In an historic move, the Irish government has agreed to introduce new legislation allowing abortions to be carried out in Ireland within the terms of the Supreme Court ruling in the X Case.
That ruling called for allowing abortion when the life of the mother was in danger and the risk can only be relieved by terminating the pregnancy.
The government will bring forward a vote in the New Year but already there is strong opposition.
The four Catholic Archbishops released a strong statement saying that they wanted a free vote on the issue without the government whip being applied and they encouraged “all to pray that our public representatives will be given the wisdom and courage to do what is right."
The archbishops stated:“public representatives must consider the profound moral questions that arise” in relation to the decision “by the Government to legislate for abortion."
While the government has a massive majority, it is believed there are up to 20 Fine Gael TDs who have mixed views on whether to vote yes. That could make the final vote very tight.
Current abortion law was enacted in 1861 and applies a blanket ban.
The government statement added: “The legislation should provide the clarity and certainty in relation to the process of deciding when a termination of pregnancy is permissible, that is where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the woman and this risk can only be averted by the termination of her pregnancy.”
Read more: Savita Halappanavar's husband's detailed diary of days leading up to her death
So twenty years after the Irish Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to abortion when her life is at risk, Ireland's government will now finally introduce a new law to clarify the situation.
According to CNN, the long postponed decision was made in a lengthy Irish Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, and it follows in the wake of controversy over the death of Savita Halappanavar from blood poisoning after a termination was refused to her in a County Galway hospital seven weeks ago.
The government is reportedly acting on the findings of an expert group on abortion, commissioned after a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010. It is likely to be several months before the proposed legislation is finalized, however.
Health Minister Dr. James Reilly said that he was aware of the strength of feeling around the issue of abortion in Ireland, but he reminded the public that the government has a duty to ensure the safety of pregnant women in Ireland.
The death of Halappanavar, an Indian-born dentist who had moved to Ireland, prompted outrage in Ireland and led to an international outcry.
Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, said his wife was advised that her unborn baby would probably die. In extreme pain, she asked for an abortion but was reportedly told that Ireland is a Catholic country and that an abortion could not be provided while the fetus was still alive, a decision that was at odds with the Supreme Court's ruling on the threat to the mother's life 20 years earlier.
Three days after her request for a termination, the fetus died and was removed. Four days later, on October 28, Savita Halappanavar died, prompting international headlines and calls for government action.
Inquiries have been set up by Irish authorities into the circumstances surrounding Savita's death, including one by the Irish Health Service Executive, but none has yet reported back.
The Minister concluded: 'Today the Government has decided the form of action to be taken. We will not preempt the debate that must follow by speculating on details to be decided later in the process.'
'However, the Government is committed to ensuring that the safety of pregnant women in Ireland is maintained and strengthened. We must fulfill our duty of care towards them. For that purpose, we will clarify in legislation and regulation what is available by way of treatment to a woman when a pregnancy gives rise to a threat to a woman’s life. We will also clarify what is legal for the professionals who must provide that care while at all times taking full account of the equal right to life of the unborn child.'
Read more: Irish in New York favor abortion law reform following Savita Halappanavar tragedy
49 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.Gearoid4 | Dec 21, 2012, 03:18 PM EST
I really do not see how for example a fetus found with the chromosome responsible for Downs Syndrome poses any threat to the life of a mother. Rather it is the poorly-informed choices of many which leads to the high abortion rate of such fetuses which has an nasty undertone of eugenics about it. It has been conclusively shown that children with this genetic condition often bring much happiness and love into their families and often develop into well-rounded adults who contribute a lot to their communities. They have a right to live as much as anyone else. The recent Paralympic Games held in London this year, showed people with physical disabilities competing in various sporting activities with high levels of skill. Those competitors born with genetic disabilities were thankfully spared any second thoughts by their mothers on their God-given right to be born and should give those who advocate the targeting and destruction of fetuses carrying suspect genes, food for thought.
Gearoid4 | Dec 21, 2012, 07:58 AM EST
eiriamach, as always, I am impressed with the logic and soundness of your arguments. More important, I am impressed with the moral power of your reasoning, and your simple human decency. Brava!
esatdigiwank | Dec 21, 2012, 05:02 AM EST
Nobody addresses pregnancy through incest here. Our radio, tv interviewers don't challenge the men in frocks re. this when confronting them on air. This is to demonstrate that the arena for an open, honest debate does not exist in Ireland. Why must a girl who conceived due to a sexual assault/rape by an alcoholic predatory male blood-relative be compelled to bring the pregnancy to full term? I'm incredulous.
