Messages

[An Irish Solution: A Would You Believe? Special, RTÉ One, 10.15pm]

Tonight's Would You Believe programme on RTE was very informative – I'm not sure if it is available on RTE Player just yet but should available soon.

An Irish Solution: A Would You Believe? Special, RTÉ One, 10.15pm
In this WYB? special, reporter Mick Peelo brings us through the complex moral minefield facing Ireland on the issue of abortion. On Referendum day, May 25, the Irish people will make one of the most important decisions this country has ever faced about our values. At stake is our understanding of what constitutes a human life and whether the unborn should have equal rights to the women who bear them. Mick looks at the stories and values on all sides of the debate and explores what's at stake for our society, whether the outcome is to repeal or retain the Eighth Amendment to our Constitution.

Shakespeare said "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" so I'll join the copy & paste brigade:

"Irish Independent
14 May 2018
I am a practising consultant obstetrician in the Rotunda Hospital, now with 30 years' experience, and have previously served as Dean of Professional Competence in the Royal College of Physicians.
I have already put on record my concern regarding the false allegation that doctors are prevented from treating seriously ill women in pregnancy. I know that concern about this false allegation is shared by many in my profession.
I regret that I now feel obliged to add to these comments.
The risk to women's lives does not have to be imminent for doctors to take all necessary steps to protect women's lives and health. The current law and official guidelines are very clear in this regard.
I have never felt limited in my care of patients with sepsis, fulminating blood pressure, cancer, inevitable pregnancy loss, complex maternal illness, etc, when pregnancy was pre-viable.
Regarding the assertion that women have died because of the Eighth Amendment, Dr Peter Boylan cites as "evidence" three cases. On closer examination, however, none of these supports his contention.
The medical needs of the mother do not require removal of the Eighth Amendment.
I regret that there appears to be a campaign strategy to create a contrary impression in the minds of the public.
As persons trusted by the public to give expert advice and opinion, doctors should avoid giving inaccurate or misleading information whether to advance personal, political or philosophical views or not.
Mary Holohan FRCOG, FRCPI
Dublin 1"

It is extremely difficult to have a civil debate on this topic such are the polar opposite positions of those firmly in either camp. I'm in the NO camp and I explained my position previously - I am a conscientious objector to abortion as a choice where there are NO valid reasons for medical intervention to end a pregnancy and I believe that the 8th Amendment is a hugely important and positive element of our constitution. By voting NO I am simply using the democratic process to give my opinion on the ethos that I would wish for in our society. I do respect the opinions of those who will vote YES but I do not share their views and beliefs. I do not accept that a successful YES vote would be "progressive" given the inevitable normalisation over time of abortion on demand as has happened in UK, US etc.

The fact that our citizens travel to UK for abortions or purchase abortion pills online can never be used as valid reasons for legalising abortion in this country. We must cherish our independence and make the best decisions as we see fit for the common good of our citizens irrespective of the norms in other countries.

Given how each side of this debate is disrespecting each other at the moment it does not bode well for the post-referendum scenario irrespective of the outcome.

Without doubt there will be differing opinions on this subject - I just posted the above link as one particular viewpoint.
Only a Divine Being (or Sid) could give a conclusive answer as to exactly when human life begins.

The problem is when the argument of rape is mobilised as a trojan horse in which to augment support for more wide-ranging abortion laws as if to draw equivalence between the traumatic experience of rape and cases where the pregnancy is an more an inconvenience. Perhaps I'm different from other people but I'm uncomfortable with the casual elimination of a developing life because it's come at an inconvenient time or isn't just happening the way you wanted to. I think there is a detachment involved in that viewpoint and requires a certain level of dehumanisation.

Could yes voters find solace in a society where a baby (up to 12 weeks and potentially more in future) can be aborted for any reason at all, no matter how trivial? If a person chooses to abort their child because it's the wrong sex or because they don't want to be having a baby at Christmas or maybe they just forgot to use contraception on a one-night stand, is aborting a child for those reasons, or something similar, morally acceptable to Yes voters? I'm uneasy about the diminishing of a growing person into a commodity or accessory, something that can be dispensed of so easily and who's existence can be so inconsequentially disregarded.

