to the beliefs of the church but then again I don’t see why two of the same sex would want to get married in a church that regards homosexuality as sinful (while some of its priests and clergy practice it behind closed doors). It’s touching, however, to see the concern of parties such as Sinn Féin, the Workers Party and the DUP for the unborn – and the mothers – when they tacitly or even explicitly supported murder campaigns over the years. In the case of SF, their IRA colleagues in arms infamously abducted and murdered single mother Jean McConville, orphaning numerous children.

  • oakleaf

    There is nothing progressive about abortion (unless done to save the mothers life).

    This talk about doing away with unwanted babies is disgusting. My beautiful wife was not wanted by here mother (as she was not able to cope) so was adopted and raised in a loving family. She has a good job and a lucky husband and we are in the process of creating our own family.

    Progressive me hole. Sinn Fein has two less votes in my house and I’m sure are losing more all the time from their traditional support.

    “Our revenge will be the laughter of our children”.

  • oakleaf

    Regarding the ‘c’ case. The young girl tried to commit suicide after her abortion.

    John I reckon you check out Kermit Gosnell to see how progressive this brutal form of eugenics is.

  • anne warren

    I have every respect for any religious principles an individual professes, whatever the religion.

    Laws on abortion and same sex marriage should be of no concern to people who hold to religious principles because those very same principles ensure they will never avail of such laws.

    That is no reason/argument for preventing other people, who do not share these views, from availing of them. What right have the religious to impose their views on others?

    I cannot understand why these principled individuals people seek to legislate so as to prevent other people, who do not share the same convictions, from making decisions that will not involve them.

    Exactly what principles are being invoked?

  • oakleaf

    What right has somebody got to end an unborn babies life?

  • anne warren

    Oakleaf – that observation is a non-sequitur. I notice you haven’t commented on same-sex marriages.
    let’s look at what really happens – not what some people would like to happen.
    As other posters have already pointed out an unwanted pregnancy will be terminated by buying a ticket out of Ireland,finding a clinic and accommodation in another country, purchasing pills over the internet and in the worst scenario by a backstreet abortion.
    Current legislation now ensures that European and Uk women now have only to cope with a difficult decision and its aftermath and not with any of these other obstacles and hoops.
    Why should others make different decisions for Irish women, north and south,(European and UK citizens) , forcing them to comply with principles they don’t agree with, fork out for additional expenses and oblige them to face up to extra problems?
    Exactly what principle is being invoked here?

  • oakleaf

    Regarding SSM I don’t really care either way.

    Domestic violence is an all too common fact of life in Ireland why don’t we make that legal as well? Your point being it happens so lets make it legal.

  • anne warren

    My point is not ” it happens so lets make it legal”.

    I aplogise for not expressing it more clearly.

    My point is that it is legal in the EU and the UK so why should Irish and British women living on the island of Ireland not have the same rights as other European and UK women?

    They are going to access them anyway.
    And what happens when they do?
    Do they go to gaol?
    Pay a hefty fine?

  • seamusot

    Anne Warren made a perfectly valid comment in terms of practical realities which some folk believe may be either ignored or changed. No chance.

    Seeking to use moralistic persuasive arguments in various Irish Airports to identify potentially pregnant women who have for their considered reasons to terminate a pregnancy to reconsider – lunatics on this planet need to check back with earth.

  • wee buns

    Pro-life and pro-choice:- ne’er the twain shall meet.

    So we have now legislation designed to make it as difficult as possible to have an abortion in this state – so probably still much easier to go to England and that’s the whole point – forget what women need – keep the Center Right happy.

  • Benjamin

    Oakleaf

    Indulge a newbie but where to you live ? (LGD)

  • Seamus

    “My point is that it is legal in the EU and the UK so why should Irish and British women living on the island of Ireland not have the same rights as other European and UK women?”

    FGM is legal in many different parts of the world. Does that mean we should legalise it here? It is insane to think that just because something is legal else where that it should be legal here. There is plenty of bad shit that is legal elsewhere.

    “Laws on abortion and same sex marriage should be of no concern to people who hold to religious principles because those very same principles ensure they will never avail of such laws.”

    Okay let’s start with the first fundamental mistake you made. It has bugger all to do with religion. There are pro-life atheists in the world and the abortion debate has started to shift quite significantly to a secular debate. Simply put it is a disagreement over when life begins. That isn’t a religious argument. We recognise that human life and human personhood exists otherwise we wouldn’t have murder laws. So it is an argument at what stage do they kick in.

