77 Comments

• jacersagain | Jan 21, 2013, 04:28 PM EST

  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.

• bill struth | Jan 21, 2013, 01:22 PM EST

  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.

• Smyrnian | Jan 17, 2013, 07:47 AM EST

  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.

• eiriamach | Jan 16, 2013, 04:09 PM EST

  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.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 16, 2013, 02:04 PM EST

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

• Gearoid4 | Jan 16, 2013, 02:03 PM EST

  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.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 16, 2013, 02:03 PM EST

  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.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 16, 2013, 02:03 PM EST

  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.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 16, 2013, 02:03 PM EST

  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.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 16, 2013, 02:03 PM EST

  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.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 16, 2013, 02:03 PM EST

  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.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 16, 2013, 02:03 PM EST

  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.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 16, 2013, 02:03 PM EST

  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.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 16, 2013, 02:03 PM EST

  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.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 16, 2013, 02:03 PM EST

  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.

• eiriamach | Jan 16, 2013, 11:26 AM EST

  And I repeat, Gearoid, your argument is strikingly cynical. You say, in effect, to a pregnant woman who needs a life-saving abortion, "Too many other women have aborted their pregnancies for reasons that I disapprove of, so no, you may NOT have your life-saving abortion." The possibility that some may abuse a law (in your estimate) is no reason to withhold the law. And it's also completely irrelevant whether pro-choice advocates are, as you say, "morally and spiritually bankrupt"-- they have a sound argument from justice and human rights, so their personal characters would be no consideration even if they were evil beings. You close down every possibility of a pregnant woman having an "equal right to life" as the Irish Constitution requires. So we see how utterly useless that constitutional "protection" is for pregnant women. It functions only to keep "equal" doomed fetuses alive for hours or days and to allow "equal" pregnant women to die. At the basis of every argument you offer is a medieval churchman's distrust of, and belief in the moral inferiority of, women, who you will never agree should exercise free will just as men do.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 15, 2013, 01:43 PM EST

  Sorry about the multiplication of my comments-it seems to be an issue with the "submit" button which did not seem to work after being repeatedly pressed. It seems to be a software problem with the IC button control on this forum. Getting back to the topic at hand, the vast majority of abortions are performed on women in the US for personal reasons that do not constitute immediate threats to their health. An ingenuous argument can be used to reveal the spiritual and moral bankruptcy of those who use a woman's "right to chose" in various circumstances to opt for abortion e.g.damage to mental health, damage to family, damage to career prospects, damage to financial prospects, damage to plans for her life. If one was to use those reasons in terms of a defense case in court as good grounds for killing someone, more than likely they would be convicted and suffer the appropriate legal punishment i.e life in prison. So why should they be extend as mitigating circumstances for people who chose to abort their young. These reasons come to the fore in survey after survey in the US concerning the rationale that respondents use to opt for abortion.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 15, 2013, 01:16 PM EST

  Once again, Eiriamach, you distort my words. I have certainly not "misused" statistics as you disingenuously claim but rather done a great service to the truth about the real reasons behind the reasons why Irish women travel to the UK to abort their young. Clearly from information received under the FOI(Freedom of Information) no Irish women were included under category G in the British Abortion act during the extensive period 1995-2010. Category G only categorizes health issues which are an immediate danger to health Category C which you refer can be related to "social" issues, as a lot of women use the "mental health" category because they feel that the child growing inside them might be an inconvenience or could be a strain on their resources. I'm sure you have heard of the rhetorical question-"how long is a piece of string" and the boundaries of Category C are pretty elastic when it comes to reasons and they are not in themselves immediately threatening to a woman's health. Expert counselling would be a proper solution to mental health or depression issues that arise during a pregnancy.

• eiriamach | Jan 14, 2013, 06:13 PM EST

  Here are some medical facts not included in the statistics you call "social reasons": "Around one in five [pregnancies] will result in a miscarriage. Ectopic pregnancies occur in 11 per 1,000 pregnancies. Between 2006 and 2008, there were 35,495 confirmed cases of ectopic pregnancies and, of these, six women died during their first trimester as a direct result of their pregnancy.... Approximately 20% of pregnancies miscarry; this equates to roughly 168,000 miscarriages per year in England, with 143,000 of these occurring in the first trimester. In England during 2010-11, a total of 54,162 women had either a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy which resulted in an NHS hospital stay (43,005 cases of miscarriage and 11,157 cases of ectopic pregnancy)." Although at least some of the women who experience miscarriage have the assistance of vacuum aspiration or surgical abortion -- procedures that the Galway doctors withheld from Savita Halappanavar -- these cases are hospital statistics that you omit. For this reason also, "Aggregated statistics can tell us very little about the reasons why individual women have abortions, which continue to be varied and complex" (BPAS, UK).

• eiriamach | Jan 14, 2013, 05:44 PM EST

  Also, Gearoid, you misrepresent "The US average figures for abortion" as the rate of abortions in pregnancy. There was a baby boom reaching maturity as Roe v Wade came into law. At times when the absolute number of abortions increased, still the RATE of aborted pregnancies as a percentage of all pregnancies decreased. In fact through the 1970s, although the decrease was erratic, the abortion rate was declining, and as govt and Guttmacher records show, it has declined steadily since 1980. It's a misrepresentation, and a misuse of statistics, to claim otherwise. With legalization of abortion in the USA, along with access to contraception and sex education, the RATE of abortions has decreased.