If, in some peoples eyes, this makes me a chauvinist, a religious zealot, an alt-right fascist or a "whinger" then it's a label I'll comfortably bear. Personal convictions are more inclined to be reinforced when challenged by personal abuse and derision.

The above is an excellent contribution from trileacman in my opinion.

See contribution to Citizens' Assembly by Dr Helen Watt, Senior Research Fellow, Anscombe Bioethics Centre, Oxford
https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/Meetings/Dr-Helen-Watt-Paper.pdf

It will be interesting to see how voting patterns will pan out across the country and whether there will be any noticeable Dublin/country divides or indeed social class divides.

There are some who believe that socio-economic factors might be a factor in some womens' choosing to have abortions in the first 12 weeks as exemplified by the following extract from a letter to yesterday's Indo from a medical professional :

"In my experience, terminations in the first trimester (12 weeks) are undertaken for social reasons – loss of education possibilities, shame on the family name, or potential employment opportunities – and these women come from the more leafy areas of our cities.
In the poorer areas, women tend to use termination as a last option but then they may not have the chances that their wealthier sisters have.
First-trimester terminations are not a healthcare issue but are, in my opinion, a social decision".

I'm sure that this letter writer's opinion will be deemed very non-politically correct at best but I do believe there is more than a grain of truth in what he says.

Question to Sid – why do you have to shoot down every contribution that is contrary to your own beliefs ?  You continually demonstrate an intolerance to those who have chosen to vote NO. Your bombarding this thread with multiple posts is akin to continual interruptions and shouting down the oppositions in a real debate scenario – you would be shown the door very quickly in such a situation.

Bunreacht na hÉireann recognises the fundamental personal rights of citizens and there is no right more fundamental than the right to life. The purpose of the eight amendment to the constitution is to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn. The right to life is not just another civil right – because it will be matter of life or death for perfectly healthy human embryos there is every justification for this right to be built into our constitution.

Re. the argument that women should have autonomy over their own bodies and therefore have the right to choose abortion – where one stands on this depends on each person's beliefs and value system. Personally it goes against my beliefs but I am not moralising to others – I'm just trying to explain the "No" side of the argument. I accept that a sizeable proportion of the electorate (of every religious denomination and none) with vote Yes in good conscience. However I would worry that a sizeable number of voters might cast their vote without proper consideration of the consequences of a successful vote for repeal.

From Two Lives, One Love :
Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may, as a secondary effect, put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are always ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.

It is offensive and wrong for the Yes side to suggest that No voters are / will be denying women healthcare.

Extract from my post of 02-May:
I am a conscientious objector to abortion as a choice where there are NO valid reasons for medical intervention to end a pregnancy.

Given the intolerance displayed by Sid Waddell (who cannot seem to accept that people are entitled to hold viewpoints opposite to his) I wonder why anyone would bother participating in a debate on this forum.

I agree wholeheartedly omaghjoe. Basic healthcare is too often denied to the most vulnerable in our society (unborn, very young, handicapped, older people). It's an awful shame that the term "basic healthcare" is used by ceetain people to promote what some would describe as abortion on demand.

Rufus got it right in his post above – a NO voter expressing their opinions risks being met with vitriol and venom (as evidenced by some resident ignoramuses on this forum's LLS thread).

For the record I intend to vote No which will be cancelled by the Yes vote of the Missus. I can agree to an extent with the reasons she is voting Yes and in turn her Yes vote does not mean she is in favour of abortion on demand – my reason for voting No.  I am a conscientious objector to abortion as a choice where there are NO valid reasons for medical intervention to end a pregnancy. There are of course exceptional situations such as rape and fatal foetal abnormalities – I don't have the wisdom to offer an opinion here.

Abortion on demand is widely available across Europe. Because we have a prohibition on abortion in our constitution we have a far lower rate of abortion than other European countries – this is a positive result in my opinion.

I don't agree that abortion should be legalised just because it is possible to purchase abortion pills online. I'm not squeamish but today's 6-One News had a feature on abortion pills which I found disturbing to watch – just seeing the images of abortion pills on screen and thinking of the ease in which embryonic human life can be snuffed out.

