Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Tagged under: ,

Laws Should Not Just Protect The Planned, The Privileged, The Perfect

Dr Anne Mc Closkey insists that intrauterine life is a continuum.


The most fulfilling, if most challenging year of my medical career was spent working in the neonatal intensive care unit of the Hospital for Sick Children in Belfast. Babies do not differentiate between day and night, either at their time of arrival, or when they get ill. In those days, sleep was a rare luxury.

At night, when things quietened down there was time to just watch these wee scraps of humanity as they fought for their lives.

And fight they did. Even those of 23 or 24 weeks gestation, the weight of a bag of sugar, felt pain, hated being stabbed and poked, and although the endotracheal tube rendered them mute, they screamed silently. They hated needles and probes of all types, they loved being stroked and soothed, they yawned and stretched, smiled and frowned. They especially responded to their parents voices. Early behaviours and personality traits, parents used to tell us when they came back for the annual Christmas party, remained outside of the hospital.

That these small, totally dependent individuals are full members of the human family, imbued with human dignity, and deserving of all the rights and entitlements of any other person is self-evident.

Intrauterine life is a continuum, from the moment the mother becomes pregnant till her child is born. There can be no arbitrary cut-off at which it becomes expendable. Our laws should not just protect the planned, the privileged and the perfect, but all the children of the nation.


Anne Mc Closkey works as a GP in Derry. Lifelong republican and community activist, mother and grandmother, stood as Independent candidate in 2016 Assembly election, polling over 3k 1st preference votes, founder member of Cherish all the Children Equally, a republican progressive organisation founded to give pro-life socialists and Republicans a voice and to campaign against repeal of the constitutional right to life in 8th amendment.

38 comments :

Steve R said...

Another shameless appeal to emotion.

ansionnachfionn.com said...

"Our laws should not just protect the planned, the privileged and the perfect, but all the children of the nation."

It which case what is the suitable punishment for those who break such laws? You obviously wish abortion to remain illegal in Ireland. Fair enough, even if I disagree. But take the example of an Irish woman who travels to the UK for an abortion, returns home, having terminated a foetus. What then? Is she liable to prosecution? Though the act is committed outside the jurisdiction, in one where it is legal, certain crimes, such as unlawful killing, can be charged despite their extraterritorial nature. For instance, female genital mutilation is illegal in Ireland. But is is also illegal for an Irish citizen or resident to procure it outside the State. If you travel overseas to perform or purchase FGM you can be charged with a criminal offence.

If abortion is the deliberate taking of human life then the pro-life lobby must include normal Irish legal deterrents as part of its opposition to the medical procedure. Otherwise you are accepting that, no, actually it is not the same thing as "murder" or anything close to it.

Then, where is your argument? Unless, as I stated elsewhere, it is simply a case of out of sight, out of mind and letting the rest of Europe function as our de facto abortion service providers.

wolfe tone said...

It is ironic that those of whom readily espouse govt' policies readily 'appeal to emotion' for eg 'babies being gassed by Assad' to get their way and yet when the pro choice folk do the same its labelled 'shameful'. Pathetic. By this shaming tactic suggests they fear its impact on their soft fluffy cloud like image of their world.

grouch said...

yes, these little beings put up a fight for themselves when the instruments of mutilation and death invade their home in the womb - put up literally the fight of their lives using all their little body's energy, a fight of which they have no chance of winning.
sionnach - extraterritorial and suitable punishment and jurisdiction and de facto and liable to prosecution and legal deterrents and charge and illegal. are u a lawyer by any chance? or a lawyer wannabee?
steve, yeah, she is so shameless this lady. pray that u have the likes of her caring for u when ur an old git.

Niall said...

An emotional appeal but this is not about emotions. This is about rights, about having the right to choose just as you choose not to terminate Choosing to terminate is just as emotional for the mother especially having to deal with the stigma that will follow. We need to change attitudes not just the current law governing abortion.

Henry JoY said...

Anne,

its great that you have such memories ... its easy to see and imagine how fulfilling for you that that part of your early career clearly was. Indeed society at large depends greatly on such efforts and those of all your medical colleagues.

Its not to be unexpected that such experiences in neonatal care would shape and colour one's attitudes on abortion. In that context your views are perfectly understandable and allowable.
However, I do take issue with your position that intrauterine life is a continuum; a continuum beginning with conception and running evenly right through to birth. Generally accepted opinion would suggest that within intrauterine life there are clear and distinct stages in terms of both development and viability.
Doctors now consider 22 weeks the very earliest gestational age when a baby is "viable," or able to survive outside the womb. But this is still extremely premature, and a baby born at this age will need a great deal of medical attention. Even if the infant survives, the risk of permanent disability is very, very high. Neuroscience suggests a foetus only fully forms the brain connections allowing potential consciousness sometime between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation. (Not all foetuses develop at the same rate, so it’s impossible to be more precise). Prior to that, the foetus is unconscious, and cannot become conscious.