    And that is why it isn’t a decision that every person can just make for themselves, live and let live type of idea. We don’t get to individually decide when human life begins and when it becomes wrong to kill. Because what happens when someone thinks it is okay to kill a 2 year old, or a Jew, or a Protestant etc because they have chosen for themselves that it isn’t a human person with human rights?

  • oakleaf

    Benjamin the answer to that question is Magherafelt.

  • oakleaf

    Wee buns this new law will be probably go to court and in a matter of a few years there will be abortion on demand untill the moment before birth.

    In GB 98% of abortions are carried out on ‘mental’ health grounds. It has become a form of contraceptive even though contraceptives are more widely available than ever before.

  • GavBelfast

    I DO wish the term “pro-life” was not used to describe those individuals and movements that are anti-abortion.

    Many (most?) of them come across as uncaring and quite vicious zealots who are in NO WAY pro-life when it comes to the already living.

    “Fundamentalist anti-abortionists” would seem more fitting.

    As to the situation on the island of Ireland, the dishonest fiction of a virtual ban, coupled with common knowledge, nods, winks and euphemisms for “trips to England” does, unfortunately, suit the political establishment – and its inherent cowardice.

  • oakleaf

    GavBelfast want a pile of biased rubbish you spout but it is typical of pri abortion crown.

  • oakleaf

    Pro-abortion that should be.

  • Comrade Stalin

    oakleaf

    Wee buns this new law will be probably go to court and in a matter of a few years there will be abortion on demand untill the moment before birth.

    Scare tactics and disinformation – abortion on demand up until birth isn’t legal anywhere. Are you spreading lies because the truth isn’t sufficiently compelling to persuade people of your case ?

  • Comrade Stalin

    Seamus:

    Okay let’s start with the first fundamental mistake you made. It has bugger all to do with religion. There are pro-life atheists in the world and the abortion debate has started to shift quite significantly to a secular debate.

    No it hasn’t. The “debate” is being led by the churches and by political parties who have a history of fundamentalist orthodoxy on social issues. The places where abortion is either highly regulated or illegal are the places where churches historically played a significant role in administering the country.

    The only “shift” in abortion, looking globally, is that prosperous western countries where people are educated tend to legalize it. That is why it is legal almost everywhere. There is no rise in a secular debate – history and the trends are all on the side of the pro-choice movement.

    Simply put it is a disagreement over when life begins. That isn’t a religious argument.

    The idea that life begins at conception absolutely is a religious argument – it is an article of faith which has no scientific basis. It’s what I was told in school by the men wearing black skirts.

    We recognise that human life and human personhood exists otherwise we wouldn’t have murder laws. So it is an argument at what stage do they kick in.

    And that is why it isn’t a decision that every person can just make for themselves, live and let live type of idea. We don’t get to individually decide when human life begins and when it becomes wrong to kill.

    I hate to break it to you but actually, yes we do. It happens in every country, every day.

    Because what happens when someone thinks it is okay to kill a 2 year old, or a Jew, or a Protestant etc because they have chosen for themselves that it isn’t a human person with human rights?

    Because killing a living, thinking person who can speak and feel pain is indistinguishable from halting the gestation of a microscopic collection of cells, yes ?

  • GavBelfast

    Of course I am biased, Oakleaf, aren’t you?

    I don’t agree with the zero-tolerance, zero-sensitivity, zero-caring attitude of anti-abortionist purists.

    That does NOT make me pro-abortion, which I would rather be avoided if at all possible, but that does not mean it being illegal in just about every situation (or resulting in flights to England, self-,medication, suicides, avoidable hospital deaths, etc, etc).

  • Comrade Stalin

    Gav,

    What you said is at the heart of the issue. The reason why we can so easily avoid a safe abortion debate is because abortions are easy to obtain in neighbouring jurisdictions. Those on the pro-life side of the argument are free to make their case without having to weigh it against the reality that in places where abortion is not available young women die or suffer life-changing injuries in the course of trying to end their pregnancies illegally.

  • John Ó Néill

    Conchubar – did you actually read the post or just skim it? You are neatly reflecting how flawed and misleading the public debate has been by responding with outrage to non-existent statements. First your points on abortion bear no relation to what I wrote. Secondly, I agree about not forcing churches to perform same sex marriages against their beliefs, but as a random answer to some imagined question, I can’t see what relevance it has since churches don’t have a monopoly on marriage.

  • Seamus

    “The idea that life begins at conception absolutely is a religious argument – it is an article of faith which has no scientific basis. It’s what I was told in school by the men wearing black skirts.”

