For someone who cares so much about this issue I should be able to expect more than a headline gloating about the hypocrisy of the unionist parties at Stormont.
Despite that, this unionist is happy for the law to be applied in Northern Ireland the same as it is in the rest of the Kingdom. From a poll I read recently the majority of the population agree with that, which begs the question of why the professional politicians are so out of synch.
What sort of pro-lifer would argue against a pregnancy unbeknown to a young mother who has been on the coke, Es and drink throughout her early pregnancy and wishes to abort because of this.
You're a right conservative Gaskin, everything isn't black and white and besides nothing a journey across the channel can't sort out so your argument is specious, really. The more I read your blog the more of a dunderhead you seem.
Yes, best to keep forcing Irish women to travel to England for their abortions.
yep, my sister had an abortion when she was young, and now has 2 lovely healthy girls with her mr.right; you really are a pompous ass thinking you can make moral judgements for others.
Beano and Wednesday,
Hear hear.
Maintaining a pious legal position preventing it from taking place on Irish soil, forcing the problem to the UK is the equivalent of draining your sewage into a neighbour’s garden.
its only working class women who cant afford to travel abroad for an abortion...remember them chris, or has everyone in sinn fein inc forgotten who the working classes are???
Jaysus, the pro-choice lobbly are out in force today! 
I have to say I find it hard to believe that a majority of people up home are in favour of the 1967 Act being extended to the Six Counties. Where did you see that, Beano?
"You're a right conservative Gaskin, everything isn't black and white"
D.C,
This is an extremely difficult issue. You're right; not everything is black and white - especially re this issue.
The problem I have is that pro-choicers often berate the intransigent nature of the pro-life lobby (often with good cause) but fail to see they have exactly the same problem.
Er..."lobby" not "lobbly"!
This issue has nothing to do with intransigence and in my opinion it is one of the most black and white issues that can be came across. People just try to complicate it with ifs and buts. It comes down to one issue, and that is, is the child a human being, with human rights?
If the answer to this question is no, then it is the mother's right to abort.
If the answer is yes, then regardless of any of the circumstances, then child is a human being, and is therefore has a right to life, regardless of how much inconvenience it causes to the mother.
I believe that is the crux of the issue and you will find the major difference between Pro Lifers and Pro Choicers is that Pro Lifers answer Yes, and Pro Choicers answer No.
Seamus,
It's actually not the slightest bit simple and you do your "side" no favours spouting such simplistic tosh.
it is one of the most black and white issues that can be came across
Classic.
If a person believes that the child is entitled to Human Rights, but is still Pro Choice, then they are supporting the murder of an innocent child.
If a person believes that the child is not entitled to Human Rights, but are still Pro Life, then they are supporting the enslavement of a woman's body.
It comes down to just that one question, at what time does the child acquire Human Rights. Every other argument just clouds the issue, unnecessarily.
Seamus
I agree for the most part, but it certainly isn't black and white. Some might not give a few cells (the very beginning of the process) the same status they would give to a 7 month old fetus.
I am pro-life. However, people are going to get abortions regardless so they may as well do so in a safe manner. That being said, they should not be easy to get.
What a contentius issue.
Green Diesel - i'm grand , how are you ? looking forward to some late night bickering during the summer. like you , i cannot wait to how chris's cousin looks in a traditional irish dress. As we know , big tits run in the family ( only joking chris ).
the abortion issue is as gray as the solution to the north's problems. I respect both positions, however the anti abortion stance soon changes when a daughter is gang raped and ends up pregnant or a father rapes a daughter and she ends up pregnant. There is no way it is a black and white issue and the subject will be agrued over as long as childbirth is around. I agree with earnan, what a contentius issue ! ! ! !
they may as well do so in a safe manner. That being said, they should not be easy to get.
That's a contradiction. The more difficult they are to get, the less safely they can be got. See for example the statistics from British clinics which show that Irish women are more likely to have late term abortions. There's only one reason for that.
