67 Comments

• eiriamach | Dec 15, 2012, 12:01 AM EST

  Gearoid would let the woman die to avoid shortening the life of a non-viable fetus. GavinE does not like calling that situation murder? OK, call it culpable homicide. When doctors can save a life with a medical procedure and they refuse to do it, they are responsible for the death. If they want to sacrifice their own lives to prolong the life of a dying fetus, let them do that, but they have no right to sacrifice a pregnant woman's life just to prolong a life that they cannot save. Doing nothing in such a crisis allows them to delude themselves that they have not caused the avoidable death, nature has caused it. But the truth is clear.

• GavinE | Dec 08, 2012, 12:17 PM EST

  I suggest Peaches Melba should apologise to Gearoid4 for the disgraceful comment in Peaches' last post (5.54 pm, Dec. 6th)

• seanomelb | Dec 06, 2012, 05:54 PM EST

  I can only concude that gearoid would murder the mother to save the fetus.

• eiriamach | Dec 06, 2012, 10:21 AM EST

  Gearoid4, do you know what a petitio principii is? You're expert at constructing it. Seano's question assumed, quite reasonably, that abortion was necessary to save the life of the woman, and asked you to decide whether that should be done. You beg that question when you write, "Abortion is not necessary." The scenario you present has doctors futzing around looking as though they are working to save both lives while one life is already doomed by miscarriage and the other life hangs in the balance, waiting for a life-saving abortion. And you say "without intentionally seeking to destroy the life of the fetus." That's the scenario that ends in avoidable death. That's the "let the woman die" scenario, and you do not seem to realize that those who allow the avoidable death to occur are responsible and morally culpable. In Canto III of The Inferno, Dante writes about the souls who, in life, refused to decide: "that retrograde and faithless crew hateful to God and to his enemies" (Ciardi trans. 59-60). It's an indefensible position.

• Gearoid4 | Dec 05, 2012, 07:07 PM EST

  @Seano, The answer is there for you to see, if you have a mind to see it. Abortion is not necessary as there is no bar, legal or moral, from medical teams intervening to save the lives of the mother, without intentionally seeking to destroy the life of the fetus or embryo. So no to abortion.

• seanomelb | Dec 05, 2012, 05:51 PM EST

  Now talk of mincing words Gearoid I asked the question "If a decision on the life of the mother or the child hast to be made who should live and who should make the decision". I'm not twisting your words you present your answer in a long winded fashion so you do not have to answer yes or no. And here you are again with 15 lines of nothing to avoid the answer, how disingenuous of you.

• Gearoid4 | Dec 05, 2012, 01:38 PM EST

  @Seano, Methinks that you are are deliberately twisting my words or disingenuously reading into them something that is not there. I did not at any stage during my previous comments even close to suggesting that abortion was a necessary procedure. If you had followed my words closely(which I doubt), you would've noticed that I stated that "in some instances the child in the womb may die as an unintended consequence which is very tragic and is accommodated again within the Catholic medical ethos". Now this could not be construed as advocating the deliberate targeting of the fetus or embryo for death, which abortion certainly is. I shouldn't have to re-state my point or rephrase it, but here it is again-It is permissible for doctors under Catholic medical guidelines, to directly intervene to save the life of the mother without intentionally desiring the death of the child in the womb. Unfortunately sometimes the nascent life may die as a result of the drastic treatment which is enforced. Some may call it an "indirect" abortion, but this semantic word-game should not hide the hideous immoral nature of an act which has the singular intention of destroying an innocent life. The unintentional death of a child in the womb during treatment to save the pregnant mother is analogous to a patient dying from the adverse side-effects of a life-saving medication that he is receiving

• seanomelb | Dec 04, 2012, 05:58 PM EST

  Therfore Gearoid4 abortion is sometimes neccassary. Thank you for answering the Question and I am glad to read you are not against abortion.

• GavinE | Dec 04, 2012, 01:22 AM EST

  Thank you, Gearoid4, I hadn't realised that about KH. As I have said previously, I think there are going to be a lot of people with egg all over their faces when the investigation is finished. I can see the media running up the drainpipes already. Now, I wonder where Mr. O'Dowd has gotten to? He slid in a nasty little one-liner on this post recently, I responded, but he left it. That's the problem with journo's - they just can't take it when it is THEY who are on the receiving end.