After these brain connection form, the intrauterine foetus may wake up, but not to the degree that a baby does. Existing as it does in a low-oxygen environment it remains in an almost sedated like state. Full consciousness, as we might experience and understand it, does not and cannot occur until birth, when the infant is given something different from its previous existence to discriminate against. It does have the hard-wired faculty of perception but until it experiences the differentiating trauma of birth it never gets the chance to experience perception. Perception is the action upon the brain of exposure to sensations. Only then is the point reached at which sensations can become conscious experiences.

These clear divisions in the development of the foetus refute your suggestion that intrauterine life is a continuum. In fact, the broadly accepted distinctions I've outlined inform codes of practice in societies which already allow for terminations.

grouch said...

niall - you are right - this IS about rights.
henryjoy - when u say 'generally accepted opinion' what does 'generally' mean in this context and who holds these opinions - pro-abortionits perhaps?
and who are these doctors who consider 22 weeks the very earliest gestational period when a baby is viable. (what a sad choice of word) is a new born baby viable Henry? is it able to survive on its own - NO ITS NOT. it needs its mother/family's protection for a long time before it is 'viable'. as for neuroscience suggesting a "foetus only fully forms the brain connections allowing potential consciousness sometime between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation." what are you saying exactly? surely potential consciousness, like every other potential faculty, began at conception. as you are aware, there are levels of transcendental consciousness most humans dont get to (vedic yogis- christian ascetics-himalayan anchorites)- dusnt mean im any less human than i am now. as for " Prior to that, the foetus is unconscious, and cannot become conscious. " that is a just plain silly.
u go off into ur favourite topic of brain development then. i usually switch off when u go into this mode but as this is a serious issue im forced to read on. because the baby is (or should i say might be) in a sedated state - what exactly are you saying - that its okay to kill it now. do you hold the same for babies who are born in that state or adults in comas. you say " Full consciousness, as we might experience and understand it" - i say henry, maybe you are very far from the level of consciousness of a vedic yogi - but luckily for us, those enlightened beings dont hold the levers of political power and dont consider the likes of u and me unworthy of life.
"It does have the hard-wired faculty of perception but until it experiences the differentiating trauma of birth it never gets the chance to experience perception. Perception is the action upon the brain of exposure to sensations. Only then is the point reached at which sensations can become conscious experiences."
so under what agency is the child defending itself from the abortionits instruments of death operating? i put it to you that it has enough perception/consciousness to 'differentiate' its body/being/lifeforce is under threat and reacts with all its vigour to continue its journey in the womb, which is just one of many of the journeys a human being goes through from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.
as for ur parting parargraph -"These clear divisions in the development of the foetus refute your suggestion that intrauterine life is a continuum." do you not accept there are clear divisions in the development of a new born babe to full adulthood - are you saying this is not a continuum? also some of these societies you mention are re-thinking abortion. some like America (only through the internet) are finding out that the megabucks abortion industry manipulated doctors scientists lawyers and women like norma mccorvey (roe vs wade) to get their 'codes of practice' as you say introduced. its the exact same here.

grouch said...

from the Spark in the Machine by Dr. Daniel Keown.-
"when conception occurs, the sperm punctures through the egg with a violence that is immediately felt throughout the cell - it is now impossibole for another sperm to enter. this process creates a surge of electricity in the cell: the nuclei combine, fizzing and sparkling with micro-electric sparks.
the cell has done something incredible, it has created new life!.....and then,
just like God at the end of creation...
the cell rests for a day.
A day might nor seem like a lot, but in the breakneck world of embryology, it is like a trillion, trillion, trillion lifetimes.
Then it gets to work. Its got three billion years of evolution to get through and only 12 weeks to do it in! Everything interesting that happens to the baby happens in these 12 weeks; from then until the birth THE BABY JUST GETS BIGGER (my caps)."

who are you henry to say at such and such a point a foetus is deemed consious, when what happens in the very first weeks of life is beyond all human understanding. we should be in awe of what happens in those first weeks, not standing around like a bunch of executioners saying - no nothing really happening here.
finally, no-one is never too old to elevate their own consciousness.

AM said...

Grouch,

why quote that fool who believes in three billion years of evolution? LOL

Grouch, I have to acknowledge your passion and genuine concern for this issue but I don't think you will be on the winning side of the referendum. My own view is that what Henry Joy thinks is probably the way most people either do think or are coming to think. Much like the earth going around the sun, evolution, contraception, divorce, same sex marriage, the lobby opposed to these subjects has ended up on the wrong side of history, so to speak.

I am glad you make the effort to contribute to these discussions, as I am grateful to both Anne and Helen for writing pieces for TPQ.

grouch said...

id rather be on the right side of children than on the wrong side of ur notion of 'history'.
also, you quote very many writers on this site all the time and im sure you dont believe in all their opinions. also, i dont believe people who disagree with me on any topic, never mind evolution, are fools.
one thing ur definitely wrong on is ur assertion that most people think like hj. that really is cause for a LOL.

Christy Walsh said...

What nonsense to suggest that the law will discriminate against a woman's right to choose because she is not rich, privileged or planned her pregnancy. The reverse is true if she is too poor to fly to a foreign country to have an abortion. Such women should have the same right to choose in Ireland as those privileged enough to make an arduous trip somewhere else.

AM said...