Thanks Chris for providing the most Tory (conservative)view on this subject as ever could be imagined.
Now, lets look at how many women and girls travel from south Armagh to England to avail of a law which you and yours won't allow.
Previously they died at the statue of the Virgin. Or perhaps you don't remember that?
Given your previous reflections on under age school girls on this blog, perhaps you might care for a bit of self-awareness?
Wed,
No use talking sense on a mans blog. see previous.
And Jo, how about leaving the sexist bollocks somewhere else? Considering that the Tories are actually Pro-Choice, I don't Chris' position on the issue is the same as the Conservative Party. It would be conservative, but not Tory.
Just because the English allow women to have abortion does not mean that Irish people should do the same. That is what we have been fighting about for the last 800 years.
The way certain people want to encourage the murder of innocent Irish children just makes me sick.
Seamus,
The way some people simplify, distort, and debase a subject that is so worthy of honest debate makes me sick.
"The way some people simplify, distort, and debase a subject that is so worthy of honest debate makes me sick."
JG, I am not attempting to simplify, distort and debase the subject, I am attempting to give my view on it. I believe in life from the moment of conception, and as such, believe the child is an alive human being, with human rights, including, and most fundamentally, the Right to Life. The Right to Life supersedes all other rights, including the woman's right to control the actions of her own body. I believe that knowingly killing the child is simple murder. This is not attempting to distort the debate. This is one half of that debate.
I believe at the moment of conception the child is a separate human being. And it's wrong to kill an innocent human being.
It doesn't matter if the young woman was gang-raped or raped by her father, that child has done nothing wrong and having the abortion is not going to change the fact that rape has occured.
I think there might be worse things in this world than having children.
The issue is pretty simple, pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, pro-choicers don't or think that human life is subordinate to other goods or don't feel morality or truth is uniform.
Medically/scienticially life does not begin at conception. But pro-lifers tend to be quite superstitious in general so I guess it is no surpise they choose to believe something that is so obviously not true.
"Medically/scienticially life does not begin at conception."
When does it begin then?
Seamus:
Aaron said "I believe at the moment of conception the child is a separate human being"
The onus is on him/her/it to prove this to be true.
I believe at the moment of conception the child is a separate human being
Er, there is no child at the moment of conception, just the potential for one. Big difference.
In your opinion, JG. Before that, when the egg and the sperm are separate, it is a potential life. The moment that conception occurs, when the egg and sperm join together and form a distinct, being, genetically different from every other person on this planet, then at that very moment, in my opinion, it becomes life. It is alive and it is human, thus, in my opinion, it is an alive human.
No one can prove at what stage the child/embryo/cluster of cells/foetus (use your own term) becomes human. It can’t be proved that it is alive at the moment of conception, nor can it be proved to not be alive at the moment of conception. Thus the onus is on belief. In every one of my posts in this topic, I have stressed that it is my belief. I never once made a complete bold statement, saying that it is fact, like “big boobs mcgee” did and like “JG” did.
I again stress that this is the crux of the entire debate. What stage does the child become human? I would imagine that in everyone’s opinion, abortion is wrong after that point that the child becomes human, whether it is at conception, two days, thirteen weeks, twenty weeks, twenty four weeks or even birth. That is what the abortion argument is about. And in my opinion, the child becomes human at conception.
*Something seems to be going wrong, as my post doesn't seem to be coming up, so sorry if this is a duplicate posts.
Aaron D - " the issue is pretty simple" That's one of the most niave things i have heard with regard to the abortion issue. The issue is so gray and I presume you are a man with a name like Aaron. I wonder if your girlfriend or sister or wife was raped would your views change.It always seems to be the men who get on their high horse during this debate. I went out with a girl for 5 yrs and she got pregnant. We always said if ever she got pregnant, we would have our baby, but in the interim, she was promoted at work and at the last minute she changed her mind.Itwas the reason we split up a few months later. That kind of termination in my view is wrong ( career move )but are you telling me a down syndrome girl of 12 who has been raped over and over again cannot chose to abort. that's what I mean.Its lose lose whatever way you look a it, but to say the issue is simple is plain stupid. Aaron, the next time you look at your sister or wife or girlfriend , just think about what was posted unless that is you are looking at your boyfriend, well that would ............... Mark
Mark,
Strong post apart from the very last bit.