• Gearoid4 | Dec 03, 2012, 06:55 PM EST

  @Seano, Far from being a "beaten man", I will repeat my argument again which I have already stated several times, for your erudition and that of others, there is no toss-up between a pregnant woman's life on one hand and the fetus/embryo on the other(both have equal value), as a medical team should do all in their power to save the life of the mother(and baby if possible). There is nothing preventing doctors in Catholic ethics from directly intervening to save the life of the mother(and in some instances the child in the womb may die as an unintended consequence which is very tragic and is accommodated again within the Catholic medical ethos). There has been an interesting update on the "Savita" case, as it has been revealed that the Irish Times journalist, namely Kitty Holland had let the cat out of the bag with respect to the original claim(somewhat spurious to begin with) that the husband of Savita, Praveen had requested abortion to save his wife. When radio interviewer Marc Coleman of Newstalk 106, asked her, “You’re satisfied that he did request a termination?” Holland responded, “Oh, I’m not satisfied of anything.” This journalist had put a disclaimer in the English newspaper "The Observer" with regard to her account of the story there, to the effect that “The fact that Savita had been refused a termination was a factor in her death has yet to be established” which differed somewhat from her initial story in the "Irish Times" on November 14th, some days before that an abortion was definitely requested. Holland in stuttering fashion tried to paint Praveen as the source of this discrepancy as he got his timelines a "little muddled". It looks like some interesting developments have yet to unfold regarding this case.

• seanomelb | Dec 03, 2012, 04:13 PM EST

  Gearoid4 please answer the question.Your silence is deafening. Have you retired from the conversation a beaten man??

• Mortimer74 | Dec 03, 2012, 11:53 AM EST

  GavinE, your 3.55am post is excellent. Yes, it's really always about the "source" and never about the application of intelligence with the bitter anti-Catholics on here. As a published author I am greatly amused at the ease with which an illiterate Irish woman with a criminal background and history of lying could dupe 400,000 gullible souls desperate to affirm any nonsense that furthers their cause.

• GavinE | Dec 03, 2012, 09:11 AM EST

  Oh, I see, anglo-norman, you think the Republican Party is involved in a "War on Women". What a Total Goofball you are. Now, don't get angry, Son. Remember, meditation, tranquility, apple blossom, jingle bells, falling petals. There now, sleep, Son, sleep ............

• eiriamach | Dec 03, 2012, 09:05 AM EST

  It does not matter who told the truth and who might have lied in Savita's case. Her case points up the inherent problem in Irish law, which remains problematic whatever the outcome of the inquiry into Savita Halappanavar's treatment in the Galway hospital. The problem lies in the "equal right to life" wording of section 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution and in the 1861 law's section on abortion. These must be repealed. Savita's case, like other cases in which abortion is necessary to save one life and results in no unavoidable death, shows why it is not possible in practice, not at all "practicable," to save either life when medical treatment is constrained by the "equal" right of two: the pregnant woman and a non-viable foetus. A four-month foetus acquires stand-in advocates-- physicians, psychiatrists, and churchmen-- who effectively nullify the "equal right" of women in crisis pregnancy by their insistence on not killing the dying foetus by aborting it. Section 40.3.3 functions to mask, with a pious pretense of "equality," the same "let women die" approach that the GOP has taken to US abortion law in its war on women.

• GavinE | Dec 03, 2012, 04:56 AM EST

  Well said, Mike Roe. Totally with you.

• GavinE | Dec 03, 2012, 03:55 AM EST

  But, Adrienrain, Your "currently available information" is only from ONE source and that source is the tragically deceased woman's husband. How on earth would you know he is speaking the truth? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Personally, I just cannot see any medical person being totally stupid enough to say "You cannot have an abortion because this is a Catholic country". For a start, that statement would be factually incorrect and secondly it would be an amazingly daft comment for a medical person to make. As for Mrs. Halappanavar dying "because she was not allowed an abortion", just about every medical expert now states that this statement is wrong. So, please don't jump on the anti-Catholic, anti-Ireland runaway bandwagon. There is going to be a lot of egg flying around after the investigation and I am sure you would prefer not to have it all over YOUR face, as so many others will have it. By the way, you might have a rethink about your last sentence ("The fact remains........"). If we all were left to our own devices, to make our own decisions on everything without any constraint, without any input from others, without any rights for anyone but the person at the centre, that would result in what is known as "CHAOS".