    And the idea it begins at birth, or viability or the end of the first trimester, or begins as soon as their mother decides it begins, has any scientific basis?

    “The “debate” is being led by the churches and by political parties who have a history of fundamentalist orthodoxy on social issues.”

    Yes those who are socially conservative, which will tend to be those who have a history of social orthodoxy. But the debate has shifted onto secular terms from the historic “don’t do it because you’ll make Jesus cry” type arguments to actual arguments.

    “Because killing a living, thinking person who can speak and feel pain is indistinguishable from halting the gestation of a microscopic collection of cells, yes ?”

    There are varying levels of development but that is the same as comparing a newborn to a toddler and a toddler to child and a child to an adult. The only reason there is a moral distinction between killing an unborn person and killing a born person is that some people make that distinction. There is no scientific reason for it. It is just their opinion. Why should that opinion be any more valid than any other one?

  • anne warren

    Seamus asked “Why should that opinion be any more valid than any other one?”
    That is exactly my point Seamus.
    In any state or country some people have one opinion, some have another and others may have a different one again.
    Legislation for all citizens should be fair to all.
    In the cases of abortion or same sex marriage if religious/ethical principles stop individuals from availing of it fine
    If they don’t it’s there when needed – hoping as few individuals as possible need it.

  • anne warren

    PS Just before I am flamed by the gay community – the last sentence referred to abortions

  • Seamus

    Anne,

    You miss the point I was making. Society will have to pick a time and a deadline as to when they feel life begins. Other wise throw out murder laws. Why is it acceptable for the pro abortion lobby to set a deadline (birth, viability etc) but not the pro life movement?

    Additionally if we can just make it up as we go along can I decide for myself that a toddler isn’t a human being and so it is okay to kill them? Can I decide that for a Jew? etc etc.

  • anne warren

    No country which has an abortion law made it up as it went along
    After extensive discussions with doctors, religious authorities etc most EU societies have put the cut-off at 12 weeks, some at 20.
    Most offer the option of later abortions only if the foetus has gross abnormalities.
    I don’t see the connection between deciding on a cut-off and throwing murder laws out the window.
    To be quite frank, and without any desire to disrespect your views, your last comments seem rather hysterical and have no bearing on the discussion

  • BluesJazz

    If the unionist parties were actually *British* then let them allow the British Medical Authority decide on abortion ethics as elsewhere in the UK .
    If they don’t agree with this, they can tell the Chancellor to withdraw all subvention and declare a UDI for NI.
    If they’re really keen on anti-abortion, they can pay for thousands of people to screen everyone (and every parcel) entering NI for anti-abortion pills.
    BTW what happened to the PSNI “looking into” those women who had publicly defied the law by admitting pill induced abortions.?
    Can we expect hundreds of prosecutions shortly?
    If not then we’ll know :
    The PSNI will not prosecute lawbreakers.
    The regional administrators are pathetic hypocrites who want to appear pious and deny reality.

  • Seamus

    Anne,

    Except that isn’t what I said. By deciding at the 12 weeks, 20 weeks, 24 weeks or birth, those societies have stated that in their opinion the child gains rights at those dates. It sets a cutoff point (before it is okay to kill it, after it is not okay to kill it). They don’t leave it up to personal opinion. To leave it up to personal opinion would be to have no cutoff point (even birth), thus the point about throwing out murder laws comes into play.

    Just because you didn’t understand the point I was making doesn’t mean it was in any way hysterical.

    So in the same way that some countries have decided life begins a birth, and others at viability, and others at the end of the first trimester, why is it wrong for other countries to set that point at conception?

    BluesJazz,

    Not being a unionist I’m not going to delve that far into the recesses of the mind of unionist parties. But legislative devolution is not incompatible with unionism. And abortion laws being different are a by product of legislative devolution.

  • BluesJazz

    “And abortion laws being different are a by product of legislative devolution.”

    I could post links to a range of pharmacies which will happily supply people in NI the pills supposedly illegal, but widely used.
    None have been prosecuted for doing so, and women who have openly advocated ‘breaking the law’ by admission have -as yet- not ben arested by the PSNI for open violation of the law. Why not?

  • BluesJazz

    *been arrested*

    No-one is going to be arrested for carrying out an abortion in Northern Ireland under the 1967 act because the PSNI know it will go to the ECHR and lose. Costing them and the CPS loadsamoney.
    Ergo…

  • Seamus

    Except that isn’t true. Firstly the ECHR have never ruled on a universal right to abortion. Generally ECHR cases are only brought in extreme circumstances.

