57 thoughts on “‘Truth’

  1. Brizzle

    That domain name looks to have Whois privacy enabled, good to see the anti-choice brigade being open and transparent about who is financing them.

    1. Mike

      Identification of the owners of the domain name is as much a red herring as the statement on the truth site about a “co-ordinated global media campaign” being organised by the pro-choice activists.

      Lets concentrate on the substance of the debate instead of haranging the messengers.

      1. Jack

        Lol, no.

        I contemplated a more thoughtful, engaged and mature reply. But it all boils down to “Lol – no!” in the end.

  2. Micko

    Even if all of this stuff is true, the fact that we don’t allow abortion in Ireland is just embarrassing.

  3. LB

    So the YouTube vid posted on savitatruth.com is by VeritaBella.

    A DNS lookup of VeritaBella shows the owner to be Terence McKeegan.

    Who is Terence McKeegan?

    http://www.c-fam.org/8905

    “During law school, McKeegan worked as a research assistant for Dana Rosemary Scallon, former MEP for Ireland, studied international human rights and comparative health law in Rome. He has also studied and worked in Austria and Ireland.”

    1. huppenstop

      I’m sure they are wonderful centres of learning, but it is interesting to note that Terence McKeegan obtained his JD from the Ave Maria School of Law and his B.A. at Franciscan University of Steubenville

  4. missred

    It shouldn’t start with Fact Check, as that is inaccurate.
    More apt would be Predictable-Extremist-Bigoted-Nutcase-Opinion Check

  5. Clampers Outside!

    I love the way the anti-abortionists come out saying that it is the pro-choice lobby that are using Savita’s tragedy to promote a point of view when all along its the pro-lifers that are using this tragedy and setting up websites like this to promote their own cause.

    Messed up they are! Backward looking turnips!!

    1. Catherine

      Especially since Savita’s friends came to us at Galway Pro-choice an,d asked us for our help, and then gave us Praveen’s contact details. He made it clear from the very beginning that he wanted our help to get legislation and to allow abortion in Ireland.

      Honest to God, by making this sort of website they’re completely insulting Praveen and Savita’s family and ridiculing their feelings around Savita’s death.

      1. Austin

        Actually… shame on Praveen for misusing his wife’s death for this dubious cause!

        How has “choice” become such an important right?

        I think the foetus’ right to life should trump the woman’s right to decide whether or not she will abort.

    1. ANother Computer hack too chicken to actually say anything in real life

      Real brave hiding behind your computer and your anonymous account aren’t ya ya muppet

  6. kermit

    It is the same old line that the “pro-life” trot out all the time. Any one who does not agree with us must be pro-abortion. They can never get their minds around the fact that there is a huge difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. Most people I know are pro-choice and the sort of people that are not willing to try and impose their view of the world on everyone else.

    If your not with us your against us …

    1. Sido

      Clearly they believe that they serve a higher truth. I would think the guy who shot that 14 year old schoolgirl in Pakistan recently, considered himself to be a servant of God rather than a mad killer.

    1. Lan

      Bloody hell, that facebook reads like a draft of a horror movie! He even likes a page called “Make the Girl Scouts clean again”….this human being is disturbed

  7. AMC

    Well tbh I think it’s a bit silly to print the link on this site, all we’re doing by clicking is bumping up their stats, which they’ll use to legitimise their stance, no matter how tasteless the concept clearly is.

    If Youth Defence use FB likes as proof of popularity and support, you can be damn sure those running this site will do the same. I’d suggest removing the link not because it offends, or runs contrary to the broad outlook of this site, but because our inate curiosity will be used to justify the sites existence.

    There’s no such thing as bad publicity and all that

    1. Bacchus

      Did anybody from here actually “like” any of that $hite? I doubt it. And btw there clearly is such a thing as bad publicity.

      1. AMC

        Well it’s obviously just a glib saying, but by and large it doesn’t hurt. Marketing campaigns like this would rely on traction, whether that comes from similar sources or contrary ones. The makers of this site won’t care who reposts their URL so long as it goes ‘viral’

    2. Sido

      He appears to be an American Gobshite.
      I think I read somewhere recently that American Anti Abortionists are funding and “educating/training” their British counterparts.
      I would say that equipment, like the new spamming phones, are their surplus technology.
      The bad news is they are not going to go away any time soon.

  8. Zachary Martinez

    They can have whatever view on the Savita Halappanavar case they wish, and they can express that view publicly. That’s free speech.

    But using her name in the address of their website? Without the knowledge and consent of her family (husband or parents)? Now that’s shameful

  9. Zuppy International

    So are any of the facts presented on this website untrue?

    Or do Broadsheeters just not like those inconvenient facts that don’t confirm their own prejudices?

        1. crayfish

          You can pick one isolated piece of information and use it to justify anything. That’s not the argument here, Zippy. The whole site is incredibly tasteless especially considering what that woman’s family believe & everything they have gone through.

          1. SiriusBrowne

            God you guys love the emotional blackmail don’t you. We actually can’t debate or discuss or make valid factual points about anything relating to this case unless it concurs with the pro-choice agenda. Otherwise one is being disrespectful to the family or distasteful.
            On the other side people parade around dublin using pictures of this poor woman to call for x-case legislation which is totally unrelated to her death. If you are looking for distasteful, exploitation of a poor womans death then grab the nearest mirror. Your hypocrisy, emotional blackmail and stifling groupthink is astounding.