Unfortunately some people confuse abortion with necessary medical intervention – at present, with the Eight Amendment in place, an expectant mother cannot legally be denied life-saving treatment.

All voters need to be fully informed on what they will be voting on - https://refcom2018.refcom.ie/ provides an independent guide https://refcom2018.refcom.ie/refcom-guide-2018-english.pdf

Draft Legislation (if 8th Amendment is repealed )
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Scheme-for-Publication.pdf

For anyone interested in a Christian perspective on this debate I quote from the COI Archbishop of Armagh's statement of 28th March – this stance would be endorsed by a wide spectrum of the electorate :

'We have previously expressed our concern that the forthcoming Constitutional referendum is being understood as something akin to an opinion poll on the complex issue of abortion. However, now that the Government has made known the general scheme of a Bill which it would introduce should the referendum on the repeal of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland be passed, voters face a stark decision.
'Although it is true that the present provision under the Constitution has proved less than satisfactory in some respects, and we suggested the possibility of a modification to the present Constitutional position, what is now being proposed by the Government – if the Article is repealed – is unrestricted access to abortion up to twelve weeks of pregnancy.
'As we have said before (in our statement of 5th February – and we also refer to the wider comments made in that statement about the need for pastoral care for women, their partners and their families, and for improved support services and greater investment in medical and mental health services), unrestricted access to abortion in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, or indeed at any stage, is not an ethical position we can accept. There is, for Christians, a very clear witness in the Scriptures that all human life, including before physical birth, has a sacred dignity in the eyes of God.
'We therefore ask Church members to think through the issues involved carefully and with prayer over these coming weeks.'

Just to clarify....the above post was in response to Sid Waddell.

The same Sid was responsible for this post on the main forum:
"I'd imagine there will be a couple of reasonable people to whom facts are important and who have thought through the issues in a calm and considered manner on the Yes side, and a couple of backward, shouting, lying ignoramuses to whom facts are irrelevant on the No side".

Dr Peter Boylan (Yes Advocate) :  "If you vote NO you are voting against legal abortion and are therefore voting for illegal abortion".

What nonsense.

He's 100% correct.

He's a former Master of the National Maternity Hospital with over 40 years experience as an obstetrician. You're a blowhard on an internet forum.

Abortion is happening in Ireland and will continue to happen whether you like it or not.

The only sensible thing is to make it safe and legal rather than put extremely vulnerable women in danger.

100% Sid

I have great respect for Dr Boylan (he was my wife's gynaecologist in Holles Street when our children were born) but I disagree with his views on abortion.

I don't agree with the argument that because abortion is widely available across Europe it should therefore be available in Ireland.
I don't agree that abortion should be legalised because it is possible to purchase abortion pills online.

Eminent medical people have conceded that the 8th Amendment has not prevented the best treatment being provided to women in cases where their lives were in danger (I do agree that this did not happen in the Savita case but this was a case of medical negligence).

Removing the 8th Amendment will mean that there is no protection for the unborn between conception and 12 weeks (this could be extended in the future by Dail vote). It will open the doors to abortion on demand and will normalise abortion in this society. Of course people will argue that this has already happened as women travel to the UK and purchase abortion pills on line but in my opinion this arguement does not validate abortion on demand.

PS
Your calling me a "blowhard on an internet forum" says more about you that about me but I will not bother posting any more on this topic in the face of such abuse.

Dr Peter Boylan (Yes Advocate) :  "If you vote NO you are voting against legal abortion and are therefore voting for illegal abortion".

What nonsense.

An emotional tribute to Big Tom from Michael Commins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQmIsxRK_WM

RIP

....the man himself, Tony Fearon, with some George Best memorabilia. Well done Tony.

It's a shame in my opinion that Tony is no longer contributing to this forum. I did read his supposedly offending post and I think he was asking a question that should in some circumstances be asked and he did not deserve the opprobrium that was heaped on him (not being au fait with the particular case I'm not saying that his question was valid in that instance).

Surely it's time for Tony to return - to provoke, raise a chuckle or just to prompt WTF reactions as was his wont.