Seamus,
Fair points. I disagree with you but you are engaging in the debate honestly (unlike others) and I respect that.
Seamus, I am in no way homophobic, i was implying if Aaron was in a relationship with a man, there is no way either of them could get pregnant. I hope I didn't offend anybody and if i did, I'm sorry. Mark
Sorry, that last post was addressed to JG - mark.....
I heard an interview today on the BBC with a guy called John O’Brien, a member of a UK-based group called Catholics for Choice. He made an interesting point which I wasn’t aware of. Abortion is apparently not an area of Catholicism in which the official church position is considered infallible. In other words the decision on abortion is left up to individual Catholics. Apparently a YouGov poll recently found that 42% of Catholics in Britain are pro-choice. So, you can be a pro-choice RC and still sleep at night! An anti-choice socialist? Well, that’s a different kettle of fish.
mark doyle mark 1,
Sure. Sorry, I picked you up wrong there.
Johnny,
So, you can be a pro-choice RC and still sleep at night!
Phew!
An anti-choice socialist? Well, that’s a different kettle of fish.
It most certainly is.
JG, the points made by Catholics for Choice did get me thinking though. Is Papal infallibility really so limited in its scope? I was aware that the correctness of Vatican pronouncements didn’t extend to all areas of life - for instance, horse racing - but I would have considered abortion to be well within its remit. Is Rome really telling us - after all these years of guilt tripping school kids, myself included, with shock tactic images of aborted foetuses - that they are open to the possibility that they could be wrong? Then again, infallibility can be amended if it gets bad PR (Google ‘babies’ and ‘limbo’ for more information).
One other thing. Why does this blog insist on providing a link to Youth Defence? I have nothing against people being against abortion but I think everyone here would accept that YD are a tad different. Chris has been involved in politics long enough to know the backgrounds of some people associated with Youth Defence, particularly Justin Barrett - a man with a certain penchant for the German and Italian far right. I recall reading in Magill a few years back where some YD goon reckoned the Dail should be abolished and replaced with a “supreme national council”! Imaginative. Barrett and fascist fetishes aside, YD is deeply anti-gay, anti-divorce, anti-female and basically anti everything else mildly progressive. Is Gerry McGeough's crackpot magazine and YD the sort of people ordinary Sinn Fein members have respect for? I hope not.
The Catholic Church's view on abortion is simple. It doesn't need to declare infalibility on the issue. The 5th Commandment is "Thou shall not kill". The Catechism of the Catholic Church states "Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life ... from the moment of conception until death."
The Church has also decreed that anyone who is a Catholic, who procures or facilitates abortion, or is an important public official who is in support of abortion (ie John Kerry) are ipso facto latae sententiae Excommunicated.
In 2004, the then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, ordered that if a Catholic politician is openly Pro Abortion, then his or her priest must inform them not to go to Holy Communion, and if the politician insists on going, must refuse them Holy Communion. This is the ultimate indication ferendae sententiae Excommunication, that is Excommunication that is enforced by the Church, rather than the ipso facto latae sententiae Excommunication, which is enforced by the person.
Forgot to tad this but on, but the above statistic that 42% of Catholics in Britain are Pro-Choice, but through ipso facto latae sententiae Excommunication, all this translates as 42% of Catholics in Britain, aren't Catholic.
The Church considers those 42% excommunicated and thus they are not Catholic. A Catholic can not be Pro-Choice.
The vast majority of women who have abortions were not "raped by their father" or "gang-raped" or drug-addicted teenage mothers. 99.999% of abortions are down to life-style decision. Stop trying to cloud the issue with these bogus examples.
"An anti-choice socialist? Well, that’s a different kettle of fish."