  10. SiriusBrowne

    Two issues/Questions for Broadsheet.ie:

    Use of Savita Hallapanavars name in URL
    I believe this is distasteful and do not think they should have done this. I would also like to express dismay at the fact that many protestors and activists have for the past month also been using Savitas name and story to promote legislating for the X-case- which deals with mental health and is therefore not a relevant solution to the case of Savita. This would appear to be a double standard when it comes to exploitation/using of a womans death? Can we not soundly condemn both sides for such exploitation and then continue to have a mature ethical debate about abortion?

    What exactly is wrong with the website?
    Why is it distasteful to point out that there is no logical causal link between a woman dying of scepsis and the lack of legislation for the x-case? There would appear to be a giant leap from problem- to cause- to solution by those calling for x-case legislation. Why is it not ok/acceptable to point out why it is problematic for some activists to use the death of Savita as a justification for legislating the x-case? Is it not completely legitimate to express the view that all human life deserves protection irrespective of whether it is inside or outside the womb, if one believes this point?

    It would appear to me there is a large doublestandard at work here. Why can one not respectfully disagree with someone elses point- rather then insinuate that they should not have the right to express it?

    1. cluster

      You have a right to express these nonsenical opinions, I just wish BS wouldn’t link to it. I am really sick of hearing about your inconsistent, fairytale-inspired morality. There does not need to be a debate. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. Let others make their moral judgements for themselves.

      The X-case legislation should not be in doubt, Savita case or not. The supreme court made their judgement, the people voted against over-riding it, the ECHR told us to clarify, most senior medical practitioners in the field say they need clarity. Just be f***ing done with it.

      1. SiriusBrowne

        The prolife argument has a very logical consistent thinking behind it. Life from conception. While the prochoice movement draws arbitrary lines between what is a human being and what isn’t depending on social convenience. Perhaps you disagree and thats fine but explain your point at least. One can’t call something nonsensical just because it isn’t convenient for you or your world view.

        The “if you don’t like abortion don’t have one” argument doesn’t make sense. Abortion is the “ending of a human lifeform” (I use dispassionate language because I don’t think being incendiary helps). If you believe that human life is important and has an intrinsic value then morally you can never intentionally end it (except to save the mothers life).
        We are talking about a human life and not getting your appendix removed, so personal freedom/ bodily integrity doesn’t apply.

        I’m glad you made your point about the xcase because as I said the savita case can in no way be a justification for it. X case is primarily about mental health.
        1) Xcase is 20 years old- much more clinical evidence has to come light since then- this is grounds for retrying/reinvestigating the case
        2) Xcase never heard any psychiatric evidence- this is grounds to say that it was never valid/correctly tried in the first place
        3) There is a very clear distinction between mental and physical health. An abortion (or therapeutic termination) can be said to save the life of the mother in cases of a physical threat to a mothers life because there can be a direct link between the ending of the childs life and the continuing of the mothers. Such a link has not been proven in the case of suicide- mainly because suicide has many more complex reasons (personal history of depression, mental health issues).

        For these three reasons the x case is clearly flawed. Thats why we can’t legislate precisely as you pointed out we would be obligated to legislate putting into place a flawed judgement. You would not ask the oireachtas to legislate for something without researching it first- no psychiatric evidence was given in the xcase – equivalence.

        The ECHR and doctors have told us they require clarity- so perhaps some form of legislation would be appropriate but you have to understand that cannot happen now because legislating now would require legislating for the suicide case. Which would be incorrect. Therefore regulations are the best solution until we have a referendum or the Supreme overturns this ruling.

      1. SiriusBrowne

        Hi Dave,
        Yes the supreme court judgement/constitutional ammendment is flawed in my view. No we dont ignore the supreme court but we must also acknowledge that the supreme court/constitution can be wrong sometimes.

        Just to make a quick comparison. Legislating for blasphemy was wrong in my view but is part of our constitution so had to either leglislate or ignore our constitution. This is why we are correcting this flaw through the constitutional assembly.

        My argument is that this flaw in the xcase needs to be corrected.

        1. cluster

          There was a referendum which attempted to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in terms of suicide. It failed. So the people have decided that the Court was not wrong.

          Life from conception isn’t a consistent line to draw. Many religions and nmore improtantly scientists see it differently whoch is why personal morality should come into it. The lifeform that you refer to cannot survive independently of the mother’s body at this stage. It cannot feel pain at this stage, it cannot think at this stage.

  11. Camilla

    At the end of the day if the X-case was legislated for we would not have this issue at all. I am sick of the no balls TD’s in this country dragging their feet. Its not that hard to do the people have already spoken on what they want they need to build a bridge and get over it. Its been 20 yrs for christ sake how much more time do they need. You dont need to be pro-life or pro-choice to realise basic human rights and we have a right in this country for an abortion if the foetus is unsound or a danger to the woman. I cant comprend why any woman would go through with a pregnancy when it would endanger her life…. u dont get any awards or medals when your dead. It about time we join the other countries of the world and stop living in the dark ages. We dont want to have to go back to the days of back alley abortions. Then the blood will be on all the hands of the pro-lifers

  12. Eoin

    Tá cuid mhaith den stuif ar an suíomh i cgeart, seafóid go bhfuil an dá thaobh chomh dall lena chéile ar roinn rudaí eile, ach sa cha seo seans nach mbaineann ceart chun gillmhilte le cás na mná seo.

Comments are closed.