• eiriamach | Jan 14, 2013, 05:36 PM EST

  You misuse statistics, Gearoid. PBAS web site explains, "In general, the national statistics do not, and cannot, reflect the real reasons why abortions are considered necessary. They can only reflect the grounds that are cited to make them lawful." PBAS also states, "The vast majority (98%, in 2011) of all abortions take place under Ground C: ‘the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and the continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman’." Anti-abortion activists routinely misrepresent Ground C as "social reasons." This is a falsification. It's a category set up to supply statistics about health and does not record motives for seeking abortion. PBAS points out, "Ground C is often referred to as ‘the mental health clause’, and is perceived as the way in which doctors certify abortion ‘on request’, or ‘social abortions.’" Because of way statistics are gathered, doctors often recommend checking "Ground C" even when symptoms are present that indicate significant physical threats to life or severe or lethal fetal anomalies, so as the agency says, these statistics tell us nothing about reasons.

• Mortimer74 | Jan 14, 2013, 05:04 PM EST

  In today's Daily Mail: Mother who decided not to abort disabled baby after seeing his smile in a 3D scan tells how she cuddled him with joy for his precious few hours of life

• Gearoid4 | Jan 14, 2013, 03:40 PM EST

  The US average figures for abortion over the last 30 years have hardly varied that much i.e around 1.2-1.3 million as reported by the Guttmacher Institute(a non-governmental pro-abort agency). This organization is hardly a neutral source but is used in place of unreliable figures from governmental agencies. There have been spikes as in 2009 but the numbers given do not vary too much. But over a million abortions a year can hardly be all "medical" emergencies and more often than not the victims of this terrible procedure are the young pregnant mums and their babies in the Latino and African-American communities due to so-called "unplanned" pregnancies. Surely the US Healthcare sector has something better to offer those young mums than abortion clinics run by such insiduous organizations as Planned Parenthood.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 14, 2013, 03:07 PM EST

  How can my views be "warped", Eiriamach in view of the reality that not a single recorded abortion carried out on an Irish woman who traveled to the UK between 1992-2010 for that particular purpose, was done for any health threat to her life. This information was revealed after a healthcare group, namely the Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare (CEMH) gut in a request under the FOI(Freedom of Information Act) to the British Dept of Health to reveal the reasons why Irish women expressly went to the UK to have their fetuses/embryos aborted. In other words, not a single woman gave reasons which could be placed under Section G of the Abortion Act, which requires records to be kept of abortions conducted to “prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman”. So this information puts the kibosh on the misleading claims of the pro-abort lobby that Irish women travel to Britain to have abortions because the child in the womb presents a impending health danger. The majority of abortions happen because the child is unplanned or will become a nuisance in terms of interfering with one's social life.

• eiriamach | Jan 14, 2013, 02:55 PM EST

  More relevant facts: Hansen notes on page 385: "Abortion rates are higher, not lower, the larger the proportion of Catholics in a state; and the strength of this reversed relationship has increased over time." And, with a chart spanning 1973-2000, FactCheck. org clarifies the relationship between access to abortion and women's suicides. FactCheck refutes Rick Santorum's claim that suicides by "desperate women" have worsened since 1973 (with his false conclusion that abortion increases suicide rates): "Actually, the suicide rate for women has dropped by one-third since Roe was decided. According to the Center for Disease Control, the rate was 6.5 per every 100,000 women in 1973, and had fallen to 4.06 by 2001, the most recent year on record." Age-adjusted rates show even more dramatically "a decline of 41 per cent, compared to a decline of 34 per cent for the unadjusted rate. Either way, Santorum was way off." Access to abortion lowers the death rate for both women and infants; it does not lead to more women seeking abortion or to a decrease in births; it has benefited the health of both women and their families.

• eiriamach | Jan 14, 2013, 02:31 PM EST

  I'm not "plain wrong," Gearoid: Susan B. Hansen reported in "State Implementation of Supreme Court Decisions: Abortion Rates Since Roe v Wade," 1980 (online): "One dramatic result of the legalization of abortion has been a decrease in abortion-related maternal deaths," which "declined from 39 in 1972 to 19 in 1973, 5 in 1974, and 3 in 1975. The abortion death rate fell from 5.7 per million women of reproductive age between 1963 and 1973, to 0.5 ... in 1976. Abortion is now far safer than tonsillectomy or normal childbirth.... Despite the concerns of anti-abortion groups, abortion rates and illegitimacy have not shown an appreciable increase since 1973(pp 378-9). WashingtonPost's "The state of Roe v. Wade in 9 charts," 2/12: "Abortion rates climbed after the [Roe v Wade] decision, a trend that had started in the late 1960s, as states began liberalizing their abortion laws. Abortion rates have now been declining since the 1980s" with decline in the number of abortion providers following. The WP warns, "Guttmacher Institute .... found that countries with more liberal abortion laws tend to have lower rates of abortion -- perhaps due to factors like greater access to contraception. That research ... also found countries with more abortion restrictions to have higher rates of abortion-related deaths."

• eiriamach | Jan 14, 2013, 01:44 PM EST

  @Gear0id, You condemn women on nothing but a warped view that women's motives are self-serving: that "the vast majority" of Irish women who travel to the UK for abortions "undergo this horrible procedure for 'social' reasons." This view leads you to deny the right to life of women in medical crisis whose deaths doom the fetus as well. In consequence, you cannot answer my question: "How large does the number of women who die from complications of pregnancy have to be before you consider their deaths a reason for allowing doctors to abort their pregnancies to save their lives?" When a distorted view of female human nature leads to such despotism, it becomes clear that its driving force is not morality, not love of God, not Christian commitment, but a deep distrust and fear of women.