Let's set this sort of stupidity to rest. Socialism, not now, nor since the days of Karl Marx himself, had anything whatsoever to do with moral issues, such as Abortion, the Death Penalty, Euthanasia etc. It is about economics. The definition of Socialism is
"A political and economic theory or system of social organization based on collective or state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange."
People, incorrectly, identify Liberalism with Socialism, despite the fact that they are two completely different theories. You can be a Laissez Faire Capitalist and still be Pro Abortion, the same way that you can be a complete red flag waving Commie and still be Anti Abortion. The two theories are not joined together.
As per my post about Excommunication, Johnny's statement is completely incorrect, as you can't be a Pro Abortion Catholic and you can be an Anti Abortion Socialist.
"99.999% of abortions are down to life-style decision."
Superdub,
Do enlighten us as to where you got these fabulously accurate figures, I'm very interested to know. Did you conduct a voxpop? Or did you read that on a Youth Defence website?
Thanks for the responses.
To "big boobs mcgee": Right on. I believe that the human with a separate DNA is a human in the beginning stages of development. It's no doubt what the cells that are forming will become after conception, they will not be a goat, cat, etc. They will be a human, the issue is a matter of development, and I don't like the idea of arbitrary standards of development being the critical factor in deciding when and where it is lawful to kill something/one.
To "mark doyle" : Mark, I'm sorry you feel my position is naive. I think I made my position clear about what I think about my fiancee, sister, or daughter getting raped; but I think you might be suggesting I'm probably a hypocrite and a sexist, and since that's the case, I guess I can tell you that if my fiancee was raped and pregnant (even though this is not typical except for a fraction of a percentage of abortions) then we would give birth to the child, and I would love and support her like I always have and expect to do. The child isn't responsible for the crime.
But you'd be delighted to know that I ran the post by my fiancee just to make sure I wasn't being blind to my own sexism, and unless she's a self-hating woman, she doesn't see anything sexist in my response.
And just a note here: The "It's simple phrase" is the first part of the sentence, reading the remainder of the sentence is going to be crucial in determining the meaning of the lead in "it's simple.." I suggest if you were offended, to re-read the sentence mentioned above to see that the it's simple did not apply to a decision to abort or not to abort, but the distinctions between the two camps are somewhat basic and easy to grasp, if coherent.
"I guess I can tell you that if my fiancee was raped and pregnant (even though this is not typical except for a fraction of a percentage of abortions) then we would give birth to the child"
Aaron, I'm guessing you weren't intentionally being sexist, but guess what there's no "we" in the giving birth - it's just your fiancee that would be doing that i'm afraid.
Stephanie,
Don't be afraid. I think she wouldn't be my fiancee for very long if I just dropped my end of the support in the relationship. I don't think it's sexist.
Well my point in flagging up the use of the word 'we' is that it just isn't it. It's when the 'we' that comes into it that other people feel that they have a right to have an input into the decision the women has to make - to carry a full pregnancy...or not. I realise perhaps that is not neccessarily what you intended by that (that you were just expressing your support for your fiancee in a hypothetical scenario) but it's important to remember that there's really no 'we' when it comes to pregnancy and the choices that come with it.
Stephanie, there is more to a pregnancy than just the actual physical pregnancy. Yes, for the physical aspect has to be borne by the woman [though my mate did have his hand shattered by his girlfriend, lol].
Your view on pregnancy is the sexist one. You demote men to nothing better than sperm donors. If you feel the only reason for an abortion is that it changes the woman physically for a few months, then I believe you to be a very selfish person Stephanie. A man goes through everything that a woman does when it comes to Pregnancy, except for the physical things, and is as much a part of the pregnancy. The complete removal of the man from pregnancies is one of the massive wrongs of modern society.
WELL SAID SEAMUS - I'm afraid stephanie's views are extremely sexist and it appears she has no empathy towards men whatsoever re the feelings of loss, remorse, devestation associated with a miscarriage or a stillbirth that a man can go through. That's just a Dad's opinion.