Grouch,

the LOL was reference to the banter, not your actual citation of the belief. But if you can't tell the difference I have no intention of trying to persuade you. But read back through your own comments on this blog to get a sense of the pejoratives you have used to describe those who accept the fact of evolution and reject the myth of magical appearance.

You are not on the right side of children, merely asserting your opinion that you are. Human society outlaws the killing of children but for the most part does not outlaw abortion. The reason for that seems to be that human society does not stipulate that the foetus is a child as we understand it. Mothers in general do not kill their children but a lot of them have abortions. Who shall decide it is murder - you or the women?

That too looks like being the situation in Ireland as well once society has the choice to express how it feels. Even at the minute there is no legal sanction against women who travel to the UK to have an abortion. Irish society even while not permitting abortion does not regard it as murder.

That most people think like Henry Joy is seemingly manifested in the fact that most people are opting for laws that permit abortion and I don't imagine they think like you otherwise they would be moving in the direction opposite from the current one.

In my view it is mostly a religious driven sentiment that holds the content of the womb to be a child from the moment of impregnation. This is why we have people trying to ban the morning after pill. As religion can have no claim to authority over those who do not subscribe to its opinions, people are free to make up their minds about how early a foetus becomes a baby. Who else is to make that decision for them?


grouch said...

evolution is not a fact - its a theory. as for 'magical appearance' - where did the building blocks of life come from that the evolutionists believe in. did they magically appear also?
you say i am not on the right side of children, but at the same time you say i am on the wrong side of history. well, is that whats called u having it both ways! murder/abortion/termination are all words with different connotations but none of them change the fact that the child is mutilated and obviously killed in the most horrific way.
i question your assertion that irish society has the choice to express how it feels. if we follow other countries like canada for example, ill get locked up for merely pissing trannies off! in my opinion irish society, like most of western society is being lead by the nose by our globalist oligarch overlords through the media they control. and im not alone on that. debate on all issues is stifled, if ur against gay marriage ur a big bad 'homophobe', if u think trannies should take a dump in a regular toilet, ur a 'trannyphobe'. but funnilly enough when u declare that the unborn child has a right to life ur 'anti-choice'.

"That most people think like Henry Joy is seemingly manifested in the fact that most people are opting for laws that permit abortion and I don't imagine they think like you otherwise they would be moving in the direction opposite from the current one"
that still does not deny the humanity and right to life of the child nor would it if 99% of people thought like hj. its wrong regardless of majority/minority. also, we shall see come the referendum. it is one of the tactics of the pro-abortion lobby (whose campaign is looking more and more pathetic with every passing day) to say it is a foregone conclusion. they are using every underhand trick, as they have been doing all along, to try and scrap the 8th. the current campaign started with kitty holland and the irish times despicable lies over savita, pro-abortion groups taking money from that wonderful paragon of virtue (and a favorite of sf - say no more) mr george soros, the farce which was the citizens assembly and oireachtas committee, senator noone's recent mega lie that she cudnt find a GP to defend the 8th, twitter shadow banning pro-life accounts .......
u say ur view is its mostly a religious driven sentiment that holds the content of the womb to be a child from the moment of impregnation. and?? what if it is. is this just a knee-jerk reaction to anything religious. the greatest scientists throughout history have been profoundly religious. are we to question gravity now because newton was religious? or Tesla's work because of his faith? you will find (i have anyway) that the most inspirational speakers at pro life events are usually good old fashioned humans with a big passionate heart who dont give a hoot about religion. they just care about defenceless children - who can grow up to be religious or not. you also say - as religion can have no claim to authority over those who do not subscribe to its opinions - could someone also say - non-religion/atheism can have no claim to authority over those who do not subscribe to its opinions. also- i say again, this is not a religious/non religious issue only. are you telling me everyone who is for repealing the 8th is not religious or vice versa. also, i agree people are free to make up their minds about how early a foetus becomes a baby, but i dont think they are free to kill it.
and finally, does anybody know what religion mr george soros is?

Seamus Darcy said...

Some of the comments critical of Dr Mc Closkeys remarks can only be compared to the last performance of the Dance Band on the Titanic. It now seems that the blindingly obvious is increasingly seen as fantastic or, even, a 'shameless appeal to emotion' courtesy of one genius above.Yeats actually foresaw the trend to a situation where; 'the best lack all conviction, and the worst are filled with a passionate intensity.'
How can anyone not see the truth of the simple statement; 'that intrauterine life is a continuum.' ALL LIFE AND DEATH IS A CONTINUUM-WAKE UP BEFORE THE OZLAMASTS AND THEIR FACILITATORS THE ZIONASTS OWN THE AIR THAT YOU BREATHE.Is there any way to detox these intellectuals of the brainwashing and propaganda that theyve been fed by the equally bewildered and vapid zeitgeist? Is an organic vegetarian diet the answer? Ayahuasca in the Rainforest? Jungian Analysis? Whatever works for you do it, and do it quickly before you get old and realize that what youve been fed by the NWO has shoved 2 short planks nailed together into the space between your ears where your brain used to be--God/dess Help Us All

Henry JoY said...