• adrienrain | Dec 03, 2012, 03:31 AM EST

  To Gavin E: I made my comments based on currently available information. When other information becomes available, I will adjust accordingly. The fact remains that once the decision is in the hands of people other than the woman - or incubator if you prefer - her life is also in the hands of those others.

• marcustam | Dec 03, 2012, 02:58 AM EST

  “I see that the pseudo-liberal wolf pack is out in force. This is nothing more than an attempt at social and cultural genocide against the Irish People and it is time for the Irish Government, in so far as one exists, to start expelling diplomats and officials from those countries whose media and other agencies are fermenting hatred against Ireland. It is time for all true Irish patriots to stand up and be counted and kick out the fascists and eugenicists who are creating these problems. And just for the record, I am not referring to the Catholic Church. Blaming the Catholic Church has become the new method of covering up the failings of a morally bankrupt liberal agenda. One only has to look at the disgusting analogies they use equating an unborn human being with a parasite or a tumour. If that’s what they think of the unborn, can you imagine what they think about the elderly and the handicapped? Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world in which to have a baby and always has been despite the torrent of lies and propaganda to the contrary. Our politicians in the Irish Parliamentary Party and our cowardly media (with one or two notable exceptions) have abandoned us to the wolves. We freed ourselves before with neither a Government or media to call our own, we can do it again. Eire Nua.” – Mike Roe

• GavinE | Dec 03, 2012, 02:45 AM EST

  Have an "argument" with YOU, Eiriamach? And what would make you think that I would waste my time trying to reason with a person who twists, turns, spins and blows out methane all at the same time, and has the gall to consider that he is producing some attempt at a logical argument? I'd prefer to watch a bunch of monkeys trying to get their brains around Pythagoras. People like you give me the creeps.

• eiriamach | Dec 02, 2012, 07:36 PM EST

  GaviE, surely you do not suppose that you've written an argument in your comment about methane? I have yet to see any response to my argument about impracticability. If you have one, let's see it; if you haven't any, then what is your point?

• GavinE | Dec 02, 2012, 07:26 PM EST

  Eiriamach, Where do you get it from? I had always thought there was only so much methane in the world. Take a deep breath, light a match and ......................

• eiriamach | Dec 02, 2012, 07:25 PM EST

  Misneac, as I pointed out earlier, Irish law has sent Gardai to the homes of 13- and 14-year-old girls to prevent their leaving Ireland to have life-saving abortions elsewhere. It defies common sense to say that young teens and pre-teen girls can give birth without endangering their lives and permanently undermining their health. Children! Nature has not designed the bodies of children to give birth, even though they can become pregnant. Pregnancy is never safe for children, and the risks to mother and foetus do not substantially diminish until close to age 20. You're wrong also about the position of the Catholic Church. The position you stated is that of the Anglican churches. Read up on the Irish bishops' statement, which is identical to the current Constitutional section 40.3.3.

• GavinE | Dec 02, 2012, 07:23 PM EST

  stanjames, I just now reported you for "hate speech". Just so you know it was me.

• mairint | Dec 02, 2012, 07:18 PM EST

  Shame on you Patrick Counihan for waving a Black Flag over the babies of Ireland Future. Shame on IC for pushing this evil lie. The majority of the Irish people have spoken repeatedly in referenda in support of the lives of their children and the future lives of Irish boys and girls. The propagation of this evil and the betrayel of motherhood is all contrived by the Population Controllers (the mega wealthy faceless men and women of the UN and the EU with the funds of Soros, Gates etc.) The gutless media who claw for headlines will sell Irelands soul for even less than 30 pieces of silver. Thank you Irish Central for enabling the deaths of innocent babies by promoting the use of vacuum suction machines, saline syringes and knives inside the wombs of Irish mothers.