    I don’t know why the PSNI haven’t acted on these things. Maybe the DPP feels prosecution could be complicated. I don’t know and neither do you. And until they answer that then speculation is simply speculation and does no one any good.

  • seamusot

    Morality issues are no further advanced by the messages and comments which I have read. A doctor of either gender and his/her pregnant distressed patient are best placed – WITH THE SAFETY NET OF LEGAL GUIDANCE AND PROTECTION – to decide on the complete range of options. Clearly if sepsis exists and the foetus is not viable then the safety of the mother is paramount. In less clear contrasts the safety of the mother still remains paramount. Only expert medical practitioners should with legal protection make such difficult judgments. Else we should legislate for doctors advising amputations as a prevention of gangrene. Sadly life creates such difficult challenges which only experienced medical practitioners best address.

    The nonsense of either constitutional side politicians being supporters of various religious mullahs invading this space is wrong. It remains to be an unresolved medical issue. Let the medical profession do what only the medical professional best does. Stuff the hot air of circus clowns such as politicians. Protect the mother in her own space – remember that a £40 return fare to London makes the entire argument somewhat spurious.

    This complex issue may suggest commonality between most adherents of their inherited religious obedience and belief on this island. Dichotomy with England

  • seamusot

    Morality issues are no further advanced by the messages and comments which I have read. A doctor of either gender and his/her pregnant distressed patient are best placed – WITH THE SAFETY NET OF LEGAL GUIDANCE AND PROTECTION – to decide on the complete range of options. Clearly if sepsis exists and the foetus is not viable then the safety of the mother is paramount. In less clear contrasts the safety of the mother still remains paramount. Only expert medical practitioners should with legal protection make such difficult judgments. Else we should legislate for doctors advising amputations as a prevention of gangrene. Sadly life creates such difficult challenges which only experienced medical practitioners best address.

    The nonsense of either constitutional side politicians being supporters of various religious mullahs invading this space is wrong. It remains to be an unresolved medical issue. Let the medical profession do what only the medical professional best does. Stuff the hot air of circus clowns such as politicians. Protect the mother in her own space – remember that a £40 return fare to London makes the entire argument somewhat spurious.

    This complex issue may suggest commonality between most adherents of their inherited religious obedience and belief on this island. Dichotomy with England will likely cause kick the can the road solutions.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Seamus,

    And the idea it begins at birth, or viability or the end of the first trimester, or begins as soon as their mother decides it begins, has any scientific basis?

    Yes it does, as this is the point where it is the generally accepted consensus that the fetus can feel pain. It’s not a black and white thing but it is the best we’ve got.

    There are varying levels of development but that is the same as comparing a newborn to a toddler and a toddler to child and a child to an adult.

    Indeed there are, and you missed out a couple such as the unfertilized egg etc. But I think we both know that these are straw men. A toddler can’t attend university but it can feel pain, get attention, express happiness etc.

    The only reason there is a moral distinction between killing an unborn person and killing a born person is that some people make that distinction.

    No, it’s because there are differing definitions of what “person” means. One definition attempts to use medical science. Another is one that was started in the mid-18th century by priests and which bases its opinion not on science but on the canonical axiom that life begins at the point of conception.

    There is no scientific reason for it. It is just their opinion. Why should that opinion be any more valid than any other one?

    Exactly my argument, which is why abortion should be legal up to a point, and it should be up to the conscience of the person involved to decide what they’re doing.

    BlueJazz:

    No-one is going to be arrested for carrying out an abortion in Northern Ireland under the 1967 act because the PSNI know it will go to the ECHR and lose.

    The 1967 Act does not apply in Northern Ireland any more than Roe vs Wade. You can’t expect doctors or anyone else to risk martyring themselves or decide which laws they will choose to uphold.

    Seamus (later added)

    I don’t know why the PSNI haven’t acted on these things.

    Firstly – probably because they haven’t received a report, or they haven’t had reason to suspect, that a crime has been committed. This is because doctors as far as we all know operate within the law and don’t conduct abortions here unless they are very clear of their legal position.

    Secondly, because the law on abortion is ambiguous and constructing a case would be very difficult. The PSNI and the public prosecution service are in this instance acting as servants of the state; and the state at this point wants to keep abortion law as ambiguous as possible in order to scare doctors away from performing abortions. Prosecuting a case would run the risk of creating more case law which would be contrary to this aim.