The majority of abortions are social - not due to medical, rape or accidental causes. Women have abortions 99% of the time because they didn't manage their birth control. Ladies, use a condom and spermicide and the pill religiously - you won't get pregnant. It's pretty damn simple nowadays to prevent conception if you take responsibility for your sex life.
Stop blaming men for not using birth control - you know that you are ultimately responsible, despite feminist rhetoric, for any resulting pregnancy - just be responsible for your own body and prevent any unwanted complications in your life by protecting yourself.
I don't agree with Chris on his political ideology, but I do admire his consistent and clear view of socialism in it's purist form (protecting the unprotected) and his strong morality and respect for all life.
Seamus,
I am well aware that there is more to pregnancy than the physical aspects. My view on pregnancy is not sexist – it based on the fact that it is the woman who will bear the physical aspects as well as the other non-physical aspects. I am not for one minute suggesting that men have not or should not have any feelings on the issue – my belief is that it is a pregnant woman’s choice – and hers alone – if she wishes to carry through a pregnancy to full term. I do not believe that anyone else should have a veto on a woman’s right to choose. If you think that makes me selfish then so be it. I can live with it.
Mark,
As I said to Seamus, my views are not sexist. I can absolutely empathise with men who have feelings of loss in the aftermath of miscarriage or stillbirth. This has happened to a couple that I know and it was a harrowing experience. That said, as far as I’m concerned (and the medical community as well for that matter) stillbirth or miscarriage are not the same as abortion. I understand that there may be a feeling of loss or devastation or a multitude of other indescribable emotions for a man where someone may have had an abortion. I respect that men have feelings too. But I also respect the women’s right to choose and I will not apologise for prioritising that.
Daphne,
I agree that consistent use of contraception will prevent pregnancy in most cases, but I would also like to know from where you have ascertained the 99% statistics figure from. Could you point me to the relevant medical journal please?
And you know what, even if it was a case that the 99% figure was true, I would still respect a woman’s right to choose.
I am not blaming men for not using BC. But it does take two. I do not feel it’s fair that women take the blame for unwanted pregnancy. If people were given proper access to BC as well as comprehensive sex education, as well as a robust system of support for families – you wouldn’t have the amount of unwanted pregnancies that exist today. As for your assertion that “you are ultimately responsible”, well – if that were true (despite the obvious physical necessity for a man to be present during conception), why then should a woman not have full control over her choices regarding something which is…ultimately her responsibility? I do not believe that it is fair a woman should have all of the reproductive responsibilities (as you suggest) and none of the reproductive rights to go with it.
I respect life too – I just prioritise the born before the unborn.
Well said, Stephanie.
Chris,
When you have the likes of Daphne singing your praises you know you're in some serious trouble! lol
Not at all JG, I always liked the quote from Dostoyevsky
“The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist”
BTW, my view on abortion is much closer to Marx that any abortionist argument might be.
Those who advocate abortion, or the so-called right to choose, are not following a Marxist line. They follow the classical Liberal line as advocted by John Locke.
So Locke advocated the right to choose? At least he got something right.
As for the Marxist view of abortion - the problem with that is that it (Marxism)defines humanity in terms of men. Although so did liberalism for that matter. The point of that is that Marxism emphasises the domination of one class over another rather than the domination of one sex over another and neglects the needs of women within the social structure. Which is why we need feminism 
Or a Marxist-Feminist perspective rather
They follow the classical Liberal line as advocted by John Locke.
Sorry Chris, but Locke's writing, and particularly his emphasis on "natural rights", has been interpreted as being anti-abortion.
Check out the American John Locke Foundation, a think-tank influenced by Lockean thought. Let's just say they're not exactly pro-choice!
What a shame to hear/read this primitive position from people who suffered from so much injustices and iniquitous decisions.
Aborption is a right not a gift, remember that in your country people died for the "habeas corpus" right. Woman is the only master in that situation and not some old (men)political leader.
It's the most inconsiderate post I've read on this blog!
Commenting by HaloScan