• stanJames | Dec 02, 2012, 07:18 PM EST

  Until we can get the bishops and the pope pregnant, its time the sexist church of Rome shut its mouth............I'm reminded (may have mentioned this before) that on a hearing re birth control in Wash. DC the people called to testify were 2 priests and 3 men, (or the reverse)

• GavinE | Dec 02, 2012, 07:14 PM EST

  Niall, I have just watched "The Week in Politics" on RTE 1. Sean O'Rourke said that the 85% figure (that you headlined) and the 63% figure (that you buried way down your report) give "conflicting signals" and also said "they are somewhat conflicting figures". You chose to hedaline the 85% figure because it suits your agenda, and you then took me to task for pointing out your lack of balance. It appears that even the Lefty Liberal RTE agree with me. BTW, I was looking forward to your response to my remark about your one-liner. Do you just throw them out and then walk away? Bad policy. Loses readers (that's customers to you).

• eiriamach | Dec 02, 2012, 07:12 PM EST

  seanomelb, I have to smile at your attempt to force a choice on Gearoid4. He has written repeatedly that he is opposed, along with the Catholic Church, to deliberate abortion to save a pregnant woman's life. He hides behind the phrase "the equal right to life" of pregnant woman and foetus. Refusing to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy amounts to choosing by default to let women die in such cases. He will not say that straight out, but neither can he deny it. It's a death-driven principle based on the belief that women's lives have no value except in producing living offspring. It has no moral justification whatever.

• GavinE | Dec 02, 2012, 07:07 PM EST

  Alisaann, I will say the same to you as I said earlier to Rose528. You are aware that 50% of unborn babies turn out to be male. Are you saying they don't have any rights, because their mother is a woman?

• eiriamach | Dec 02, 2012, 06:58 PM EST

  Yes, Gavin, you and others keep repeating the same evasion: "Ireland is almost at the top of the safety list" *because* Ireland exports its problem pregnancies for treatment in the UK and elsewhere. Would any pregnant woman who understands what the phrase "equal right to life of the mother" means in actual medical practice CHOOSE to deal with a problem pregnancy in Ireland? Article 40.3.3 (Eighth Amendment, 1983) of the Irish Constitution reads: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." "As far as practicable" is pure cynicism, a dodge, a ruse, and a pious pretense: Cases like Savita Halappanavar's show with crystal clarity that it is not at all practicable to save a woman's life when physicians must await the death in utero of her foetus before scrambling to save her life when a timely abortion of the dying foetus could have saved the one life it was possible to save. Giving an "equal" right life to the foetus means that there can be no deliberate life-saving abortion, so it means in practice allowing the woman to die (slowly, in pain and anguish, in other words cruelly, because unnecessarily). That constitutional provision amounts to an equal death sentence for woman and foetus. It cannot in practice be an equal right to life. Until Irish law gives preference to saving the life of the pregnant woman in pre-viability cases (since a foetus cannot survive her death any more than it can survive miscarriage), the law gives NO protection to women's right to life.

• misneac | Dec 02, 2012, 06:55 PM EST

  Please dont be trying to blame the Catholic Church for the Savita tragedy .The teaching of Catholic Church clearly gives priority to the life of the Mother in such emergencies . Ireland without abortion is much safer for pregnant women than England or America ,and the Irish maternal death rate is ne of the lowest in the world ,at approximately 3 women per 100,000 . Britain 12 per 100,000 ,USA 24 per 100,000 . Ireland should tackle the negative bigoted and biased agenda driven publicity and point out that our maternal healthcare system is superb at bringing babies to full term without compromising the lives or health of their Mothers !!

• Bocktherobber | Dec 02, 2012, 06:38 PM EST

  It's obvious that many people commenting here have no involvement with Ireland and no understanding of the issues.

• Smyrnian | Dec 02, 2012, 06:24 PM EST

  Over 85% of IC articles have a lefty agenda.