WoundedKnee | Dec 21, 2012, 02:07 AM EST
Just saw on CNN a factoid: In India 50.000 mothers die in child birth every year. That is to say that between probably 100 and 150 pregnant women died in India on the day that Ms Halapeno died. And the day after. And the day after that... And India (and the pro-abortion lobby in Ireland) got all sanctimonious and preachy about the death of one woman in Ireland? Didn't even wait for an investigation into the circumstances before rushing out with their self-righteous nonsense.
eiriamach | Dec 21, 2012, 01:26 AM EST
Gearoid asks, "Who are we to sit in the place of God and determine who lives and dies in this fashion?" Every time a surgeon removes a cancerous tumor or replaces a heart valve after a patient's cardiac failure or performs a needed kidney transplant, every time a family removes a brain-dead accident victim from machines that maintain blood circulation and air exchange, every time parents opt to have a stent inserted to drain killing fluid from the brain of a newborn, WE "determine who lives and dies in this fashion." WE have responsibility to preserve human life, but not in disregard of whether it IS human life or merely the preservation of a body from decay, with no human functions whatever. You would not deny life-saving surgery to the cancer victim, the heart-attack victim, the kidney-failure victim, or the hydrocephalic infant, no. Only women in crisis pregnancies would you leave at the mercy of nature, denying them a life-saving medical procedure-- on the transparent excuse that a non-viable 3-month foetus has an "equal right to life." Only to WOMEN who decide to bring new life into the world would YOU "sit in the place of God" and deny their own right to life when pregnancy becomes life-threatening crisis. What kind of God teaches YOU such tyranny?
Gearoid4 | Dec 20, 2012, 05:05 PM EST
I agree that you did not mean to say that "profoundly handicapped infants" should be subject to any form of "mercy" killing and do sincerely apologize for that. But my main points still stand concerning the immorality of using pre-natal screening to weed out fetuses who possess certain defective genes or chromosomes which may result in medical difficulties for them later on. This should not result in a death sentence being imposed on them, as they have every right to live as anyone else.
Gearoid4 | Dec 20, 2012, 04:51 PM EST
By the way, a fetus(not a child in your eyes) is fully human and cannot be classified as anything else. He or she has a heart-beat at 3 weeks and brain waves start to form, although the brain stem is at a early stage. Of course the stipulation of the Irish Constitution in favor of equal protection of the mother and child is viable and is a sane civilized provision in a world where pro-abortion propaganda is increasingly making the womb a very dangerous place for nascent life. Ireland has the necessary medical expertise to protect mother and child and do not the evil of abortion legislation to guarantee it.
Gearoid4 | Dec 20, 2012, 04:44 PM EST
Well, I re-read your original posting, Eiriamach and you do talk about " profoundly handicapped infants" and "first trimester fetuses". You think that it is fine to use medical scanning technology to detect medical defects in first trimester fetuses that may cause them serious problems later on in later childhood. You think that this is merciful in preempting and thus stopping unnecessary suffering later on. But this approach can be seen in the terrible outcomes of fetuses born with the defective chromosome which causes Down Syndrome, as at least 50%(other figures state 90%) of them are aborted annually in the US . Who are we to sit in the place of God and determine who lives and dies in this fashion?
eiriamach | Dec 20, 2012, 02:14 PM EST
No, Gearoid, I do NOT "talk about 'profoundly handicapped' children." I wrote about a three month or earlier FOETUS--which is by no stretch of a sane imagination a child--a foetus that will never be able to assimilate food or have any other human functions but is fated by irremediable congenital conditions to starve slowly to death after birth. It is stark cruelty to allow such suffering when the means to prevent it is in our hands. I did not write about "mercy." I wrote about PREVENTING SUFFERING--both of a newborn and of parents and health workers and anyone who knows of such tragic births. So there is NO WAY that I have advocated what you call "mercy killing" or euthanasia or eugenics! I advocate responsible child-bearing and parenting. Unless you are truly stupid, your distortion of what I wrote is unconscionable -- but typical of those who will not deal with life's harsher realities and prefer to demonize those who do face them. Your insistence that the Irish Constitution can give "equal" protection to the life of a non-viable foetus and the life of a pregnant woman struggling in incomplete miscarriage is not just untenable in the face of plain logic, but a telling retreat from the realities of pregnancy and childbirth. Such occurrences as I've described may be rare, but human beings must deal with them--humanely--applying consistent moral principle rather than romantic fantasies of denial and evasion! BTW: Your "trawl" of confidential medical records ought to put you in prison.