Grouch,

with regards to your position on abortion I don't expect that the tail of reason will ever wag the dog of sentiment. So, you have your views and I have mine, and its unlikely that either of us are going to deviate too far from those establish positions.
Its in the nature of even the most cooperative of societies that they are on occasion cursed by moralistic strife. Indeed, unless we are to remain static its even necessary. The evolution towards a woman's right to greater autonomy over her own body is one of those occasions. And the resulting conflict between opposing factions is unavoidable. Conflicting preferences are unavoidable in the social change process. In that context, it is right and proper that these matters are argued and debated. We are all entitled to throw in our tuppence half-penny's worth before the matter is decided by plebiscite.

In the end of the day, each individual will have to make a decision based on his/her own conscience and cast his/her vote accordingly. The good citizen then will submit to, if not necessarily respect, the collective view.

AM said...

Grouch,

evolution is a fact. There is no factual disputation about it. There is a theory, a very poor evidential one, that humans magically appeared as an act of special creation.The evolutionists you refer to disagree amongst themselves as to where the building blocks of life came from, a minority of them feeling they came from a supernatural force, called god. Human life either evolved through magic or some other natural process. There really only are two to choose from unless you can point us to a third.

You are on the wrong side of history, that there is no doubt of. That does not make you wrong per se but just that the historical trend is against you. You don't have to give up your views just because of that. History is capable of going in the wrong direction.

Again, you seem to miss the point. You have an opinion that the life in the womb is a child but others do not share that opinion. How does society resolve that difference of opinion? Should it just arbitrarily defer to your opinion or should it allow the citizens to express their opinion?

You are free to assert all you want that Irish society, because it might hold a different opinion from you, is in the grip of some globalist overload. But should they have the right to vote on the matter or not?

People are entitled to their view that the entity in the womb is a full human entity which should have full human rights from the moment of conception. David Irving is entitled to his view that there was no holocaust against the Jews; Bill Dembski is entitled to his view that evolution is a myth. But how does society decide these issues?

A religious view should have no consequence to people not of that religion. People should be free to practice their religious opinion on themselves but not on others who are not of the same religious view or who don't want it practiced on them for whatever reason. Religion is only an opinion and religious opinion in my view has little merit.

We should not question a scientist who is religious (very few are) if what they claim to be true can be verified. The issue is then not one of religious faith but of empirical demonstration. Hans Kung is a great Christian theologian and scientist who scientifically demonstrates the fact of evolution. Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit scientist who argued for evolution and where he was criticised was on his methodology not his religion. It is when people want religious truth such as magical gardens, talking snakes and young earth creationism taught as fact that a problem arises.

Non religious atheism per se as a belief system (us there any other type?) can have no authority over people who are religious. The religious are allowed to think what they want. They can think gays are an abomination if that is what floats their boat. But a society based on secularism has authority over us all, religious or atheist. People in Ireland have a right not to be subject to religious rules. You have a right not to be subject to the rules of Judaism - why should you be subject to Jewish rules when you are not a Jew?

I am sure that there are people who are anti-choice that have no interest in religion. But I guess for the most part that they are not opposed to the morning after pill.

If you believe that people have the right to make up their own minds that the foetus is not a child, then it follows that they do not feel they are terminating the life of a child. Again we come back to the point, who has the right to decide?

A woman is raped and impregnated. Who should decide what she should do - you or her? As a question it gets no simpler.

Steve R said...

"evolution is not a fact - its a theory. as for 'magical appearance' - where did the building blocks of life come from that the evolutionists believe in. did they magically appear also?"

Are you Wolfie in disguise, Grouch?

Try reading a science book, rather than just the Bible.

Or believe that Man was made out of dust, donated a rib to make a woman, the woman then listened to a talking snake and ate a magical apple from a forbidden tree ergo pissing off a god which either didn't see that coming or didn't care! And all this 5000 years ago!

As opposed to very small changes over time to simple cell structures (that were common) led to the very beginnings of abiogenesis and AEONS later led to the beginnings of complicated life.....way before land animals too!

Up to you Buddy!

grouch said...

hj - typical pompous comment from you - "the tail of reason will ever wag the dog of sentiment. " sorry, but are we reading the same comments, i have counteracted all your self contradicting and illogical arguments with reason. also, one can be emotional and reasonable just as one can be emotionless and unreasonable or any other permutation too.
"The evolution towards a woman's right to greater autonomy over her own body is one of those occasions"
sorry, hj, the child is not 'her own body', - it is a new body, a new life, a new creation and a new member of the human family.
"The good citizen then will submit to, if not necessarily respect, the collective view"
same goes for you sir. its a pity the good child and countless innocent irish children will have to submit to your view, if the 8th is scrapped.