• eiriamach | Jan 14, 2013, 01:25 PM EST

  A test.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 13, 2013, 08:46 PM EST

  @Eiriamach, What are you suggesting in regards to the mortality figures which are at present low for Ireland in relation to maternity? Are you suggesting abortion at all costs? In relation to Irish women who travel to the UK for abortions, the vast majority undergo this horrible procedure for "social" reasons and not because of any medical emergencies. Your take on the abortion figures in the US since the inception of the Roe v Roe decision is plain wrong. Accepted estimates for the total number of abortions in the US since that fateful decision, is in the 40-50 million range which is a catastrophe by any measurement and is tantamount to abortion on demand. Your point about contraceptives does not hold water, as some surveys of abortion clinics show that at least half of abortions are carried out for contraceptive failure in the US.

• misneac | Jan 13, 2013, 07:37 PM EST

  Will Hamilton -what a source of intelligent comment !!! Can you imagine trying to educate that bigot !

• jacersagain | Jan 13, 2013, 06:38 PM EST

  By jaysus eiriamach if you had been opportuned to present that last argument of yours in front of Ireland’s Oireachtas committee on health affairs they would all have led you out to be locked up in the Dundrum asylum for the mentally-ill. Deliberate abortion is not a murder of a human-created, future human being????

• eiriamach | Jan 13, 2013, 05:38 PM EST

  Jacers, I assume that members of the Oireachtas are educated enough not to engage in petitio principii, as you do when you cavalierly claim that abortion is murder. Abortion is abortion, and if you wish to show that it is morally wrongful killing, i.e., "murder," you need to supply viable, empirically informed reasons that a person of any religious understanding -- or none at all -- can accept. Without that empirical warrant and moral reasoning, you're simply seeking to impose your church's teaching on state law. Your specialty is story telling and church anecdotes (you're quite good at these), but maybe you could give a try to logical reasoning for a change. Historically, the Irish have been good at that, as well as at narratives and religious ruminations.

• eiriamach | Jan 13, 2013, 05:23 PM EST

  Just out of curiosity, Gearoid, how large does the number of women who die from complications of pregnancy have to be before you consider it a legitimate reason for allowing doctors to abort such pregnancies to save the lives of women? About your mortality figures, we do not know how many dead Irish women are included in the UK figures, though it is likely that some who travel to the UK for abortions in problem pregnancies find that help too late to survive. Also, you're wrong about abortion rates increasing, at least in the USA (I haven't checked UK stats). Every measure tells us that abortion rates have steadily DECLINED in the USA since the Roe v Wade decision, and the alarming rate of maternal and infant deaths that preceded Roe v Wade dropped quickly and deeply immediately following that decision. Sex education, access to contraceptives, and access to safe, legal abortion explain those decreases, but opponents of contraception and abortion rarely mention these steadily falling rates of abortion and maternal/ infant mortality.

• jacersagain | Jan 13, 2013, 05:15 PM EST

  By jaysus eiriamach if you had been opportuned to present that last argument of yours in front of Ireland’s Oireachtas committee on health affairs they would all have led you out to be locked up in the Dundrum asylum for the mentally-ill. Deliberate abortion is not murder of a human-created, future human being???? I have often said that you twist truthful things around to suit your own agenda. You've done it again.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 13, 2013, 04:27 PM EST

  Eiriamach, I do not have to be an expert in Obstetrics to realize that doctors are fully empowered to save the lives of women and their children if possible through all necessary means and this is not wishful thinking. Again you extrapolate data from the small minority of extreme cases and try to use it in the general sense to make a case for the introduction of abortion in Ireland. To me, this is ideology at work and not medical necessity. You quote the "Irish Times" concerning figures which purport to contradict Ireland's very low rate of maternal maternity but this source is hardly a neutral one. Even with a maternal death rate(all tragic and regrettable and better if the rate was 0) of 8 per 100,000, it is still low when one looks at the 11 per 100,000(2006-2008 for UK. But the figure for Ireland has to be fully verified and when one looks at the causes of the 25 maternal deaths in Ireland between 2009-2011, one can see that the causes are varied and some are not directly attributable to the effects of pregnancies as such. To quote the "Irish Times" report- "Some 13 were indirect deaths – cardiovascular disease (five); suicide (two); HINI Influenza (two); epilepsy (two); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (one), and bleeding oesophageal varices (one). Other deaths amounted to six – metastatic, or spreading, cancer (two); road traffic accident (one); CNS Lymphona (one) and substance abuse (two)." So it seems that pregnancy was not the direct cause of death in a large number of these cases as underlying medical conditions or external factors like car accidents played their part. As regards your point concerning any future Irish law on abortion not becoming abortion on demand, I refer you again to the British and American experiences which typify how abortion rates rise exponentially once a law enabling this terrible procedure is passed.

• eiriamach | Jan 13, 2013, 03:43 PM EST

  Rights with limits, Mortimer, is precisely what the Irish government is trying to devise. They cannot repeal the Irish Constitution's anti-abortion provision. But working within it, they are trying to make it possible to save the lives of women whose pregnancies are non-viable or who will die if their pregnancies continue. That is a narrow, minimal fraction of the human rights that women ought to have, and it is far, far distant from the ridiculous claim of "abortion on demand," which does not exist in the USA or any other nation I know of.

• Will Hamilton | Jan 13, 2013, 03:17 PM EST

  Vatican loyalists attempting to interfere in Ireland on behalf of their emperor in Rome.

• eiriamach | Jan 13, 2013, 02:50 PM EST

  No Jacers, you do NOT "have the right to choose to kill [your] next door neighbour." There are laws against murder, but abortion is not murder. Childbearing requires a voluntary sacrifice of one's bodily resources, one's freedom with regard to such things as food, drink, and personal habits, a commitment to pre-natal and later pediatric care, and a commitment to decades of child-raising in a loving, nurturing, safe, and minimally comfortable environment. If women do not have the right to choose when and whether to bear children, women lack an essential set of human rights and are, in effect, the child-bearing indentured servants of the state. That's a vastly different situation from your choosing not to murder your neighbour. You're confusing you approval or disapproval of women's choices with women's right to choose. That's a dangerous confusion because although you have the right to express your disapproval, you do not have the right to make another human being's choices for her.

