Dr Peter Boylan and Breda O’Brien: The Transcript



Former Master of Holles Street Hospital in Dublin, Dr Peter Boylan, top, and Breda O’Brien, above, a patron of Iona Institute and Irish Times columnist, were among the guests on RTÉ’s Marian Finucane this morning.

They spoke about the death and subsequent inquest of Savita Halappanavar.

During their discussion, Dr Boylan accused Ms O’Brien of revising history.

Here’s how it unfolded:

Marian Finucane: “Explain how you got involved in the hearings in Galway, last week.”

Dr Peter Boylan: “The coroner wrote to me and asked me would I review the notes and the statements and issue a report to him, so that’s it basically.”

Finucane: “And that was it. And were you there for the whole thing?”

Boylan: “No, I got the transcripts every night but I wasn’t present. I only went down to give my expert evidence on Thursday.”

Finucane: “Right. And your conclusions?”

Boylan: “My conclusions are that if she’d had a termination on the Monday or the Tuesday, she would now be alive. That by the time…”

Finucane: “This is Savita. Just to…”

Boylan: “Yes. By the time a termination became legally realistic prospect, she was becoming seriously ill. And even if they’d started a termination on the morning of the Wednesday that it was too late at that stage. I did identify a number of deficiencies in the care but none of them individually contributed to her death, in my opinion. And, the question of a surgical termination was brought up in some of the media, during the course of discussions since the finish of the inquest. And I don’t want to be graphic about what a surgical termination means at 17 weeks for the live foetus but there’s a very high likelihood that she would have died as a consequence of having had a surgical termination at that stage because…”

Finucane: “On the Monday or the Tuesday?”

Boylan: “No. On the Wednesday.”

Finucane: “No.”

Boylan: “You couldn’t do a termination on the Monday or the Tuesday in this country. It’s just, it was not legal.”

Finucane: “Yeah, I must have misheard, I thought I heard people, on both sides, saying that if a miscarriage was inevitable that then there would…”

Boylan: “The clinical circumstances in which she was, with ruptured membranes at 17 weeks, the chances of survival for that baby were absolutely very small, less than 10%. There are incidences however, well-recognised in this country and internationally where babies in those circumstances can survive. They get to 34 weeks maybe or even later…”

Finucane: “34? Yeah but she was 17?”

Boylan: “She was 17. Yes but a pregnancy, even with ruptured membranes, can continue. It’s highly unlikely. It’s not inevitable that she would have a miscarriage. Now what would have happened in another country is that on the ward round, when she ruptured her membranes, the dismal outlook for the baby would have been discussed with her. And her input into the management, and her husband’s input into the management, would have been taken into account. We can’t do that here. And what would have happened is she would have said one of two things. One: ‘I’d like this pregnancy to continue as long as possible as I dearly want a baby and we want to do everything possible’. That might be say in the circumstances where the mother is in her late 30s/40s, it’s an IVF pregnancy and so on. Not very much different. Or she might, she could said ‘Look no, the outlook is so dismal, I’d like just to have, get this pregnancy over with, in other words terminate it, and then move on and perhaps get pregnant again soon. Her wishes would have been taken into account in any other country. Now what would have happened then is that they would have said to her ‘Look, have a think about this because these are very big decisions.”

Finucane: “Sure are.”

Boylan: “And they would have come back to her the next day, or later the same day, or they might be absolutely certain what they wanted to do. And then, whatever it is that they wished would be undertaken. In any other country.”

Finucane: “Again, just listening to the, to the evidence, I presume every person operates to the guidelines, you know, according to the law.”

Boylan: “We have to.”

Finucane: “Yeah, yes, yeah. But the notion of percentages.”

Boylan: “Yes.”

Finucane: “Of, will you die, won’t you die…”

Boylan: “Yes.”

Finucane: “Does that happen? A lot?”