Anthony, evolution is a theory, a theory with more holes than a hole factory, and you are being a tad scientifically fascist when you assert 'there is no factual disputation about it'. then you modestly assert i am on the wrong side of history and 'of that there is no doubt of'! well bully for you and ur historical crystal ball! right now on this messed up planet run by mega banks and their corporations and their endless manufactured wars i will take that as a massive compliment.
"Again, you seem to miss the point. You have an opinion that the life in the womb is a child but others do not share that opinion. How does society resolve that difference of opinion? Should it just arbitrarily defer to your opinion or should it allow the citizens to express their opinion?"
sorry Anthony, it is you who is consistently missing the point here. the 8th isnt my opinion. you are the ones who are calling for the referendum. where have i said the citizens cant express their opinions? will you accept the result of the referendum? i will - where have i said otherwise? i will always speak out against the destruction of children in ALL countries.
nice touch there bringing in irving and dembski into this debate. methinks you are running out of arguments.
"Religion is only an opinion and religious opinion in my view has little merit." yes, some pro-life people agree with you there.
you all have a bee in ur bonnet about evolution - its your bee and im not bovered. i have my beliefs and would never say they are facts (except that Darwinian evolution is total bull). the story of creation is beyond all our measly human understanding. personally i dont believe in magic gardens and talking snakes (although i see they have deeper meanings), i just believe in the Creator.
"But a society based on secularism has authority over us all, religious or atheist. "
taken directly from the globalist rule book and spoken like a true slave.

"If you believe that people have the right to make up their own minds that the foetus is not a child, then it follows that they do not feel they are terminating the life of a child. Again we come back to the point, who has the right to decide? "
good for them if they dont feel like they are taking the life of a child. that is the whole raison d'etre of pro abortion 'argument' - denying the humanity of the child and denying it is a new individual. people can dehumanize lots of different groups if they feel like it, thats their 'choice'.

"A woman is raped and impregnated. Who should decide what she should do - you or her? As a question it gets no simpler"
sorry, your simple question is flawed - this isnt about me. but i will answer. both the child and mother have rights (for the moment) and as such the child and mother must be protected. believe it or not, women have had babies from rape and have loved their child and found it a healing for the terrible act which brought it into existence. (google - shauna prewitt)

grouch said...

steve, you have put words in my mouth that i never utterred. talk to the legendary, the mighty and the indomitable wolfie about his beliefs. i believe in the Creator but i dont know how we got here exactly (but we are created by/through/in love) but i do know darwinian evolution is the greatest load of bollox ever.

AM said...

P1

Grouch,

I am sure you can show us the factual disputation of evolution, some scientific evidence that we were not the product of an evolutionary process. I don’t really care one way or the other if we just appeared one day as fully formed human beings with no history or we evolved from something else. The factual evidence is that evolution occurred. What factual evidence is there against it?

Some things to ponder casually pulled from the web:

Herman Joseph Muller: There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.

The National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) makes a similar point:

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

If you can give any scientific reason to refute this type of logic I will welcome it. I have absolutely no attachment to evolution in much the same way as I have absolutely no attachment to China. I just accept that the evidence for the existence of both is overwhelming. If somebody can show good reason that neither China nor evolution exist I will have to consider that.

You have an opinion that the 8th is correct. That is your right. Many others have a different opinion and that is their right. The referendum, which I presume you will vote in, shall address the matter. And if the eighth is repealed you shall have an opinion that the repeal is wrong. Again that is your right. But there is no getting away from it that what you have on the eighth is just an opinion, just as my view on it is an opinion. And come the referendum those opinions will have to do battle with each other.

AM said...

P2

Grouch,

I have not accused you of saying citizens should not have an opinion. I have no evidence that you ever argued that position. All you have said is that majorities can be wrong - something I agree with. Nevertheless, it seems that you accept that citizens have a right to have their opinion on abortion enshrined in and underpinned by law. That you are in fact willing to concede the right to choose even where you think it the wrong choice.

Most people involved in this broader discussion will probably claim to speak out against the destruction of children anywhere in the world. Yet most also seem to agree with abortion. And as you acknowledge that people have a different opinion on you as to the status of the foetus, your point has little traction.

When I start ranting then you know I will have run out of arguments. Think I am a long way off from that. Dembski and Irving certainly have daft views but they are entitled to them so long as they don’t try to force us to share them. Irving should never have been jailed for his Holocaust denial even though it was bunkum.

I would vigorously defend your right to the opinion that there is a Creator. There either is or isn’t and people have to make their choice. There is so much religious thought fully accepting evolution that it seems obvious that for many religious people evolution poses no threat to the concept of a creator. Catholic teaching as far as I am aware insists only on the special creation (not the evolution) of the soul. It no longer insists on the special creation of the human body.

I have no doubt that raped women who bore the child have come to love it. But that is not the question. Whose conscience should that raped woman follow when confronted with pregnancy from rape? Yours, mine, the bishop, Ian Brady's or her own? Would you advocate a society that would deny the raped woman the morning after pill?

grouch said...

"....their opinion on abortion enshrined in and underpinned by law."
its not so much an opinion on abortion, but an opinion on the child having the fundamental human right of the right to life.