• eiriamach | Jan 13, 2013, 02:37 PM EST

  Fine, Gearoid4, give your sermons of how to choose to women WHEN WOMEN ARE FREE TO CHOOSE! But to set yourself or the law up as the boundary of another person's free will is tyranny, abhorrently anti-Christian and inhumane. You have an aversion to the facts of obstetrics and invariably dismiss threats to women's lives during pregnancy. Even when pregnancy itself is not the threat to maternal life, it is impossible to treat the threat while the woman is pregnant-- undefeatable fact-- not refutable by wishful thinking. Therefore, it's standard practice in emergency rooms of hospitals around the globe, except Catholic hospitals, to abort in incomplete miscarriage and most other conditions I listed earlier. The Irish Times article "Savita's Law" notes that although the Central Statistics Office found 4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live/ still births for 2009, "experts here now say ... the rate is double that. The [WHO] defines a maternal death as:'The death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or incidental causes.' According to figures in the Confidential Maternal Death Enquiry (MDE) in Ireland, Report for the Triennium 2009–2011, the maternal death rate here is eight per 100,000. Dr Michael O’Hare ... chairman of the Maternal Death Enquiry group, says the higher rate comes from far more thorough data gathering...."

• jacersagain | Jan 13, 2013, 12:47 PM EST

  Well said Gearoid4. @ eiriamach: that last post of yours is one of the worst I’ve seen from you. You come across as screaming mad trying to justify the unjustifiable, or "losing your marbles" as some would put it. I have free will. With that freedom, I also have the right to choose to kill my next door neighbour but that doesn’t make it right. >> Yeah, you’re right on my thousands of words typed on yr screens… Funny thing is that I am actually very quiet in company, preferring instead to listen more often than I speak; I recognise that God gave me two ears to listen with and one mouth to speak with, so I listen more than I speak. I also have ten working fingers which is probably why I type so much.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 13, 2013, 10:23 AM EST

  Women have free will, Eiriamach to carry out their own decisions, but free will has boundaries. A responsible, well-informed conscience know where those boundaries are located and this should come into play when decisions are taken during difficult pregnancies. A woman has a duty to protect her own life and also that of the fetus growing within her. You describe these medical crises in terms of the fetus being the ultimate cause of them and the only solution for you seems to be the destruction of the growing baby in the womb. Now if doctors can intervene in those circumstances and save both lives(without deliberately targeting the fetus/embryo)-would that be a favorable outcome for you? No right thinking person would deprive a woman of her right to life. But it is when ideology in terms of a blanket "right to chose" trumps the life of the fetus in all circumstances, in the eyes of radical activists, that real injustice happens. The power of the strong being exercised unjustly over the weak and this violates core biblical precepts.

• eiriamach | Jan 13, 2013, 01:21 AM EST

  Jacers, "That's all" you "will say on this matter"?? Surely you can pump out another 2,500 words to fill another few screens and leave the impression to visitors that the extreme right-wing view is the only Irish view! ~~~~~ Smyrnian, I have advocated allowing women free will, freedom of conscience, uncoerced choice: "The greatest gift that God in His bounty made in creation, and the most conformable to His goodness, and that which He prizes the most, was the freedom of will, with which the creatures with intelligence, they all and they alone, were and are endowed."—Dante Alighieri. That's my answer to those who, like you, think I "have a LOT at stake" and who think that saving a life is "just an expediency." Now if we set aside the anecdotes, the pseudo-bible quotations, threats of damnation, and appeals to the moral authority of Roman Catholic Churchmen, can you guys give any moral reason at all to support depriving women of free will in the most personal and private of all decisions? Your answer: it's wrong to kill an embryo or fetus. OK, now, second step: you have just deprived a pregnant woman in medical crisis of her right to life and shown precisely why the Irish Constitution section 40.3.3 is in practice unworkable as "equal" protection. Got it? Deal with it.

• jacersagain | Jan 12, 2013, 09:29 PM EST

  (…more) The other big threat to the abortion laws in Ireland is something that has not been addressed in the Oireachtas hearings: that there are big commercial medical companies out there, watching like vultures, who will execute abortion on demand and will look for any crack in Dáil legislation on the X case to establish their companies in Ireland to make profits and destroy, on demand, human embryos, like you and I were once. More importantly everyone should note that our Christ was once an embryo, a foetus and an infant born of a woman whose husband did not conceive Him with her. In Jewish society mores of those days, it is a miracle that He wasn’t killed as an infant after birth or that His Mother wasn’t forced to abort the baby by the chemical means available in those days. The right to God-given life must always be respected, inside the womb and outside of it. That’s all I will say on this matter.

• jacersagain | Jan 12, 2013, 09:16 PM EST

  True sympathy with these views below is all I can offer. But I have to face unpalatable facts and truths. If it came to a democratic vote in an Irish public referendum on the matter and not a Dáil decision, I would, in conscience, vote against the relaxation of abortion laws in Ireland that would lead to abortion on demand. I’ve already posted elsewhere on ICentral of how I used to be pro-choice, respecting women’s right to choose but how that view utterly changed after personally listening to a Swedish lady telling of her experiences in opting for abortion on demand, not once but twice, and the heart-breaking, life-long effect they had on her. (Google “jacersagain Swedish lady”). I’ve also related the story of a 16-yr old American Catholic girl, a daughter of an American friend of mine who was drugged and raped by two men but who carried her baby to fruition, gave it up for adoption but still maintains a loving motherly contact with the now young teenager living with adoptive parents. To this day, she doesn't know which of the two men who raped her is the father (More...)