    Maybe the DPP feels prosecution could be complicated. I don’t know and neither do you. And until they answer that then speculation is simply speculation and does no one any good.

    What nonsense, speculation, especially when it is informed, is an essential part of political and social discourse.

  • Seamus

    “Yes it does, as this is the point where it is the generally accepted consensus that the fetus can feel pain. It’s not a black and white thing but it is the best we’ve got.”

    The ability to feel pain is scientific. That the ability to feel pain is the prerequisite for human personhood is not scientific. It is opinion (even if it is the opinion held by most people).

    “No, it’s because there are differing definitions of what “person” means. One definition attempts to use medical science. Another is one that was started in the mid-18th century by priests and which bases its opinion not on science but on the canonical axiom that life begins at the point of conception.”

    Again in what way can science prove personhood? Do we have a personhood enzyme that can be tested for? Do we have human rights hormones that can be detected in blood? If not how can science detect personhood?

    “Exactly my argument, which is why abortion should be legal up to a point, and it should be up to the conscience of the person involved to decide what they’re doing.”

    Except we don’t grant that argument to any other stage of life. We don’t say at any other stage people can just decide for themselves whether or not they are killing a person.

  • anne warren

    “Except we don’t grant that argument to any other stage of life. We don’t say at any other stage people can just decide for themselves whether or not they are killing a person”.

    But we do Seamus – life support machines are often switched off and euthanasia is legal within certain parameters in some EU countries.

  • Seamus

    Anne,

    That is a person deciding themselves that they don’t want to live or the ending of life support for someone who has for all intents and purposes already naturally died. So unless the child is already dead or chooses to abort it self then the two are apples and oranges.

    At no other stage can person A decide to kill person B just because they don’t feel that person is actually a person.

  • wee buns

    Seamus
    The thing that I wonder about is that many, many existing children are victims of war, poverty, torture and natural disaster – yet ‘pro life’ campaigners never get hot under the collar about those children’s lives and rights – I wonder why not? Why are they not standing outside the Syrian Embassy with placards of murdered children?

  • BluesJazz

    We’re dealing with zygotes. The BMA are best placed to deal with this issue. The Catholic church seems more concerned about protecting abusers of children. I suppose abortion (and contraception) cuts off their source of abuse. That’s why they oppose it.

    The DUP have their own issues in this regard.

  • oakleaf

    Again the pro-choice crowd reverting to abuse about child abuse. How does the RCC major fuk up on child abuse justify further abuse on children by denying their very existence?

    Also wee buns Syria is in the middle of a brutal civil war that has turned into a proxy war. How do you know that pro-life supporters are not involved in peace rallies? What has that got to do with abortion in Ireland is another thing altogther.

  • wee buns

    oakleaf
    Wee buns this new law will be probably go to court and in a matter of a few years there will be abortion on demand until the moment before birth.

    Erm – don’t thinks so actually – but conjecture aside – what about the reality of 4000 plus women per year travelling to England – would you have them arrested at the airport – or is it a case of the usual anti abortion ivory tower hypocrisy, happy to export real life problems elsewhere? What is your solution?

    The second point being that – If you are ‘pro life’ the outrage does not seem to extend to sanctity for all life, just unborn life – hard to understand that particular bias.

  • oakleaf

    Wee buns how do you know that outrage doesn’t extend into other areas of my life? Do you know me?

    I thought we are on an abortion thread. If you want to start one on abuse or war I’ll happily share my opinion and thoughts.

  • Seamus

    Wee buns,

    “Why are they not standing outside the Syrian Embassy with placards of murdered children?”

    How do you know they aren’t opposed to what is happening in Syria? I disagree with a large amount of people in the pro-life movement who don’t seem to care a lot about a lot of other children. But there are still those in it who want to help children both in and outside of the womb and sweeping generalisations such as yours are simply ignorant.

    “What is your solution?”

    An expansion of the idea of universal jurisdiction, a recognition that if they get an abortion abroad they will be held to same standard of law as if they had gotten one in Ireland.

    BluesJazz,

    “The BMA are best placed to deal with this issue.”

    Why? Do we turn to the BMA to ask them on their opinion on murder or the killing of people outside of the womb?

  • wee buns

    oakleaf
    I meant the collective ‘you’ not the singular.

    To re phrase it – the pro-life campaigners that I’ve engaged with, focus exclusively on unborn life, This suggests (a) their title is wrong/misleading (b) their concern with life is ideological not practical.

    Any answer to my first question – your solution to the 4000 citizens availing of abortions elsewhere?