"Most people involved in this broader discussion will probably claim to speak out against the destruction of children anywhere in the world. Yet most also seem to agree with abortion."
sorry, probably and seems dusnt hold traction with me. abortion is the destruction of children.

ranting is a great form of debating and i recommend it. the thing is, the very first pro life meeting i went to, a guy with the unmistakable same name as a hero of mine, the Wicklow Chief, said something i had never heard before at any kind of political meeting and it jolted me and i wondered was he some kind of extremist. he simply said - we have all the arguments and they have none. because on this issue, all the pro-abortion arguments are founded on the calamitous view that the unborn child is not fully human and does not share the same rights as the rest of the human family and ergo can be victim to the mind boggling cruelty of an abortion. therefore, they have to try and manipulate the public with pseudo arguments about choices and rights and bodily autonomy and get ur rosaries of our ovaries guff. that is why, as i mentioned above, they are reduced to constantly lying, manipulating, cheating, distorting facts, taking lolly from scum like Soros and most tragically of all promoting abortion. its what happened in america for roe vs wade and its what happening here now,they take the globalist shilling and dont give a damn what they have to say to win the vote. they are liars, plain and simple, the irish times being the liar of note on all these issues.
if we scrap the 8th , a child can be destroyed the morning before its natural conception. and anyone who says this wont happen is either totally innocent or just plain lying.

evolutionism, marxism, freudism are all nasty little anti-human belief systems which reduces man to something he is not and for that reason have always been promoted by the elite. cultural marxism being the current poison of choice for our social controllers, but thankfully (to net mostly) some are copping on to the post-modernist psychopathic thought control matrix and realise the importance of this vote at this particular moment in history.

AM said...

its not so much an opinion on abortion, but an opinion on the child having the fundamental human right of the right to life.

Problem there is that you already accept that your opinion on the human status of the foetus is not agreed upon. Hence the referendum.

Ranting is a useless form of debate. It immediately betrays a lack of conviction. Polemic is a good form of debate. Ranters persuade people that they are on a rant not that they have a point.

I can understand people like yourself thinking that the view of a foetus as not a human being is calamitous. But if your friend has all the arguments and the pro-choice have none then I guess the side with no argument will be easily swept aside.

if we scrap the 8th, a child can be destroyed the morning before its natural conception. and anyone who says this wont happen is either totally innocent or just plain lying.

I guess you mean natural birth rather than conception. That won’t happen for quite some time if at all. The referendum result will not allow for it. If it does happen eventually as it might it will be few and far between. It is hard to think of a woman carrying that far and then deciding not to go through with it unless she has a very compelling reason for doing so. It certainly creates huge ethical problems which pro choice people need to think long and deeply about. I think that is where the anti-choice lobby is likely to be more successful. It can only do that if it is able to show a clear distinction between late term abortion and the morning after pill. The inability to differentiate loses far too many potential listeners. I am prepared to entertain any argument against abortion other than a religious one. The inability or unwillingness to differentiate seems a religious perspective to me.

The last sentence unfortunately sounds like a rant. Evolution is nothing other than observation and study of the natural world. If you can refer to some serious intellectual challenge to evolution, I will have a look at it. But it has survived all challenges. As for Darwinism, the main challenges to that seem to come from within evolutionary biology not from without. Take a look at Stephen Jay Gould for example.

grouch said...

Anthony, it has nothing to do with who has the arguments (sadly) and all to do with social engineering/media control. also, im not really arsed about evolution when abortion is the topic.
" I am prepared to entertain any argument against abortion other than a religious one."
people who are non-religious and religious on pro-life side share many beliefs/strategies on this topic. the belief that life begins at conception is NOT a religious argument. the belief that life is sacred is a religious one. also, many on pro abortion side appear dogmatically religious and indeed all this anti-life post modernist cultural marxism is a warped little church in itself with its own hierarchy of enlightened wizards and witches, preaching through their media pulpits, and, i have to say it again, constantly mega-lying (savita) manipulating (citizen commitee) cheating (oireachtas report) and whatever it takes to win over 'the voters'. why, if abortion is a 'right', have they no option but to do 'wrong' all the time. its the exact same in every country abortion lobby (backed by mega bucks from multi billion abortion and spare parts industry) is operating in. media lies media manipulation medical untruths and money money money. the abortion shilling is being taken here, and thats the sad truth.

AM said...

Grouch,

I think for the most part that very few people other than religious ones have that seamless approach to life. And if life is not sacred, then why all the fuss about the morning after pill?

You have the chance to make the case for maintaining the 8th and can argue that it is all a big hoax created by cultural Marxism or whatever. The people who favour repeal will make the case that it is driven by a demand from women. May the most intellectually coherent case win.

I think your position seems to be one of accepting that women might have a legal right to abortion but no moral right. Is that accurate?

grouch said...