• alisaann | Dec 02, 2012, 06:04 PM EST

  i agree with Rose528: until men can carry and give birth, they should have NO rights in what happens....unless, the mother can NOT speak for herself...and then, the father has the hard choice to make....it's really sad, that women DON'T have more value in this world...and imo, when the life of the mother is at risk and there are GOOD signs that the baby is going to die, then the doctors should do EVERYTHING possible to SAVE THE MOTHER....if it's possible later for her to get pregnant again, GREAT.....i'm SICK of people using the bible as a way to RULE the people...i.e. women have NO VALUE....men RULE everything and such.....we ARE NOT SLAVES TO MEN ANY MORE...AND WE HAVE RIGHTS. ALISA

• williamnatson | Dec 02, 2012, 05:50 PM EST

  The headline should read: "Over 85 percent of Irish people support abortion when the life of the mother is at risk." That's a lot different than the current headline!

• alisaann | Dec 02, 2012, 05:49 PM EST

  imo, a woman should have the RIGHT to decide what is BEST for her....and it should be between her and the doctor and whoever she prays to...incest, rape, the life of the mother or they just CAN'T afford to have the child....and all of those who are against abortion: are YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THE HEALTH CARE FOR THE MOTHER AND THEN RAISE THE CHILD, IF SHE DECIDES TO PUT IT UP FOR ADOPTION?... ALISA

• Ryana 16 | Dec 02, 2012, 05:47 PM EST

  well Seamusdenais you wake a up a woman died because your wonderful pro lifers decided the fetus wa smore important then the woman guess what both died WAKE UP PRO LIFE! if this woman was my family u would never ever live a peacefull life u freaking Hypocrites!

• seamusdenais | Dec 02, 2012, 05:19 PM EST

  Why does a child have to be butchered in a womb? Why couldn't the HSE have taken the foetus out of the mother and placed it in some incubator where it would have developed. The Catholic Church knows damn well this is possible. WAKE UP PRO CHOICE

• neilshog | Dec 02, 2012, 05:05 PM EST

  Oh, people of Ireland, PLEASE don't go there! Here in America we have accepted the lie that abortion is a necessary evil. First they say it is only for extreme cases where the mother may die, or in a case of incest, but almost no abortions are performed for those reasons. Do you really think the best, most talented doctors become abortionists? A study done here in America showed abortion doctors have a high rate of drug and alcohol use and barely made it out of medical school. Clinics cover up the horror stories of maimed women and babies who survive the procedure and are left to die. When it becomes easy to kill the unborn, it also becomes easy to kill the elderly and handicapped. We have the proof right here in America. Should I even bother to mention how it offends and outrages Our Lord, Who died in agony on the Cross for us?

• seanomelb | Dec 02, 2012, 05:00 PM EST

  Gearoid!! If the life of the mother or the child has to be sacrificed who wins out and who makes that decision? A straight answer please no fudging.

• Gearoid4 | Dec 02, 2012, 04:51 PM EST

  @Eiriamach, I'm afraid you are twisting the meaning of my words again by trying to associate them disingenuously with a particular callous outlook in regards to the lives of pregnant women. Women who go through such difficulties should be helped in a holistic fashion and should be offered more than the local abortuary. There are two physical lives at stake, namely the mother's and the child's. Certainly the mother has "autonomy" in relation to her pregnancy, but the freedom is not boundless as it effects other lives, namely the child in the womb. We hear a lot about "autonomy" and "rights" but little about "responsibility" from the "pro-choice" crowd. The first recourse for some ideologues, seems to be the abortion clinic without thinking of more moral and viable alternatives like counselling, which can in effect help women who are struggling mentally with pregnancies, to see the child in their womb as an invaluable addition and a boon to her life. "Suicidal" feelings in pregnant women, can be caused by a number of factors which are treatable, e.g. lack of support, spousal pressure violence, mental depression or the effects of coming off medication. Psychologists or psychiatrists will not be united in their approaches to the resolution of these issues. Situations where suicide is cited as a reason for abortion, are very rare and so these "exceptions" to the rule are being used as a means of generalizing in relation to the need for this grave evil(abortion) to be introduced so that the rule can be changed. I hope that Ireland does not fall into this trap.

• GavinE | Dec 02, 2012, 04:43 PM EST

  To Eiriamach. In order to save yourself any further anguish about the welfare of pregnant women and women in childbirth in Ireland, take a few minutes to look up the international childbirth statistics. Ireland is almost at the top of the safety list, with nearly the lowest per capita deaths of mothers or infants. I am sure you will now come up with some other means of making some supposedly superior moral stance, but at least even you will know the true facts, and that you are talking rubbish.