Boylan: “No. And we cannot, as doctors, be expected to do our ward rounds with a calculator in one hand and the law in another hand. We have to be given the liberty to do what we feel is best for a patient and in this…These circumstances are the only circumstances in obstetric care where a woman’s wishes are not taken into account. Where she has no input into her care. Now if you think of any other sort of situation like that you end up talking about the Taliban. Where else are women denied an input into their care? In what other clinical situation? I can’t identify any. Women are very much involved in their care in obstetrics, in decisions to induce labour, decisions about Caesarian sections, decisions about all sorts of things. And that’s how it should be. But in this circumstances, they are not allowed. And that’s the law.”

Finucane: “Breda, how did, how did we end up here?”

Breda O’Brien: “I’m really alarmed at a couple of things that Peter has said. First of all that the law would not have allowed intervention on Monday because John Bonner, who would be universally acknowledged to be deeply conservative on this, said he would have gone, he would have been in there like a light.”

Boylan: “That’s incorrect.”

O’Brien: “Em. He’s not present to..what he..this is..”

Boylan: “I was on Prime Time with him there last night I think it was…”

O’Brien: “What he said was…”

Boylan: “Friday night. And that’s not correct what he said. He said he would wait until she was ill and then he would have no hesitation in intervening.”

O’Brien: “Can I clarify, Peter?”

Boylan: “He was very clear about that because I picked him up on that.”

O’Brien: “Can I clarify, Peter? When I said he would have been in like a light I was talking about in terms of the care. The care is the crucial issue here.  I spoke to three obstetricians over the week, two in person and one by email to clarify this point.”

Finucane: “I should clarify that you yourself are a patron of Iona, just for the record.”

O’Brien: “Absolutely, sure the whole country, anyone who knows me knows where I stand on this issue. But it is important to clarify where,  I think everyone should lay their cards on the table, where they stand on this. So, the point I was making was…I communicated with three obstetricians. They said, one of them said that there were glaring signs on the Sunday night which should have triggered a whole series of interventions, in terms of standard, bog standard care.”

Boylan: “On Sunday night?”

O’Brien: “That, yes.”

Boylan: “On the night she was admitted?”

O’Brien: “They said, that…one of them said to me that because she was fully dilated and…”

Boylan: “She wasn’t.”


Boylan: “Sorry, keep going. But you’re all wrong.”

O’Brien: “Peter.”

Boylan: “I’m sorry…just keep, OK, look, I won’t interrupt you again but this is depressing.”

O’Brien: “OK. Peter. OK.”

Boylan: “This is revisionism and the rewriting of the history of what actually happened. I went through those notes forensically, I read the transcripts forensically. So, don’t, please try and revise what actually happened.”

O’Brien: “OK Peter, and then I would ask you please, don’t please try and given an interpretation of the law which is not borne out by other colleagues. Other colleagues said that if she had received the proper care. Now, it’s extraordinary how the key problem here which was the systems failure, the failure to communicate properly, the cascade of failures in a sense, it’s really noticeable that the recommendations, one said to clarify the Medical Council guidelines, all the others were about failures in the hospital. And by focusing on the fact that it’s the law and that was the problem, rather than the care was the problem, we’re actually deflecting attention away from things that will save women’s lives in the future, which is to get the care correct. And there, I, as I say, spoke to three obstetricians, all practising in Ireland, all of whom have practised in jurisdictions where termination is fully available, and they said they would have intervened earlier and they would have, they would have intervened much, much earlier. Nobody is…”

Boylan: “They would have broken the law.”

O’Brien: “They are of, they, they…”

Boylan: “And they wouldn’t…”

O’Brien: “Peter, what happened at the Oireachtas Committee hearings? Where Rhona Mahony said that there is no, there is no problem when there is a threat to the woman’s life. I think you’re…”

Boylan: “Absolutely. There is no problem when there is a threat to the woman’s life…in this case, it was too late.”

O’Brien: “I think you’re confusing a real and immediate, a real and substantial danger with an immediate danger. Sepsis is a hugely…And I have a stake in this, and there’s a bizarre thing to admit but I was a miscarrying patient in your hospital in July. So this is not academic for me.