bobby | Dec 20, 2012, 12:23 PM EST
So does your Brain butlerreport.....
butlerreport | Dec 20, 2012, 12:15 PM EST
Ireland lives in the stone age.
lawyer4 | Dec 20, 2012, 10:17 AM EST
The European Court of Justice has binding jurisdiction over EU Member States, and the European Court of Human Rights has binding jurisdiction over signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights. Ireland is both.
lawyer4 | Dec 20, 2012, 09:26 AM EST
seatonshannon, you are either a fool or a fraud. First of all, your come-on has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. It's a cheap trick to con the dim-witted. What you describe is one of the most common scams on the internet, well documented over several years. The only folks who make money are the ones owning these websites - to whom dunces must sent money in order to obtain the secret to this bonanza - but you get no secret formula and there is no bonanza. I trust Irish Central readers will not be taken by this transparent scam.
seatonshannon | Dec 20, 2012, 04:12 AM EST
If you think Stephen`s story is incredible,, in the last-month my sister's best friend basically recieved a check for $7703 putting in a fourty hour month in their apartment and they're roomate's half-sister`s neighbour has been doing this for four months and got over $7703 part time from their laptop. follow the tips from this address, wow92.com
WoundedKnee | Dec 20, 2012, 02:38 AM EST
MichaelMcGrath--You are right to draw attention to the rush to this legislation. Contrast that with Kenny and his ilk's utter failure to do anything about the exorbitant EU blackmail. They're just lapdogs when it comes to the EU bullies.
Gearoid4 | Dec 20, 2012, 02:06 AM EST
Bocky, when a Constitution gives full protection to both pregnant woman and child, one must question the validity or morality of the Supreme Court coming down on the side of legislation which invariably will open up the way to abortion on demand(despite the initial "limited" circumstances it will purportedly cover). You may call it a "personal" opinion, but many people would hold that same thought. @Eiriamach, You list medical scenarios where abortion in your opinion would be a mercy to the child and provide relief to the mother. You talk about "profoundly handicapped" children getting a so-called release from their suffering by the destruction of their lives. Would Down Syndrome children be included in this list of "mercy" killings? This is nothing short of eugenics(unless the child in the womb has a fatal medical condition which is beyond medical assistance but still should not be ruthlessly destroyed). Somehow I don't think eliminating defenseless and voiceless fetuses or embryos(no matter what their handicap) amounts to "killing in self-defense". Other medical conditions that you mention to justify abortion, are rare and the vast majority of cases are for "social" reasons, as any trawl of the casebook files of women who opt for this horrific option(as in GB) will tell you. The push for abortion is overtly ideological and goes beyond any medical necessity and all right thinking people must resist any attempt to attempts by parliamentarians to legislate in favor of it.
MichaelMcGrath | Dec 19, 2012, 11:30 PM EST
Apologies - either the site or my computer is chopping my first sentence, sorry.
MichaelMcGrath | Dec 19, 2012, 11:28 PM EST
now what caused Happanalavar's death, whether it was abortion related or not? I have never seen so much rush about any legislation in Ireland, nor have I ever seen any Irish government more amenable to take orders from Indian and other politicians , Ireland has never taken any notice of the European Court which has no power at all in this matter in Ireland, and I am therefore most suspicious of the Irish Taoiseach and Minister for health quoting European Court decision now in this case when indeed it has no power at all.