• jacersagain | Jan 12, 2013, 09:09 PM EST

  I would have human sympathy for some points made during the Oireachtas hearings, especially by the Atheist Ireland representative who asked the committee to “Please do not ignore the suffering of pregnant women whose health is at risk, who are victims of rape or incest, or whose foetus has fatal abnormalities…. Whatever laws you pass, please base them on human rights and compassion and on applying reason and empirical evidence, and not on religious doctrines". Everyone can pick out the parts were he is wrong and where he is right. In my view, the most extraordinary contribution was made by Rabbi Lent who said “a foetus in utero, though inherently valuable, has not yet assumed the equal status of full life” (a point that the RCC would challenge because any embryo and foetus has already begun its march towards human life and is inherently entitled to be brought to birth into our world.). He went on to say “This would primarily be when carrying the unborn to term would cause danger and risk to the mother's life. In this instance the foetus may be considered to be actively threatening the life of the mother and, to save her life, a termination could be permitted." That point the RCC would agree with but not under the term ‘deliberate abortion’; for the RCC it would be more a sad side-event in the saving of the mother’s life, God-willed or chosen. What would have been another grand-child of mine died this way.

• jacersagain | Jan 12, 2013, 09:00 PM EST

  eiriamach: I did read the reports (not the full transcripts, not available yet, as far as I know) of the Oireachtas health committee hearings on abortion each day (a bit of advice: stay away from The Journal; while it reports daily fairly well, it’s reporters and contributing commentators are mostly of the flippant crap kind with their own agenda and will induce your brain to crap as well). The abortion hearings are a huge topic for us all in Ireland. Almost all reps of the Protestant Churches agreed that abortion on demand is unjustified in principle within Christian beliefs. The Islamic representative, Dr. Selim, said "in the unlikely event when a group of competent trustworthy physicians confirm that the continuity of pregnancy jeopardises the mother's life, abortion could be conducted as the last and only alternative to protect the mother's life". He also said that “The Government should think of social and economic means to terminate on the grounds of suicide, but certainly not at the expense of others' lives” – a great point imo. He followed that up by saying victims of rape "deserve due sympathy and help, but a child conceived in this unfortunate situation still has the right to live". That is the same position as held by the RCC, which has established a support agency for women faced with this horror.

• jacersagain | Jan 12, 2013, 08:55 PM EST

  eiriamach, Jan 12, 06.36 – yes, you’re right that not all of the extracts I posted are from the Holy Bible. I extracted them from the New Advent website. The latter ones are by early Church leaders (yes, from the Didache, which includes preaching by some of the original Apostles and later Bishops/Leaders of the Christian Church) who wanted to eliminate the scourge of infanticide where unwanted babies were born. Nevertheless, together, Biblical and non-biblical Didache, they are yet fully part of Christian beliefs; they show quite clearly why the RCC, which originated with the Apostles of our Christ, holds it position on abortion. And imo they are right to do so. Most other Christian Churches do as well. If you are a member of a Christian Church, then you too would be obliged to respect the advices of our earliest Christian Church preachers, which, you know well, included women. If you disagree with what the earliest Post-death of Christ Christian leaders were saying, I then suggest you take time out, visit your local Christian church's tabernacle or just sit quietly in your own kitchen over a cuppa tea and have a big row with our Christ on the subject to find answers to your arguments. He’ll answer you in only the way He knows.

• Smyrnian | Jan 12, 2013, 07:29 PM EST

  Eireamach - it's not to me you need to do your explaining, nor anyone else on this website. I hope you are awfully sure there are no consequences to killing innocents just for expediency. You have a LOT at stake.........

• Gearoid4 | Jan 12, 2013, 06:29 PM EST

  pro-abortion legislation is not required for medical difficulties in pregnancies as medical teams in countries like Ireland have the necessary authority and expertise to intervene to save women and their babies if necessary. We do not need abortion to bolster this. One can condemn abortion with being judgmental about individuals which is the Christian attitude. You, Eirimach, ask if adopting a position which is anti-abortion contributes to situations where women die in child-birth? Surely you should be querying the state of medical training and technology in countries which have high maternal mortality rates rather than try to disingenuously suggest that the beliefs of pro-life advocates may be a contributory factor. One could turn your proposition around and point to botched abortions being no small factor in these deaths.

• eiriamach | Jan 12, 2013, 05:10 PM EST

  The unusual case is not a "fallacy." As one of the speakers at the hearings said, even if only one life could be saved by legislating a health policy for crisis pregnancy, the TDs must do it. And as Sarah Houlihan notes, "In 2010, about 287,000 women worldwide died due to complications of pregnancy and child birth, including severe bleeding after childbirth, infections, hypertensive disorders, and unsafe abortions." And Rooney pointed out at the hearings as she spoke of the X case, “Our country was going to force her to carry that foetus to term and that is why she was suicidal.” I'd be very careful, also, about condemning women who either choose abortion or support women's right to do so: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you" (Matt 7:1-2). Consider the possibility that your opposition to life-saving abortion in crisis pregnancies may be responsible for some of those 287,000 annual unnecessary deaths. Are you so sure you're right that you'd take that risk?

• Smyrnian | Jan 12, 2013, 03:22 PM EST

  Eireamach - I thought so. You use a rare isolated situation to argue for abortion all around. Many people use that fallacy; find an exception or rarity and then use that as "logic". Taking a life is taking a life and you are not the decider as to when life begins. You have a lot to answer for.