• marcustam | Dec 02, 2012, 04:37 PM EST

  I keep saying it; there is little irish truth in irishcentral.com. You people are full of skewed ideological bullshit. People should find other sites if they want the truth about ireland. Shame on michael brown of spiritdaily for always linking to this crap.

• hollabackgurl | Dec 02, 2012, 04:34 PM EST

  No one thinks abortion is beneficial Kateiemac, you disingenuous halfwit. Abortion isn't an investment, it's a brutally hard choice faced by women where the alternatives are even worse. If the choice is between the mother living due to a termination (and it is often the case) or dying because the termination is refused, then one life should be spared if both can not be. You can't countenance the hard complexities of life because you're a fundamentalist.

• eiriamach | Dec 02, 2012, 04:25 PM EST

  Gearoid4 thinks suicide should not be considered a life-threatening condition warranting access to abortion because "even two psychologists or psychiatrists may never agree on in terms of resolution." His sexist assumption that medical authorities and psychiatric authorities and religious authorities should decide whether pregnant women live or die completely disregards the most basic of human rights that Gearoid considers his Creator endowed men with. Did the same Creator not equally endow women with the right to life? There is no human authority who ever can be entitled to decide to let a pregnant woman die when an abortion can save her. Women are morally autonomous human beings. It's long past time for laws everywhere to respect women's right to life, the most basic of human rights, not to be vetoed by any psychiatrist, physician, committee member, or churchman.

• eiriamach | Dec 02, 2012, 03:59 PM EST

  From RTE: "The report of the confidential Maternal Death Enquiry (MDE) in Ireland says that there were 25 maternal deaths for the period 2009-2011.... two of these deaths were due to suicide." This tally does not include women who fled to the UK or the mainland for medical-crisis abortions, nor does it count women who died in crisis pregnancies outside of Ireland. How many deaths of pregnant women are acceptable to the Irish? Do the Irish consider it a morally relevant fact that prompt abortion saves the lives of women in cases like Savita's and destroys no lives that can be saved? And if "pro-lifers" do not consider it morally relevant, what does that tell us about the (dis)value they place on the lives of women?

• WoundedKnee | Dec 02, 2012, 03:24 PM EST

  "Over 85 percent of Irish people support limited abortion". Last time I checked, there was no such thing as a limited abortion.

• Bocktherobber | Dec 02, 2012, 02:42 PM EST

  Rebelforce -- I have a theory that no matter what an article is about, some fool will start a rant on immigration. Thanks for proving me right.

• katiemac | Dec 02, 2012, 02:25 PM EST

  The same tired arguments were used everywhere else where abortion was made legal, and all were mostly lies. If you look to see who benefits, you get the true picture of who wishes to legalize the procedure. Do women or girls benefit from abortion? NO! Many are harmed. Do children benfit from abortion? NO! In the US one third of a generation has been aborted, and the survivors benefit on no way. Does crime decrease? NO! Does the out of wedlock birthrate drop? NO! Does poverty decrease? NO! In fact the only persons who benefit from abortion are the abortionists themselves. They make money hand over fist, treat their 'patients' like trash, are immune from standard medical standards. Don't women, children and Ireland deserve better than that. Don't follow the rest of us down the path to perdition. Just say no to abortion.