MichaelMcGrath | Dec 19, 2012, 11:19 PM EST
ral matters is the best, I think the Archbishops are right in this and that all churches have a right to have a say where Abortion is concerned. I fel that suicide is rare amongst pregnant women, that suicide is much more prevalent amongst women who have had an abortion. The European Court does not come into this no more than does the House of Lords come into the governance of the USA. Yes there should be legislation but what legislation the Constitution allows is debatable. The Supreme Court in Ireland can't overrule what the people have voted for in referendum ensrined in the Constitution. Thus far there aree a lot of politician's lies about courts' powers in this matter, both the European and the Irish Supreme Courtof twenty years ago( note , not the present Irish Supreme Court)
eiriamach | Dec 19, 2012, 07:27 PM EST
Irish"girl," One of the 10 commandments, a reasonable stand-in for natural law/moral law, instructs us not to kill. The moral principle involved is that it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering. Some people consider killing in war to be necessary. I consider killing in self-defense or defense of others justifiable. So the commandment is not an absolute moral statement; it requires that we THINK and apply it in relevant situations. It is wrong, morally wrong with no doubt, to bring to birth an infant whose only "human" experience is to suffer and die, as many profoundly handicapped infants do, of starvation, screaming in blind pain. We have the means to detect in utero in first trimester fetuses destined for such suffering, and it is right to prevent the suffering by abortion. An absolutist on any moral issue will refuse to see the harm prevented or the good accomplished. Your feelings of horror are poor guides to morality. I suggest that you take an ethics course, do some thinking, visit a dying infant in a neonatal unit, and never take your moral cues from You Tube! Perhaps you should talk with men and women who have brought such pregnancies to term. I know one who became a severe alcoholic and another who went clinical-crazy after they saw the suffering they had caused to an innocent babe, nursery health staff, and their families.
Bocktherobber | Dec 19, 2012, 07:00 PM EST
What should we replace the Supreme Court with? Our own personal opinion?
Gearoid4 | Dec 19, 2012, 06:26 PM EST
Agreed, the Supreme Court holds that right. But one must ask in the light of the A,B and C rulings by the ECHR(which in effect put no legal pressure on Ireland into enacting pro-abortion legislation), why the Supreme Court would facilitate by it's judgement any law which would undermine the guarantees built into an Article as fundamental to life as 40.3.3
Bocktherobber | Dec 19, 2012, 05:58 PM EST
The supreme court is the final arbiter of what the constitution means. Is that not correct?
Gearoid4 | Dec 19, 2012, 05:51 PM EST
No, I am not setting myself up as an expert. But the article that I have laid out to you in black and white, guarantees the life of the mother and unborn child. The Supreme Court obviously is empowered to interpret the various articles and clauses in the Constitution, but if their decision goes against said article(s), then one would have to question the context in which they are making such judgments. One can only wonder if certain recent rulings in the European Court of Human Rights would have anything to do with it.
Bocktherobber | Dec 19, 2012, 05:44 PM EST
Are you better qualified than the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution?
Gearoid4 | Dec 19, 2012, 05:39 PM EST
If you know the Constitution, Bocky, Article 40.3.3 stipulates clearly that there exists a need to protect both the life of the mother and unborn child. Abortion is a disastrous remedy as it is nothing but the intentional destruction of the nascent life in the womb and in the majority of cases in western nations the reason is purely "social". The "right to chose" has become a repetitive mantra which trumps the life of the developing embryo or fetus. The push for abortion is mostly for ideological reasons and there is absolutely no medical or moral necessity for this evil to be introduced.
Bocktherobber | Dec 19, 2012, 05:05 PM EST
This legislation is not optional. It's required by the constitution.
AlunPalmer | Dec 19, 2012, 04:48 PM EST
There are a lot of abortifactant substances that could be brought in by a visitor. Who would know? It would be recorded as a miscarriage. Obedience to the law only goes so far.
bobby | Dec 19, 2012, 04:48 PM EST
@TomSwinford | Dec 19, 2012, 10:29 AM EST, for once i agree with you, great comment.
anglo-norman | Dec 19, 2012, 04:28 PM EST
pilib04- The man under the bed
pilib04 | Dec 19, 2012, 02:00 PM EST
An 1861 law about anything is truly pathetic. When Sinn Fein forms the next government, they need to get rid of the Brit Colonial laws.