• eiriamach | Jan 12, 2013, 01:01 PM EST

  Smyrnian, "the mother's life"? Keep in mind that some "mothers" are nine years old! No to your question: I support a woman's right to choose early in a pregnancy whether to continue it. Medical science can detect serious problems in fetal development within the first trimester (abortion laws allow only first-trimester abortion except in rare cases and severe emergencies). It is an exercise in cruelty, with no moral justification whatever, to bring into this world an infant doomed only to suffer and die without ever leaving hospital and, in that process, to cause suffering (and often impoverishment) for families and conflict for medical workers. And it must be the choice of rape victims whether to take moral and financial responsibility for birthing and raising children resulting from that violent crime. It is a human rights horror for any government to coerce a rape victim into giving birth! I support the right of parents to seek abortion for their pre-teen and young teen daughters, whose health is virtually always undermined by pregnancy and whose lives are jeopardized by it, and who, by definition, are rape victims. I support the right of any woman to seek abortion in any case in which pregnancy jeopardizes her health. I also support stronger laws and sentencing for sexual offenders, universal sex education in schools and clinics, government support of access to contraceptives, and every other public policy that reduces the number of abortions. My bottom line is that govt prohibition of abortion deprives women of the most essential trait of humanity -- free will, choice in reproduction -- and places women in the same moral category as animals or property.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 12, 2013, 10:08 AM EST

  You detail the contributions of the various Irish Faith communities during the committee hearings of the Oireacthas, regarding the application of abortion in certain circumstances. It is true that the representatives froml the protestant churches, Islam, Judaism and other beliefs(and none), to varying degrees specified conditions cases as in the terrible example of incest where this procedure can be implemented. The Catholic Church representatives seemed to be the only ones supporting the position that all life is indeed sacred and is a gift from God. I applaud the Church for doing so despite the mounting pressure from the usual quarters and the less than unanimous conclusions of the spokespersons for the different Faith communities. Truth is not a numbers game but is arrived at through a deep spiritual awareness concerning the ultimate purpose and destination of mankind.

• Smyrnian | Jan 12, 2013, 09:59 AM EST

  Eireamach - Based on your voluminous commentary you are only in favor of abortion when the mother's life is in danger, correct?

• Gearoid4 | Jan 12, 2013, 09:52 AM EST

  As for your point, Eiriamach, about the "ensoulment" of the fetus. There has been speculative theology in this area since the early Church Fathers, but they all instinctively knew like Augustine and later Middle Age scholars that life did indeed start at conception and did not need a debating society to discover that point. They did not have the benefit of modern-day advanced optical technology, but speculation about the beginning of the soul, did not blur their consciousness about the reality and worth of human life fertilization. I acknowledge your point that in nature a lot of fertilized ova are destroyed before one is allowed to survive and progress but this gives us no right to seek and destroy deliberately life in it's nascent state while it is developing. Going back to your point about Ireland exporting it's abortion problem,, it is a known fact that the majority of Irish women to end their pregnancies do it for "social" reasons without there being any medical necessity for these procedures. This is where real pro-choice options can come into play like expert counselling as in cases of depression and adoption services. I agree that Irish women should not have to go abroad and the expansion of the aforementioned choices can help them with their difficulties.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 12, 2013, 09:40 AM EST

  @Eiriamach, You spout nonsense when you state that my comments make me appear to "withhold the life-saving procedure of abortion" as this means in fact targeting the fetus for destruction without tackling the prevailing underlying medical conditions(some of which you list). Doctors are already empowered to save the life of the mother and at times this can end in the tragic death of the fetus. If legislation is to be introduced, it should clarify the point concerning the empowerment of medical staff to do all in their power to safeguard a mother's life while being mindful of the sanctity of life of the fetus. Abortion would be a retrograde step as far as that is concerned. I will repeat the point(because it is a point worth repeating), Ireland has an enviable record as being one of the safest places in the world for women to give birth to children and with no abortion culture in sight.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 12, 2013, 09:33 AM EST

  @Eiriamach, This is nonsense you are spouting concerning the "life-saving procedures of abortion" as abortion targets the fetus and not the prevailing conditions which effect women. Doctors are already empowered to intervene surgically to save a woman's life and sometimes this may end the death of the fetus. I'll repeat the point and it is one that is worth repeating(even for those who are tone deaf to it). Ireland has one of the most enviable records in the world for maternal and baby care and manages to keep up this magnificent standard without the culture of abortion. There has been speculation over the ages concerning the "ensoulment" of the fetus from the time of Augustine, through Thomas Aquinas to the present day. The early Church Fathers or theologians in the Middle Ages did not have the benefit of modern day optical technology, but knew instinctively that from the moment of conception a human life was underway and did not need a debating society t tell them that. Indeed the Catholic Church does look upon life from fertilization as sacred and of course nature does discard a lot of ova before one manages to survive and progress. But why should we destructively treat the fertilized ova or fetus as if they were tumor-like growths when they are viably developing in the uterus or womb. It is a question of philosophic contemplation on the nature and worth of human life and not merely about the material

• eiriamach | Jan 12, 2013, 08:41 AM EST

  To put it in the simplest but still accurate terms, ONLY the Catholic representatives opposed the Committee's task of legislating to clarify the Constitution's severely limited "equal right to life" of pregnant women. ALL of the Protestant and synagogue/ mosque representatives supported the Committee's task of legislating to clarify the "equal right to life" of pregnant women and suggested modifications of the absolute anti-abortion provisions of Irish law. I challenge everyone to read, please, the notes published on the speakers' words and quote anything I've missed that disagrees with my analysis.