Boylan: “It’s not academic for me either. I’ve spent my entire professional career, saving, not saving, but working to care for women…”

O’Brien: “And I totally accept that, Peter. But what I’m saying is that this, as you said, is your opinion right. I think it’s a deeply-flawed opinion, I think that the fact is…”

Boylan: “Well, that’s not surprising.”

O’Brien: “The sepsis. Once there is a sign of infection, once there is a sign of infection. And that that infection is in the womb. And there is no option but to deliver the baby and the foetal heartbeat is actually, I hate to say this…”

Boylan: “So are you saying, Breda. I just want to get this clear for listeners, that it would have been permissable to terminate the pregnancy on the Monday or the Tuesday?”

O’Brien: “If she had received the proper care and they had identified…”

Boylan: “Which is what? What is your colleagues, your obstetrician colleagues identified as proper care?”

O’Brien: “All the things that the inquiry, the inquest identified.”

Boylan: “The only thing that the inquest identified in the first two days as being deficient was the lack of a repeat of a white cell count. That’s it.”

O’Brien: “But that was hugely significant, Peter.”

Boylan: “It wasn’t. No. You’re completely wrong.”

O’Brien: “Well, according to the people that I have spoken to…”

Boylan: “Well this is good news because if this means then that a white cell count is elevated, in these circumstances…”

O’Brien: “Along with all the other,. along with all the other symptoms.”

Boylan: “She had a normal pulse, she had a normal temperature, it was only in the very early hours of Wednes…”

O’Brien: “She wasn’t monitored properly. Peter why are you deflecting away from, the attention from the failures..”

Boylan: “I’m trying to draw attention. No. I’ve identified the deficiencies but I’ve also clearly outlined.”

O’Brien: “But your (inaudible) is the law, the law, the law. Why are you deflecting attention away from…”

Boylan: “Because that’s the problem.”

Finucane: “Well, can I just intervene here because evidence was given at the hearing that it was because of the law.”

O’Brien: “That evidence was given by Peter.”

Talk over each other.

Finucane: “But the practitioner..”

Boylan: “No, the practitioner herself, the consultant who was looking after her, said she felt that she couldn’t do it. And when she got…”

Finucane: “That was part of her evidence.”

O’Brien: “I think, I think… that she was misinterpreting the law aswell. Once there is a sign of infection..”

Boylan: “This is brilliant.” Laughs. “We’re in the clear now. We can terminate pregnancies on the basis of an elevated white cell count.”

O’Brien: “Please don’t misquote me. If I make…”

Boylan: “…with no other signs of…”

O’Brien: “If I made a mistake, I corrected myself.”

Finucane: “Can I come back to what’s in the papers today, just to move it on.”

Listen in full here (from 32 minutes).

Previously: What Rhona Said

Breda O’Brien Vs Patsy McGarry

Pics: Laura Hutton/Photocall Ireland and Salt and Light 

110 thoughts on “Dr Peter Boylan and Breda O’Brien: The Transcript

  1. Bacchus

    I heard that this morning… faced with actual facts she has nothing, she made a complete fool of herself. .

    1. Bob

      Boylan is not to be trusted. He is noted for his pro choice activism. Atleast Breda is open about her point of view.

      1. Steph

        Is he? What pro-choice activism? Because he said he was pro-life on the radio. Also the majority of Irish GPs are pro-choice. Do you distrust them for medical facts as well?

        I’m a pro-choice activist but it doesn’t affect the advice or info I give my pregnant patients as a physio.

      2. droid

        LIke pretty much everything else you’ve posted here, this is absolute bollocks. Please provide examples of his ‘pro-choice activism’.

      3. Dette Mc Loughlin

        Exactly why Boylan is to be trusted- he agrees with women being able to avail of their human rights, and to be informed and able to chose what option to take. Unlike O’Brien, who wants to force women to have to proceed as she dictates.