Gearoid4 | Dec 19, 2012, 01:01 PM EST
Once you legislate in favor of so-called "abortion in limited circumstances", you are more-or-less pushing the door half-open to invite abortion-on-demand. The same pattern can be seen in the lead-up to the exponential growth in abortions in the US and GB. People will use possible threats to health like "suicidal risk" to account for this rise but the truth is that the vast majority of abortions take place for "social" reasons which are not in any way indicative of an immediate danger to a pregnant woman's health. I hope that whatever legislation is proposed, only is arrived at, after intensive negotiations between all parties i.e both pro-life and "pro-choice" inside and outside of parliament. Abortion is a grave evil that has bee fraudulently presented as a viable solution to difficulties during pregnancies. R
Gearoid4 | Dec 19, 2012, 01:00 PM EST
Once you legislate in favor of so-called "abortion in limited circumstances", you are more-or-less pushing the door half-open to invite abortion-on-demand. The same pattern can be seen in the lead-up to the exponential growth in abortions in the US and GB. People will use possible threats to risk like "suicidal risk" to account for this rise but the truth is that the vast majority of abortions take place for "social" reasons which are not in any way indicative of an immediate danger to a pregnant woman's health. I hope that whatever legislation is proposed, only is arrived at, after intensive negotiations between all parties i.e both pro-life and "pro-choice" inside and outside of parliament. Abortion is a grave evil that has bee fraudulently presented as a viable solution to difficulties during pregnancies.
WoundedKnee | Dec 19, 2012, 12:55 PM EST
phinsman: "also if contraception fails". That's nonsense, can't work. What, do you want a woman to bring a burst condom into the doctor's office? My own position is that I would only permit abortion in cases of proven rape. I support giving the morning-after pill to rape victims, so it is logical that I would permit them an abortion if those pills weren't taken or didn't work. If I were a woman the only circumstance in which I would consider abortion would be if I had been forcibly impregnated. No one should have to carry the results of rape in their body for nine months. Many women. I know, do actually decide that the life within them is the only good thing that came of the rape, and bring the child to term and indeed raise it lovingly. I admire those women, but I don't think I would be one of them. As always, the Irish are behind the eight ball on this. The whole civilized world is questioning abortion, but the dopey Irish are moving in the opposite direction.
barneyjo | Dec 19, 2012, 12:48 PM EST
If our Irish-American Posters are as concerened as they claim to be about the premature termination of innocent lives, one can only hope that they are also canvassing their Representatives, Senators and Congressmen to convey their support for major reforms in respect of just who can legally own and use high-power firearms in the US. I would be particularly interested if any of the vocal posters on this emotive subject are holders membership of the National Rifle Association!!
phinsman | Dec 19, 2012, 12:40 PM EST
I would also recommend that the abortion law includes allowing a woman who is pregnant due to rape to have an abortion and also if contraception fails.
MaxTiger | Dec 19, 2012, 11:38 AM EST
The traitor Kenny is planning to introduce abortion not to save the life of any mother(no law change is needed for that) but to save his own government. The ex-Marxists who lead Labour have put this above any of their social policies. The next election will see many political careers destroyed.
horsepistol | Dec 19, 2012, 11:14 AM EST
Wake up Ireland! What in the world are you doing? If you are wondering why this is happening start looking into the background of your political leadership that is directing your nation away from its cultural self. You will see what is planning to take over. It has happened here in the US just as it did in Imperial Russia. Educate yourself then drink your beer and whiskey so that you can fight back. These are descendants of old Bolshevism and they are very much in global force. In the end Ireland will be without a God or Savoir. It seems your women are are following the deceivers promises. They have done this here too!Our prayers are the key but your actions are the Machine.... Get ignited!
Searlit | Dec 19, 2012, 11:07 AM EST
Keep the rapists who impregnate children in prison. Then the State could make the day after pill available to all women who need it. That should limit any abortions to only the ones that protect the life of the Mother, under the new law.
Silling | Dec 19, 2012, 10:58 AM EST
Is " Survival Of The Foetus " Evolutionary Darwinism ?
Silling | Dec 19, 2012, 10:29 AM EST
Abortion, the very word is painful to contemplate. In a perfect world it would not exist. As for me, it is a matter of basic human rights for the woman. It should be - and must be - fundamentally her decision, period. To say otherwise is to deny her one of the most basic of all human rights, the right of ownership of her own body. To say otherwise is to say that the state or the church claims ownership - which is to say that she is nothing more than property, that she is, in a very real sense, enslaved. This, to me, above all else, is unconsionable. In the real world, we will never run out of babies. One of our greatest challenges going forward is over-population. And the sad reality today is that 30,000 to 35,000 babies die every single day because they are unwanted or cannot be cared for.
katieherk | Dec 19, 2012, 10:11 AM EST
ABORTION IS MURDER, NO DENYING THIS... ONE OF THE WORSE SINS AGAINST GOD.