• eiriamach | Jan 12, 2013, 08:31 AM EST

  Yesterday's Oireachtas hearings included the following religious organizations: the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian Church of Ireland, Methodist Church of Ireland, Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland and Atheist Ireland. The Journal.ie did not report on the Islamic speaker as such; perhaps Dr Ali Selim was its representative: "10.06 – In cases where there is a risk to the life of a foetus and a woman, Selim says, “obviously the latter is of greater importance than the former”. I'm quoting directly from Journal.ie: "Rabbi Zalman Lent of the Irish Jewish Community ... says the Jewish faith only allows abortion in certain circumstances, including a danger or risk to mother's life, mental health complications to mother leading to her death, rape or incest, or foetal abnormalities which impact viability." Even Heidi Good of the Methodist Church of Ireland, who voiced the strongest "sanctity of human life" position among the Protestant reps, “'strongly urges' the Oireachtas to legislate and set minimum standards for the social good." No other speaker took the extreme position of the Catholic representatives except officers of Youth Defence and other Catholic anti-choice groups.

• eiriamach | Jan 12, 2013, 07:53 AM EST

  You have not READ the transcripts, apparently, Jacers. The Protestants present at the hearing gave clear moral reasons in favor of legislating. Remember, there's been no talk of changing the Irish Constitution's anti-abortion provision, only of working out measures to save the lives of pregnant women in medical crises. If the issue were "abortion on demand," them Protestant speakers would voice opposition, but with regard to the limited task before the committee, all the speakers for Protestant churches in Ireland agreed with allowing abortion in medical crises to save the lives that can be saved. ONLY the Catholic representatives opposed saving women's lives!

• jacersagain | Jan 12, 2013, 07:00 AM EST

  Nope, wrong again eiriamach... each of the Protestant Churches represented said clearly that deliberate abortion is wrong. They did however add qualifications, just as the reps of the Catholic Church have done. So, both Catholic and Protestant Church leaders in Ireland are of the one mind. You are clearly not, God help you.

• eiriamach | Jan 12, 2013, 06:56 AM EST

  My point was, Jacers, that the words "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion" are NOT anywhere in the bible, though the bishop may have spoken them. And you've presented them as though they are in the bible. Wrong! and deceitful. Resorting to such subterfuges is evidence of panic on the "Let women die" side of this debate. As I've said elsewhere, moral reasoning is all on the side of preventing repeats of the Savita tragedy. You have no respectable reason to forbid abortion in life-threatening emergencies, so you "quote" alleged scripture -- but it's not scripture. Let's be clear about that.

• eiriamach | Jan 12, 2013, 06:47 AM EST

  Jacers, you've also misrepresented the Protestant view. From Journal ie summary of yesterday's testimony: 9.46 – Rev Dr Michael Jackson, of the Church of Ireland, says that the church opposes abortion but that there are exceptional cases in which a termination is permissible. Such cases included ‘real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.' 9.48 – Jackson says the current state of affairs is “unfair” to both women and medical professionals. 9.54 – Heidi Good of the Methodist C of I ... says the Methodist Church opposes ‘abortion on demand’ – but she outlines four cases in which termination of pregnancy is acceptable: 1) the mother’s life is at risk, 2) the risk of grave risk of serious injury to physical or mental health 3) gross abnormality of the foetus, 4) pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. 9.55 – Good said the Methodist Church “strongly urges” the Oireachtas to legislate and set minimum standards for the social good. 10.02 – Morrow [Presbyterian] recognises that in our “messy world” medical professionals are confronted with two things that are wrong – the death of a mother or the death of a child. He says the lesser of evil option must be chosen in these cases. 11.06 – Samuel Harper, C of I, reiterates need for legislation – despite concerns over what it would “open up”. The measure of the legislation will be on how it addresses the 3 per cent of women who are at risk of suicide – not how it might open it up to the 100 per cent, he adds. 11.32 – Jackson comments on the range of views on abortion within Church of Ireland – fluidity on issues like health and suicide exists.

• jacersagain | Jan 12, 2013, 06:42 AM EST

  Nope, eiriamach. I merely extracted honest words from various passages in the honest Bible. You, as usual in your indefensible manners, twisted and misinterpreted them to suit your own cause. I haven’t even quoted the 5th Commandment given to Moses.

• eiriamach | Jan 12, 2013, 06:26 AM EST

  Jacers, you've quoted misleadingly. From Jeremiah 1, "“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.' 'Alas, Sovereign Lord,' I said, 'I do not know how to speak; I am too young.'” You have added a quotation from the DIDACHE to the words of the prophet JEREMIAH--that's a no-no in working with texts! Amazing! Catholic Defenders routinely dismiss texts like the Didache when they speak of women serving Christian communities as priests, but when they find some anti-feminist snippet in the non-canonical texts, they'll disingenuously sneak it into a canonical text. Good try, but as the Rev Al says, "gotcha."

• eiriamach | Jan 12, 2013, 06:07 AM EST

  Gearoid, as long as you withhold the life-saving procedure of abortion in cases of incomplete miscarriage, gynecologic cancers accelerated by pregnancy hormones, sepsis, eclampsia, and similar emergencies, you are calling for the needless deaths of women--what you folks refer to as "murder." You cannot mitigate that evil with talk of better medical care. For clear medical reasons, the standard procedure in many crises of pregnancy is now and likely to remain abortion--around the world. While abortion is the deliberate ending of developing "life," there's no reason to believe that a 3-month fetus is "a human soul" for which we have sacred responsibility. RC lost any possibility of convincing people that an embryo or early fetus is sacred life when you began teaching that life was sacrosanct from the moment of fertilization--whereas we know that nature carelessly discards most fertilized ova. You should face the fact that you will never convince educated or thinking people, who regard your "moment of conception" talk as sheer nonsense -- or worse --a pseudo-theological fairy-tale excuse for letting women die needlessly. You also refuse to admit the perfectly obvious fact that Ireland's low maternal and infant mortality figures result from Ireland's exporting its problem pregnancies to be dealt with out of state. There's a human rights violation in that fact, as govt officials know, and hypocrisy in your ignoring it.

