Catholic Church calls on Irish government to hold abortion referendum

I couldn’t agree with you more bill struth! Let the people decide, just as the Bishops of Ireland are calling for. I once posted that I thought legislation was needed to cover the ‘X’ case but now I see the Bishops case for referendum being the better option. At the time, most in Ireland thought the Supreme Court in Ireland got its decision wrong. Let the people decide… BTW bill, I also totally agree with you on the aftermath in life for women who have abortions. Use ICentral’s google box, top right of yr screen, to search for ‘jacersagain Swedish lady’ story.

let the people decide. the catholic church in Ireland are nothing more than a disneyland for child abusers and peedos. check the records over the last 40 years or so. covered up by all and sundry politicians, police etc They are the last organisation in the world to be trusted with any decision where children are concerned. There are many reasons why a woman would want an abortion. I can only imagine the heart wrenching and torment anyone would go through whist making such a decision. something that the will live with with the rest of their lives. We are in no position to judge others. god will do that.

Eireamach -,you are the most pro-abortion person on this website! You must think we are all fools. Face it, you are an enthusiastic abortion advocate who believes a woman can decide to kill her unborn child for any reason. Get real.

Gearoid, First, you depict me as an advocate of abortion. I'm not! I'm an advocate of women's right to decide --of God-given free will-- and I'm a relentless advocate of women's right to life, even when saving her life means ending her pregnancy. Such a motive is not the same as avoiding "inconvenience" unless you consider death a mere "inconvenience." Second, the "value" of the fetus is a manifestation of the "value" of humanity's choice to continue bringing new life into this world, hence my advocacy of the right of rape victims -- especially children (or their parent/ guardian), for whom pregnancy always threatens life and health -- to decide whether to continue pregnancies that result from coercion by rapists. Childbearing must never be coerced! Next, I conflate "right to choose" with "right to life" only when a woman's life is jeopardized by pregnancy. A woman who chooses, e.g., after first trimester, to continue her pregnancy at risk of her life is always free to do so. Why do you privilege the right to life of "the most defenseless of human beings" over the right to life of the woman who chose to bring that life to birth? Why should the woman's right to life disappear the moment she becomes pregnant? Doesn't that make her also "most defenseless"? Finally, why do you reject demonstrated, proven fact: in countries with legal abortion, maternal/ infant mortality rates decrease -- along with abortion rates! And this set of FACTS is morally relevant.

Sorry about the repetitiveness of the comments as the "submit" button again seems to be misfiring.

Why do you keep referring to abortions for reasons which depict the child as an inconvenience and who do not represent in any form a physical threat to the mother's life. This is what I find cynical and abhorrent. Does the growing embryo or fetus have any value in your calculations apart from being an unwelcome intrusion which should be treated as one treats a tumor. Your argument is framed from a radical feminist's perspective where the "right to chose" overrides any other consideration, no matter how worthy and any attempt to question and oppose this position is depicted as anti-woman and oppressively patriarchal. You talk constantly about "rights" which seems to only about a woman's "right to chose" which you conflate with a woman's "right to life". They are not the same. The first speaks language of a self-centered meanness while the latter has to be respected and preserved all the time. But what about the life of the growing child in the womb, who is the most defenseless of all human beings? It is about time that you reviewed your take on this.

Why do you keep referring to abortions for reasons which depict the child as an inconvenience and who do not represent in any form a physical threat to the mother's life. This is what I find cynical and abhorrent. Does the growing embryo or fetus have any value in your calculations apart from being an unwelcome intrusion which should be treated as one treats a tumor. Your argument is framed from a radical feminist's perspective where the "right to chose" overrides any other consideration, no matter how worthy and any attempt to question and oppose this position is depicted as anti-woman and oppressively patriarchal. You talk constantly about "rights" which seems to only about a woman's "right to chose" which you conflate with a woman's "right to life". They are not the same. The first speaks language of a self-centered meanness while the latter has to be respected and preserved all the time. But what about the life of the growing child in the womb, who is the most defenseless of all human beings? It is about time that you reviewed your take on this.

Why do you keep referring to abortions for reasons which depict the child as an inconvenience and who do not represent in any form a physical threat to the mother's life. This is what I find cynical and abhorrent. Does the growing embryo or fetus have any value in your calculations apart from being an unwelcome intrusion which should be treated as one treats a tumor. Your argument is framed from a radical feminist's perspective where the "right to chose" overrides any other consideration, no matter how worthy and any attempt to question and oppose this position is depicted as anti-woman and oppressively patriarchal. You talk constantly about "rights" which seems to only about a woman's "right to chose" which you conflate with a woman's "right to life". They are not the same. The first speaks language of a self-centered meanness while the latter has to be respected and preserved all the time. But what about the life of the growing child in the womb, who is the most defenseless of all human beings? It is about time that you reviewed your take on this.