• GavinE | Dec 02, 2012, 02:20 PM EST

  To Adrienrain. You state clearly that Mrs. Halappanavar was "allowed to die in pain because Ireland is "a Catholic country". This is supposition on your part that Mr. Halappanavar is telling the truth when he states that he was told this by the medical team in Galway hospital. I am of course not saying that Mr. Halappanavar is not being truthful, but I AM saying that neither you nor I know if indeed he is being truthful. Mr. Halappanavar has decided not to take part in an Irish inquiry. He and his legal team have stated that the medical records belong to HIM and it is illegal for others to view them in any investigation without his permission. He held the Irish state to ransom by giving it an ultimatum - "Public Inquiry within three days or I go to the Human Rights in Europe". And now, that is exactly where he is going. In the meantime, Ireland's good name has been gratuitously debased by Mr. Halappanavar ("I do not trust the Irish Health Service Executive") also by his supporters and also by Ireland's left wing liberal media. The agenda is, without a doubt, a push for abortion on demand, and this agenda is being pushed hard on a false premise, the premise that Mrs. Halappanavar died because she was denied an abortion. This premise is now agreed by virtually all (if indeed not all) of the experts as being a false premise. Now, to get back to your claim about Ireland's being a "Catholic country" being to blame for the death, only an inquiry will give us both sides of the story. The Irish authorities are holding an inquiry, comprised of totally independent members, but Mr. Halappanavar is not going to take part. Therefore, his claim of being told that his tragic wife was not allowed an abortion "because Ireland is a Catholic country" cannot now be tested directly to him. I know we are all different, but if it were MY wife, I would go along to the Inquiry. He can still seek a public inquiry - which is what he wants - after that.

• eiriamach | Dec 02, 2012, 02:10 PM EST

  The Irish Supreme Court recognized suicide attempts as a reason for abortion in the X case. Let's remember that two of the 3 difficult cases before the Court on abortion issues were cases of pregnant CHILDREN-- 13 and 14 years old. Child pregnancy is not decreasing, but likely to increase as children enter puberty earlier (age 7 for some girls). A pregnant child is by definition a rape victim, and often the rape is incestuous. So it's not only thew lives of pregnant women at stake, but the lives, health, and developing minds of children, for whom pregnancy is always harmful to health and often life-threatening with fetuses at high risk of genetic anomalies. I will never comprehend how someone can justify withholding abortion from a pregnant pre-teen and forcing her to try to bring the pregnancy to term. Does such a person consider girls to be throw-away children?

• adrienrain | Dec 02, 2012, 01:45 PM EST

  As I understand it, Savita was eligible for an abortion under current Irish law. What she was NOT permitted was the power to make the decision herself. Limited abortion inevitably means that the decision will be in someone else's jurisdiction than the woman. Savita could have had the abortion under current Irish law, and she wanted one, and she should have had one - no one thought the fetus's life could be saved - but the decision wasn't hers to make under Irish law, and those who had the power over her were not moved by her pain or her need or the fact that the fetus was certain to die. She was permitted to die in pain because Ireland is 'a Catholic country' and her life was simply not as valuable as the dying fetus's life. In the name of the Father, the Son and Patriarchy................. Ah, men.

• darao | Dec 02, 2012, 01:25 PM EST

  Let women decide for themselves how they want to handle reproductive issues. They are well capable of making those choices without intrusion. If they want advice or counsel then they should have that available but not forced in any way. The suicide issue is not abortion related in general but should be handled with the utmost sensitivity. People with mental challenges who are considering suicide regardless of the situation should of course get the very best of help. But is a person is competent then the choice of abortion should be theirs alone. Here in Canada women have the absolute right to choose and the vast majority of women have no difficulty making the best choices for their particular situation. The state, the church and those who would control choice should have more respect for women in general.

• oldboreen | Dec 02, 2012, 12:42 PM EST

  Good response GavinE!

• Gearoid4 | Dec 02, 2012, 12:15 PM EST

  The "suicide" threat, while worrying does not require abortion(even in it's limited application) to resolve it, which even two psychologists or psychiatrists may never agree on in terms of resolution. Often "suicidal" tendencies can be treated successfully by experienced and competent counselors and this rush to favor abortion can cause more problems than it can resolve. In fact, the pro-abort/pro-choice lobby groups will never speak of the devastating psychological effects of abortion on women and would prefer that it remains hidden. The genuine solution to medical emergencies that arise during pregnancy is the application of the best available treatment to save the life of the mother and baby(with both lives held in equal respect).

• GavinE | Dec 02, 2012, 12:08 PM EST

  To Billie061, I am not discussing individual cases. I simply said that in those countries where they allow abortion because of a threat of suicide, the abortion rate has skyrocketted. That is a fact and I simply repeated it. Sixty five per cent of those surveyed in Ireland agree with ME on this.