      4. medieval knievel

        “Boylan is not to be trusted. He is noted for his pro choice activism. Atleast Breda is open about her point of view.”
        you imply that boylan is not open about his point of view, while also stating that he is noted for his pro choice activism. make up your mind.

  2. dee

    Why do people like this have a mouth piece? What qualifies this woman to have a public mouthpiece when she and her cronies are clearly women- hating, bigoted zealots?
    Why are we engaging with crazy?

      1. Dee

        The crazy – a generic term for crazy people. But if you want to waste time picking up on stupid points rather than actual points i will use correct english to rephrase:
        This woman and every other person in the Iona Institute are deranged cretins within our civilised society. They are given a platform to deliver lies and judgement upon the general population of Ireland and their disdain for women sickens me to the core. Further to this, I believe their frequency on this public platform gives them unearned credibility and the media need to show some responsibility, as politicians clearly believe that they are answerable to these people, rather than the majority of the population.
        Happy bob?

        1. threepoint1

          Uh Uh, you’re demonizing the individual rather than dealing with the arguments. Calling people deranged cretins adds only heat and no light to a debate that sorely needs less heat and more light.

  3. collie

    maybe it’s solely because media give these fabricators a platform for dramatical reasons at the expense of documented fact.

    all media not specifically rte.

  4. Buzz

    That O’Brien woman is a blithering idiot. I switched off Marian once I knew she was on the panel.

  5. Sidewinder

    How is it appropriate to put a doctor, a former master of a maternity hospital, against a conservative catholic mouthpiece? How is that balance? Medical fact versus utterly biased bollocks is not good journalism.

    1. herself

      Because that ‘utterly biased bollocks’ if currently lobbying to deny women rights to basis medical care. Because that ‘utterly biased bollocks’ needs to be revealed for what it is. Because that ‘utterly biased bollocks’ is being bankrolled by powerful foreign interests that want to continue denying the women of Ireland a choice over what happens their bodies, even if they are miscarrying at 17 weeks.

      1. Sidewinder

        Interesting idea but surely more effective to not give her a platform to spread it at all?

        1. Bacchus

          I’d suggest not. The more people hear O’Brien’s nonsense the more people will recognise facts. Obviously there are those that will believe her but that’s people for ye.

          1. Orla

            There are two issues here one the lack of input by the patient in their care at critical times, This cannot be taken for granted as done, clearly is not. Other the medical complete collapse of standards and procedure. The second is red flag a danger for today’s pregnant persons along with men women and children requiring medical attention and procedures. A complete emergency situation should be declared in this hospital and others reviewed in organised military fashion. If these deaths are happening from in any debatable sense from systems failure. Ignoring these actual happenings to focus on points for argument is not providing assurances that such is not anything other than lethal standard. I understand that there are groups adamant to voice their side as right in a democracy without ridicule or intimidation. But there are people dying here of adhoc medical standards. This undermines the maintaining a of any modern civil society. The other issues need to be looked at in weakness of interpretation and absence of clarity. Also the whole issue of women and child bearing needs proper consideration that reflects modern position but also modern civil ability. As yet that does not exist anywhere in the world and the opening up of discussion and solution needs to urgently commence

          2. Sidewinder

            There is no right to voice your opinion without facing ridicule. Intimidation maybe, but proper intimidation. I’ve seen people claming O’Brien was bullied because she was clearly intimidated by Boylan.

            Well, that’s what happens when you debate a topic you know f*** all about with someone who knows lots about it. You get intimidated because you feel you’re outmatched, and she was.

    2. Bob

      Boylan only represents his own point of view. He is subject to biases like the rest of us but I think you are correct that the discussion wasn’t well framed.

      1. Steph

        Boylan presented the facts and his professional opinion. O’Brien is a schoolteacher presenting the views of her church and neither her opinion on medicine (since she has no relevant qualification) nor the opinions of her church should have any bearing on the medical treatment of women in Ireland.