Why do you keep referring to abortions for reasons which depict the child as an inconvenience and who do not represent in any form a physical threat to the mother's life. This is what I find cynical and abhorrent. Does the growing embryo or fetus have any value in your calculations apart from being an unwelcome intrusion which should be treated as one treats a tumor. Your argument is framed from a radical feminist's perspective where the "right to chose" overrides any other consideration, no matter how worthy and any attempt to question and oppose this position is depicted as anti-woman and oppressively patriarchal. You talk constantly about "rights" which seems to only about a woman's "right to chose" which you conflate with a woman's "right to life". They are not the same. The first speaks language of a self-centered meanness while the latter has to be respected and preserved all the time. But what about the life of the growing child in the womb, who is the most defenseless of all human beings? It is about time that you reviewed your take on this.

Why do you keep referring to abortions for reasons which depict the child as an inconvenience and who do not represent in any form a physical threat to the mother's life. This is what I find cynical and abhorrent. Does the growing embryo or fetus have any value in your calculations apart from being an unwelcome intrusion which should be treated as one treats a tumor. Your argument is framed from a radical feminist's perspective where the "right to chose" overrides any other consideration, no matter how worthy and any attempt to question and oppose this position is depicted as anti-woman and oppressively patriarchal. You talk constantly about "rights" which seems to only about a woman's "right to chose" which you conflate with a woman's "right to life". They are not the same. The first speaks language of a self-centered meanness while the latter has to be respected and preserved all the time. But what about the life of the growing child in the womb, who is the most defenseless of all human beings? It is about time that you reviewed your take on this.

Why do you keep referring to abortions for reasons which depict the child as an inconvenience and who do not represent in any form a physical threat to the mother's life. This is what I find cynical and abhorrent. Does the growing embryo or fetus have any value in your calculations apart from being an unwelcome intrusion which should be treated as one treats a tumor. Your argument is framed from a radical feminist's perspective where the "right to chose" overrides any other consideration, no matter how worthy and any attempt to question and oppose this position is depicted as anti-woman and oppressively patriarchal. You talk constantly about "rights" which seems to only about a woman's "right to chose" which you conflate with a woman's "right to life". They are not the same. The first speaks language of a self-centered meanness while the latter has to be respected and preserved all the time. But what about the life of the growing child in the womb, who is the most defenseless of all human beings? It is about time that you reviewed your take on this.

Why do you keep referring to abortions for reasons which depict the child as an inconvenience and who do not represent in any form a physical threat to the mother's life. This is what I find cynical and abhorrent. Does the growing embryo or fetus have any value in your calculations apart from being an unwelcome intrusion which should be treated as one treats a tumor. Your argument is framed from a radical feminist's perspective where the "right to chose" overrides any other consideration, no matter how worthy and any attempt to question and oppose this position is depicted as anti-woman and oppressively patriarchal. You talk constantly about "rights" which seems to only about a woman's "right to chose" which you conflate with a woman's "right to life". They are not the same. The first speaks language of a self-centered meanness while the latter has to be respected and preserved all the time. But what about the life of the growing child in the womb, who is the most defenseless of all human beings? It is about time that you reviewed your take on this.

Why do you keep referring to abortions for reasons which depict the child as an inconvenience and who do not represent in any form a physical threat to the mother's life. This is what I find cynical and abhorrent. Does the growing embryo or fetus have any value in your calculations apart from being an unwelcome intrusion which should be treated as one treats a tumor. Your argument is framed from a radical feminist's perspective where the "right to chose" overrides any other consideration, no matter how worthy and any attempt to question and oppose this position is depicted as anti-woman and oppressively patriarchal. You talk constantly about "rights" which seems to only about a woman's "right to chose" which you conflate with a woman's "right to life". They are not the same. The first speaks language of a self-centered meanness while the latter has to be respected and preserved all the time. But what about the life of the growing child in the womb, who is the most defenseless of all human beings? It is about time that you reviewed your take on this.

Why do you keep referring to abortions for reasons which depict the child as an inconvenience and who do not represent in any form a physical threat to the mother's life. This is what I find cynical and abhorrent. Does the growing embryo or fetus have any value in your calculations apart from being an unwelcome intrusion which should be treated as one treats a tumor. Your argument is framed from a radical feminist's perspective where the "right to chose" overrides any other consideration, no matter how worthy and any attempt to question and oppose this position is depicted as anti-woman and oppressively patriarchal. You talk constantly about "rights" which seems to only about a woman's "right to chose" which you conflate with a woman's "right to life". They are not the same. The first speaks language of a self-centered meanness while the latter has to be respected and preserved all the time. But what about the life of the growing child in the womb, who is the most defenseless of all human beings? It is about time that you reviewed your take on this.

Why do you keep referring to abortions for reasons which depict the child as an inconvenience and who do not represent in any form a physical threat to the mother's life. This is what I find cynical and abhorrent. Does the growing embryo or fetus have any value in your calculations apart from being an unwelcome intrusion which should be treated as one treats a tumor. Your argument is framed from a radical feminist's perspective where the "right to chose" overrides any other consideration, no matter how worthy and any attempt to question and oppose this position is depicted as anti-woman and oppressively patriarchal. You talk constantly about "rights" which seems to only about a woman's "right to chose" which you conflate with a woman's "right to life". They are not the same. The first speaks language of a self-centered meanness while the latter has to be respected and preserved all the time. But what about the life of the growing child in the womb, who is the most defenseless of all human beings? It is about time that you reviewed your take on this.