• GavinE | Dec 02, 2012, 12:01 PM EST

  What are you suggesting Rose528? You are aware that 50% of unborn babies turn out to be male. Are you saying they don't have any rights, because their mother is a woman? That's some brain you have there! Not!

• GavinE | Dec 02, 2012, 11:49 AM EST

  Niall - I did NOT say that the article is "inaccurate"; I said it is "unbalanced". Stop trying to twist, Niall! I also went on to explain why I considered it to be unbalanced (not "inaccurate") and I consider that any reasonable person will see my point. Perhaps, instead of a one-liner attempt at a put-down, you might be better employed trying to justify why you buried the main discussion point in Ireland at the moment, which is with regard to the suicide threat. I am one of the 85% who is in favour of abortion in limited circumstances, but that (along with the rest of the 65%) does not include the suicide threat. Again, stop trying to twist, Niall!

• rose528 | Dec 02, 2012, 11:37 AM EST

  I hope it happens and soon, men have no rights in this decision. When a man can birth a child then he has a say.

• mreinhar2001 | Dec 02, 2012, 11:32 AM EST

  Don't know what the opinions and circumstances in Ireland currently are on this subject, but it is rough and even a sad day when (with shades of William Randolph Hearst) the publisher of the newspaper decides to weigh in against a reader and proclaim his newspaper's article to be accurate while demeaning the reader's opinion. Perhaps the Internet and its freedom of communication is not the place for this journal if the publisher is offended by reader comments.

• Rebelforce | Dec 02, 2012, 10:03 AM EST

  Abortion definitely should be promoted and encouraged in Ireland. This will help make more room in Ireland for future immigrants from Poland, Nigeria and India.

• Paradigm | Dec 02, 2012, 09:57 AM EST

  The poll result is simply untrue. Its like trying to argue that, therefore, 85% of families have an unwanted child. If that thesis is wrong then the ABC lobby (Abortion Before Condons)is even better organised than one suspects. Let's go round 1,000 doors with a camera and see what people are really thinking - and let's be honest with them insofar as the question of medical care must not be confused with 'social' abortion as is happening now.

• billie061 | Dec 02, 2012, 09:17 AM EST

  tell that to the family of a woman in my town who a couple of months ago who commited suicide whilst 7 months pregnant or the woman who threw herself off howth head while 30 something weeks pregnant with twins.

• Niall O'Dowd | Dec 02, 2012, 08:59 AM EST

  Article accurate, 85per cent want abortion in limited circumstances. stop trying to twist Gavin

• Schlomo | Dec 02, 2012, 08:55 AM EST

  85% may tell polsters they want limited abotrtion, but when the fury of the You Defense crowd starts to intimidate that 85% they'll draw back like a turtle draws its head into its shell. Ireland will continue to vo

• GavinE | Dec 02, 2012, 08:41 AM EST

  The article is unbalanced, as usual. The main discussion now in Ireland is whether or not the threat of suicide should be recognised as a situation in which to allow abortion. Your headline is misleading, because, relevant to the MAIN discussion, 65% of those questioned in the SBP survey said they would not include the threat of suicide as grounds for an abortion. You noted this, but only as an aside. The big question is - how can one tell if the threat of suicide is realistic or not? The normal answer from "pr-choice" to that question is "Do you not trust women?" Well, in countries which allowed threatened suicide as grounds, the abortion rates immediately skyrocketted. So, you tell me - can you trust women who are pregnant and want an abortion NOT to use the get-out clause, the threat of suicide. The answer has to be "No" - and that is NOT a criticism of women, it is a simple statement of fact based on worldwide experience.

• hollabackgurl | Dec 02, 2012, 08:39 AM EST

  If God actually had 'always protected the innocent' then the entire history of the world would be different. You need to stop taking your Nyquil just before you post PhlutiePan. Most reasonable Irish people realize that terminations should be available to protect the mothers life from a dangerous miscarriage.

• PhlutiePhan | Dec 02, 2012, 08:32 AM EST

  Women need abortion to compete equally with men in the marketplace. The problem is with the natural law. The Natural Law is not based on democracy. It is based on the defense of the weakest amongst us. God has always protected the innocent with or without the help of man or woman.