    3. threepoint1

      I notice the comments criticising Ms. O’Brien do not relate to the arguments she made or positions she defended but to her personally, and are generously laced with invective. That’s not worthy of good bloggers, or bloggers who are winning the argument. Instead elucidate the errors in her arguments. If she is as inept as you say, then why squander your high ground advantage by resorting to such shabby tactics?

    1. Derval

      Sorry, we’re going to have to leave it there because we need a significant portion of our listeners to remain confused about who is telling the truth and who is lying.
      After the break, a review of the latest Hollywood blockbuster.

  6. collie

    fabricator vs top dog professional on the topic.

    does that make more people want to tune in ?

    if yes was the choice of guest absolutely deliberate ?

    the discussion should have been about the absolute shambles of care patients receive in Galway hospital

    but that simply would not create sufficient drama.

    1. emzo

      I have received a shambles of care more then once in that Galway hospital, but I still see the issue as based on the Law, rather than insufficiency of care in the case of Savita … I feel that there is also an issue of standard of care, but it can also be shown that the legal issues affected the standard of care.
      I applaud Boylan for his performance in dealing with this sanctimonious, unqualified control seeker ! Well Done Sir!

  7. Sido

    One of the mains things apparent from that transcript.
    Its the ability of this women Breda O’ Brien to talk complete gibberish – utter crap….. And feel justified and entitled to do so.

    1. Bacchus

      she represents a culture where priests (and nuns) raped children for Jesus. This is nothing to her.

      1. AndrewSB49

        The sexual violence was horrendous but these institutions also physically tortured children, they starved children, they used the children, not just as sexual slaves for their fellow clerics, but also as slave labourers. Many children were hired out to local farmers and businesses as slaves.

    1. Bruce

      +1 that reply from O’Brien was ludicrous, I cannot believe they can’t find a better representative than her! Honestly made me think she was wheeled out to discredit the anti position.

  8. Walls

    She, and the institute are fatuous, lacking in intellectual rigor, and eager to reject, revise and label to avoid reality.

    1. Bob

      Quite the country. Boylan is in the business of burying medical incompetence in law that does not match her person agenda.That is the biggest dodging of reality.

  9. patsy

    Anyone have an email address for Peter Boylan?

    I’d like to send him a message of support. Its such a relief to hear someone speaking honestly (even better to read it here as I would break out in hives if I had to listen in to Pegeen Finucane).

    But if he reads Broadsheet maybe I don’t have to send the email.


  10. Daniel Sullivan

    Reading this I’m struck that one of the biggest problems in Ireland is the excessive credence we give to those who can give the impression about being knowledgeable on topics they have no actual background in at all. The media are pure suckers for this. On topics from technology to medicine, from nuclear waste to spatial strategy the Irish media will give a voice to the clueless every time. In particular we allow barristers, solicitors, teachers and auctioneers up and down the country on the airwaves, local and national, to discuss, with the air of great authority, issues the facts and reasoning of which they have no idea of.

    1. cluster

      Could not agree more, Daniel.

      I have lost count of the number of times I have stared at the radio in shock at some confidently spouted gibberish from a barrister or teacher on a topic they know nothing about.

    2. Limey Tank

      That always baffled me, because, if science is the pursuit of truth, then in the interest of providing balance we must provide a de facto liar?

    3. emzo

      Yeah, like, what qualifies a teacher to profess knowledge of a topic, when a lot of them don’t even have primary degrees?
      Oh ‘She’s a teacher, she married a Gard, her brother’s a priest, Daddy was a Doctor, listen to her, she’s a pillar of society … Let’s make her the postmistress, and she can also teach grinds to poor kids …”
      Where have we seen this before????
      Feck em …
      Some people become a primary teacher because they aren’t clever enough for a degree, but seek to gain respectability and the appearance of education anyway (in 3 easy years and a catholic module)…

      [Also to profess knowledge of a subject is to be able to talk about it, but generally, a University won’t recognise you as a professor unless you have at least 2 degrees?]