cultural marxism is the dominant belief system (religion even) among our social engineering overlords in 'government'/academia/media/ngos/charities/. it is no hoax to say we are completely shat on by media now - our latest 'five day extreme weather event' being in fact a five day extreme MEDIA event is the most recent example. we had a shower of snow here on thursday, but by the way the gimps in rte were behaving - the russians were coming. now theyre trying to tear the arse out of it with 'dangers of flooding'. status red status yellow status orange - status fuck off the lot of ye. its called the fucking weather - deal with it. they are taking the piss now - end of.
if intellectually coherent cases was what makes something 'win' the world would be a brighter place. might is still right in this age and the mighty are still crushing the lowly - both physically and psychologically. and the mighty own the media, have always owned it and always used it to promote their agendas. play to their tune and u get an easy ride - go against them and ur toast; a bigot a racist anti woman sexist homophobe trannyphobe.
my position is very simple Anthony - the unborn child is a human being and that if the mother does not want to carry or rear that child she does not have the right to kill it. the general public is beginning to realise that the repeal of the 8th is going to lead to abortion on demand, thats why 'repeal' will be defeated, and that is going to be a fantastic achievement when you consider the long drawn out campaign and might of the msm cultural marxists - kitty holland and irish times savita lies being the first volley in their attempt to bring in abortion on demand here. six years of lies lies lies. its all they do. they should be brought to a tribunal, given a chance to explain themselves and if they dont apologize - send them to jail. lying to the general public and deliberately misleading and manipulating them should be a crime punishable with heavy jail sentences. that would be a sign of a healthy responsible society/country/ and wipe the smirks of a lot of overpaid talentless agenda pushers. i would jail them all Anthony and not lose a wink of sleep. jail the msm liars. simple. jail big business liars.

AM said...

Grouch,

let's just hope they don't jail you. We will have to start a Free the Sardonia One campaign.

AM said...

Grouch,

we always find in these things that both sides call each other liars. Here Kitty Holland claims the anti-choice campaign of lying about Savita. Kitty Holland: Now is the time to tackle the lies told about the Savita case

She makes a strong case.

All I can see is that the demonstrable and provable lying up to now, for me, has come from the anti-choice side. As in most matters, not that both sides are incapable of dishonesty. I have found from experience that those who have tried to restrict freedoms seem to t most of the lying: this has been documented in the Pro-Life movement, the Intelligent Design movement, the anti-condom movement ad infinitum. Now, while I don't follow these things enough to know for sure, I tend to run with my instinct based on what has went before.

I look forward to Barry Gilheany writing for us on this matter. We have run three piece from the pro-life lobby and will continue to run whatever comes through, but it is always welcome to get a wider range of views. I am glad you gave the time to this discussion that you did.

grouch said...

sorry, but will you try and stick to the topic of abortion - this has nothing to do with rubber johnnies, intelligent design or whatever. could you please list the lies from the pro-life campaign. ive listed mine from pro-abortionists (not hard). also, could you please read the three reports into savitas death, its crucial in understanding this case. holland is being totally dishonest again - ive read the article u posted and am left under no illusion that k holland is an even nastier piece of work than i had originally thought. one of the comments under her abortion propaganda sums it up nicely

"Savita died from septicemia and it's complications - not the failure to terminate earlier.

Had the carers recognised as they should have, the early signs and institiuted expeditious treatment, she would have survived.

the law at the time would have allowed for a termination of the pregnanacy - the common law - but the relevant carers failed every step of the way.

To suggest that 'lies' were told is a felony of the facts - must you scrape the bootom of the barrel!"

this commenter, unlike others, has obviously read the three reports.
please note what he said - the law at the time would have allowed for a termination of the pregnanacy. everybody on pro-life side knows this. the only thing she was denied was PROPER MEDICAL CARE FROM THE MOMENT SHE WENT IN TO UCHG.

also - i will never be jailed, the first scumbag who comes near me with cuffs will get a pike through the middle of his forehead. i will not see jail - ever.

AM said...

Grouch,

I think we should leave it at that. Others can make up their mind about who has made the more persuasive case.

Henry JoY said...

Grouch,

of course those who believe that life is a continuum, right from conception through to birth, will be abhorred by the idea of abortion never mind the actuality. Its understandable and proper, for those who hold such views, that they would vehemently oppose termination of pregnancy.

However, moral domains vary between cultures and are not static over time. As societies become WEIRD'er (more WESTERNISED, better EDUCATED, more INDUSTRIALISED, RICHER, and DEMOCRATISED) the quicker the ethic of autonomy comes to the fore. Though previously dominant ethics of community and sanctity are retained, predominately among conservative and religious elements, their influence is minimised in broader society.
These changes to the moral matrix inevitably will be reflected in amendments to the laws that govern society.

For better or for worse, Ireland has rapidly become a WEIRD'er society. The Ireland of the subsistence farmer is all but gone. And though we still have huge challenges around housing we don't have masses of poorly educated people living in urban tenement squalor. Interdependence and connection within communities lessens and an ethic of autonomy arises, and as things now stand, will most likely prevail.

grouch said...

is it all over becuz i asked for a list of our "lies".

Barry Gilheany said...