• jacersagain | Jan 12, 2013, 06:02 AM EST

  @Butch 1, Eschetic, eiriamach, seanomelb, Cyn and others… read up the Bible and the commanding words of our Christ to “Go, tell everyone” and learn why the Bishop re-enounces the RCC’s position on abortion: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you…. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth… You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish…. God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to (mankind) the noble mission of safeguarding life, and (it) must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves… Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.” >> The Bishop is firmly adhering to the mission that Christ gave him and his fellow-Christians to go and tell it like it is. And yes, the Protestant Churches in Ireland also firmly reject abortion.

• Smyrnian | Jan 12, 2013, 04:57 AM EST

  Pilib - and in such a case there would hardly ever be an abortion in Ireland because on this day and age the need for terminating a pregnancy to save a mothers life is extremely rare.

• Nicoletta | Jan 12, 2013, 02:21 AM EST

  Thanks be to God for the Catholic Church and her strong defence of the unborn child.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 11, 2013, 10:26 PM EST

  Eiriamach, you quote a report concerning the mortality rates for pregnant women around the world and you cite statistics for 2010 which are indeed shocking. The health threats which you mention could be treated with more investment in advanced medical equipment and training for medical staff in various countries concerning maternal care. Abortion is no answer but rather is an evil to be avoided. Ireland has one of the lowest mortality rates for pregnant women and their children in the world and has achieved this with no abortion in sight. @Eschetic, you chide the Church for insisting on protection of life before the formation of the brain. By week 6 brain-waves can be detected in the fetus and all the organs are fully formed by the 8th week. Maybe you think this is inconsequential, but this is human life in development without any doubt. In fact when the sperm fuses with the egg we have the definite beginning of life and the start of the various processes which the tiny human goes through. This is not an indefinite object or a thing but human life.

• Cyn | Jan 11, 2013, 06:16 PM EST

  The church can call for all they want. They have never stopped abortion, just condemned women to death and infertility by bad abortions. "Pro life" is not pro life, it's pro fetus. The woman's life is irrelevant to the church, as is her living family.

• seanomelb | Jan 11, 2013, 04:49 PM EST

  The good Bishop should be careful for what he wishes for. A referendum is not necassary in this case and the church should not interfere with the democratic process.

• eiriamach | Jan 11, 2013, 04:46 PM EST

  To follow up on the human rights point below, at the Human Rights in Ireland web site, see law scholar Sarah Houlihan's article "Maternal mortality and state accountability," much worth reading. Snippets: "In 2010, about 287,000 women worldwide died due to complications of pregnancy and child birth, including severe bleeding after childbirth, infections, hypertensive disorders, and unsafe abortions." She concludes that the Irish govt "should bear in mind not just the human rights of women and girls which are in play, such as the rights to life, dignity, autonomy, health, non-discrimination, and freedom from torture, it should also take careful note of the legal consequences of failing to ensure such rights to women and girls, particularly where that failure results in their deaths. States can and will be held accountable for preventable maternal deaths.... There are many things that we, as a country cannot control at the moment – this, the respect, both legislative and otherwise, we accord to women and girls in Ireland and their life choices, is something we can. Let us hope for social justice."

• cillowen | Jan 11, 2013, 02:34 PM EST

  Excellent idea - vote vote vote - and put the killings to bed.

• pilib04 | Jan 11, 2013, 12:03 PM EST

  Holy Mother Church better be careful for what they ask. The possible wordings regarding an abortion referendum is most likely to be in the hands of the Labour Party. My guess is the wording could be something like this: "In the event that a pregnancy is deemed a threat to a woman's health, the woman may have the pregnancy terminated within the first trimester (12 weeks) of pregnancy." Fairly certain such phrasing would pass easily.

• Eschetic | Jan 11, 2013, 11:01 AM EST

  So long as the church sincerely believes the fiction that there is a life in being to be protected prior to the formation of the brain (and one wants to believe the belief is sincere, however wrong headed, since it is so against their interest, driving parishioners away), they clearly have an obligation to speak out on the issue. It MUST be noted, however, that you do NOT put basic human rights - and a woman's control of her own body is one of the most basic) to a majority vote. Even though more and more states in the U.S. are approving marriage equality (a question long ago actually litigated and settled by our Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia), this is a basic principle which applies in every nation on every question of BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

• Butch1 | Jan 11, 2013, 10:39 AM EST

  The Catholic Church should, in my opinion, butt out of government law making, period. They have interfered in government in the States too many times where we are supposed to have a Separation of church and state. Perhaps, they should try and clean up their own problems in their own house first like their pedophile priests which they favor over the victims and seem to protect by transferring them to other parishes rather than punishing them like they should for rape of innocent children or harboring runaway Cardinals like the infamous, Cardinal Law from the state of Mass. who decided to skip the country rather than show up to be questioned under oath and sought sanctuary of the Pope at the Vatican where he still resides until this day with a newly created position especially for himself. One would think they should atone for these huge sins and ask the people's forgiveness first, then see if their God will ever forgive them for what they have done to the people for all these centuries. Abortion is small potatoes compared to their high crimes, in my opinion. One can start with the Inquisition!