EamonnDublin | Dec 19, 2012, 09:49 AM EST
"OLovely" - Are you talking to me, by any chance? I have not even nearly attempted to say that I can, could, or would make a decision as to whether a woman can have an abortion. From where did you get that particular idea? Also, I do not understand your accusation of my "'slut' shaming", whatever that might be.
olovely | Dec 19, 2012, 09:36 AM EST
EamonnDublin, if an Irish woman determines she wants an abortion it's HER decision, not yours. Your 'slut' shaming is reprehensible.
EamonnDublin | Dec 19, 2012, 09:05 AM EST
In the latest figures for the United Kingdom, of the almost 200,000 women who claimed to have mental health problems and presented themselves to health professionals in order to be allowed to have an abortion, 97.5% were diagnosed as having mental health problems (and therefore being a suicide risk). Does anybody seriously believe that those figures make any sense? It couldn't possibly be that some (a lot? ; most? ; nearly all?) of the women were telling porky pies in order to get the go-ahead? Nah, of course not.
iriishgirl | Dec 19, 2012, 08:54 AM EST
Eiriamach, I have some issues with your following statement “ it will still force women pregnant with fetuses that cannot survive to continue their pregnancies, and therefore to violate the moral law against causing unnecessary suffering, especially of helpless infants”. What moral “law” (???) are you talking about? “Moral” in the situation of abortion, for a pro-choicer shouldn’t even be put in the same sentence as far as I am concerned. And – having a medical background – I know that even children with severe anomalies can survive. Physicians aren’t God – they don’t always know a child will or will not survive no matter what the diagnosis. So you just want to kill the babies who aren’t perfect off maybe cause mom’s health is somewhat effected or as you put it oddly “damaged health and shortened lives”? A sick baby in-utero doesn’t usually make the mother sick. That seems to be what you are saying. And it is where Ireland is going – just like the US – we just kill babies off here. Have you ever SEEN an abortion??? It is vicious, I refused to even stay in the room when I was first exposed to it. Youtube it – watch the horror of what we do to our own and then tell me it is okay. Better yet - go down to your local Planned Parenthood and ask if you can view one live. I dare you.
iriishgirl | Dec 19, 2012, 08:46 AM EST
WoundedKnee – I completely agree with you. This is a very slippery slope for Ireland. Ireland will end up turning into the US. We wonder why we have children shooting children here in the US? There are a lot of reasons, but I think lack of moral/social values play a big part. Abortions murders innocent babies for goodness sake, and our young people know that, so what kind of moral values are we portraying to them? Good luck Ireland – you are basically going to be passing a law allowing abortion as the physicians who are pro-choice will just put a “made-up” diagnosis on the girl’s/woman’s medical chart and kill off your future generations.
eiriamach | Dec 19, 2012, 08:17 AM EST
I cannot see how "the safety of pregnant women in Ireland is maintained and strengthened" by this too-limited legislation. It will not protect the safety of pregnant children, whose health is virtually always compromised by pregnancy. And it will still force women pregnant with fetuses that cannot survive to continue their pregnancies, and therefore to violate the moral law against causing unnecessary suffering, especially of helpless infants. It asserts state control over the pregnant bodies of rape victims, in violation of human rights. And it compels pregnant women to endure damaged health and shortened lives when pregnancy threatens their health but does not immediately threaten their lives. The stultifying problem remains as long as health workers must consider the fetus to have an "equal right to life" even when they know it cannot survive. The problem calls for constitutional revision.
WoundedKnee | Dec 19, 2012, 08:05 AM EST
This is reminiscent of how abortion was introduced in this country. The fact is that if a woman says she's going to kill herself, who can argue against her? Ironically, the Irish Supreme Court ruling is even more open-ended than are our own, since the Irish Court made no restrictions on abortion as regards which trimester etc. So it's pretty much abortion on demand.