Grouch

I cannot help reflecting on somebody else who had an obsession with a takeover of Europe by a "cultural Marxist elite"- Andreas Behring Brevik. You have heard of him and his appalling deeds.

grouch said...

batty gilhooly - u are always gud for a laugh - i will give u that.

grouch said...

barry, is there anything in ur thesis about the following


19 Shocking Post Abortion Depression Statistics - taken from -
https://healthresearchfunding.org/19-shocking-post-abortion-depression-statistics/

1. Women who have an abortion are 3x more likely that women of child-bearing age in the general population to commit suicide.
2. The increased risk percentage of women who have an abortion compared to women in the general population of having at least one mental health issue: 81%.
3. Teen girls are up to 10x more likely to attempt suicide then their counterparts who have not had an abortion.
4. Teen girls who have had an abortion are up to 4x more likely to successfully commit suicide when compared to older women who have had an abortion.
5. About 45% of women who have had an abortion report having suicidal feelings immediately following their procedure.
6. Only 1% of women of child-bearing age seek psychiatric help for mental health issues in the 9 months prior to having an abortion. After having an abortion, the percentage rises to 1.5%.
7. Within a year after first-time mothers gave birth, 7 per 1,000 women were treated for mental-health issues, in comparison to 4 per 1,000 before baby.
8. Up to 33% of mothers will experience depression at least once between the time their child is born and the child’s 12th birthday.
9. 1995 data suggests that the rate of deliberate self-harm is 70% higher after abortion than after childbirth.
10. The British Journal of Psychiatry found an 81% increased risk of mental trauma after abortion.
11. At least 27% of women who have an abortion will have a moment of suicidal ideation afterward.
12. A study of California Medicaid patients found that the risks of suicide increase by 154% for women after they have an abortion.
13. 2 in 3 women who have a late abortion [after 12 weeks] suffer from the clinical definition of PTSD.
14. 40% of women in one UK survey said that they wanted to keep their child, but the pressures of others to have an abortion forced their hand in the decision.
15. Women whose first pregnancies ended in abortion are 65% more likely to score in the ‘high-risk’ range for clinical depression than women whose first pregnancies resulted in a birth.
16. Abortion may be a risk factor for subsequent depression in women for up to 8 years after the pregnancy event.
17. Women who have had an abortion are 34% more likely to develop an anxiety disorder.
18. 110%. That’s the increased risk of alcohol abuse in women who have had an abortion.
19. The number of women who have an abortion every year in the United States: 827,000

well, at least the pharmaceutical companies can put these poor women on drugs for life.

grouch said...

Suicide and Abortion: One Country’s Experience - taken from

Professor Mika Gissler and colleagues studied the risk of suicide among women of childbearing age (15-49) in Finland to learn how the incidence of suicide differs among three groups of women: those who had given birth, those who had miscarried, and those who had aborted their child in the 12 months before their death. The authors concluded:

“Our data clearly show, however, that women who have experienced an abortion have an increased risk of suicide.”

The annual suicide rate from 1987-1994 per 100,000 women in Finland, age 15-49 was:

All women in the general population: 11.3

Women who had given birth in prior 12 mos: 5.9

Women who had a miscarriage in prior 12 mos: 18.1

Women who had an abortion in prior 12 mos: 34.7

The suicide rate associated with birth was almost half the rate of the general population. “This suggests that childbearing prevents suicide or that women capable of giving birth are not at high risk for suicide.”

The suicide rate associated with induced abortion was over three times higher than in the general population and almost six times higher than among women who gave birth.

“Similarly, the rate of psychiatric admissions within three months after the end of pregnancy was 53% higher in women who delivered than in women who had had an induced abortion in a Danish register study.

ALL THE ABOVE PROVES THAT ABORTION IS WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS AND LEAVES WOMEN SCARRED FOR LIFE AND INDEED EVENTUALLY KILLS SOME OF THEM.. BARRY, YOUVE MORE IN COMMON WITH BREIVIK THAN ME - EXCEPT UR BODY COUNT WILL BE WAY HIGHER THAN HIS IF U GET UR WAY.

Barry Gilheany said...

It is precisely for such reasons that abortion should be free, safe and rare aes a backup to universally available family planning, sex and relationship education and counselling services, universal free childcare and safe maternity services,

Grouch, women may suffer adverse psychological reactions to abortion for any number of reasons of which internalised shame from strict religious upbringing and lack of post-operative care after pregnancy termination are likely to be the most salient factors in adverse sequelae suffered by Irish women who have to travel to Britain for abortions. To quote Eamonn McCann abortion is as Irish as shamrocks and pints of Guinness, it is just that Ireland exports its abortions and no about of constitutional protection of the unborn will change that reality.

And still Grouch you will not say whose decision is it to make over having an abortion

grouch said...

nothing to do with strict religious upbringing in finland barry or england or many other countries. some of u are seeing this issue through colossal anti-religious bigot glasses. as if non-religious women dont suffer depression and commit suicide over their dead child. grief and guilt are not the preserve of religious people. also, do u really think there are many young irish women out there now who are the product of a 'strict religious upbringing'. the only ones i can think of are our new muslim irish barry, and get ready for loads more of them!
are u aware now that some abortion clinics in europe have introduced counselling for staff as its admitted now that many clinic workers eventually suffer mentally from doing what they do. 'post-operative care' - there u go again with ur orwellian language and phd-speak. what happens to the child barry post operation. also,what a pathetic quote from mccann. funny u shud quote the father of savita lie-pusher extraordinaire kitty holland. what an awful quote and no wonder we dont hear much from him anymore. as for ur opening salvo of abortion should be free and safe - for who - the child? also, u seem to think im avoiding any of ur questions - read back and ul see im not.