      (ducking all the shots … I said ‘Some’)

  11. Matthew

    I heard a minute or so of this on the radio and my main thoughts were “Yep, that’s the sound of someone getting totally caught out live on air.”

  12. Observer

    I just want to record my thanks for making and publishing this transcript. An important public service. Not everyone listens to RTE on a Sunday morning, but now anyone can see what the appalling O’Brien has to say.

    1. Grammer Nazi

      Good point. Transcribing interviews is a pain too, so thanks to whoever put in the work.

  13. GG

    Can I ask why she was allowed on the show? Everyone of her arguments seem to have been “The person I was talking to told me …”. She has no idea what she is talking about and should not be allowed debate this medical issue.

    1. droid

      She uses that tactic a lot. Ive seen her pull the same trick on Vincent Browne in supposed reference to a nurse she claimed she knew who supposedly left the UK because of her disgust at abortion policy.

  14. Mcp

    O’ Brien INFURIATES ME. Glad she made an absolute hames of that. Poor argument.
    And self indulgent. Selfish woman.
    How she is an educator is beyond me.

      1. Mcp

        At least I made it out.
        The only thing I learned from her was to ignore her.
        Her poor judgements,arguments and everything else that came out of her mouth.

  15. Fat Frog

    Fair play to Boylan, O’Brien is an unbelievable c*nt – she seems to think that hearsay is acceptable as evidence. Thanks BS for the transcript.

  16. Liggy

    Dr Peter Boylan.

    If you do read here or someone passes this link on to you. On behalf of myself and any like minded people in Ireland, thank you.

    Thank you for being a rational knowing considered voice of reason.

    Thank you for pointing out where the law of Ireland puts the women of and in Ireland at risk.

    Thank you for not giving into the natural instinct a lesser mortal would have felt and punching Breda O’Brien square in the chops.

    Just thanks.

  17. peter

    This modern notion of balance to arguments in modern media is completely rubbish! Its the same with environmental arguments on global warming: pitting a scientist against some fool. Makes me feel physically ill.
    Dr. Boylan, thank you for showing her for the fool she so clearly is and shame on Marian Finucane for her part in this.


    I fail to see how an abortion would have had a different outcome for Savita due to the lack of care she received.
    Boylan is covering his colleagues incompetence and negligence blaming the law rather than criticising the care that Savita was denied.
    Even if an abortion was given on the Monday or Tuesday, it sounds like the care given would be lacking in any event.
    I note that this case was not about a woman going to hospital with the prerequisite that she sought an abortion and even asked if there was anyway to save the baby. So in terms of knowing how the events and the express wishes were aligned, it’s all up for speculation.
    And yes the Iona person sounds like she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. This case is tragic, it shouldn’t be used as a political football for abortion, it should be used to highlight the lack of care and negligence that is occuring on a daily basis in our sham of a Health Service.

    1. Pedanto

      The case can spark more than one discussion. Calling the one you disapprove of a “political football” is a bit crappy to the people who consider it important. They’re allowed to care about what they care about.

      But then it was three in the morning, when I assume everyone on Broadsheet is nose-deep in the shag-pile sniffing for the last few grains of chop.

        1. woesinger

          I’m not as up to date as Pedanto with the auld narco-lingo, but I’m guessing it’s Colombian Marching Powder.

    2. woesinger

      Do you have medical training to back up your incredulity as to the outcome? If so, please outline why you are incredulous.

  19. Notthisagain!

    Ahem. In case some people haven’t noticed, this country is falling down around our ears. We’ve a debt that can NEVER be paid, our young are leaving in droves, families are suffering daily to eke out a normal life, our elderly are afraid in their own homes and suicide rates are increasing.
    And then this old abortion chestnut comes up & deflects away from all of that. The Government WILL be pleased.
    The majority don’t care what a few fundamentalists on either side – who will NEVER agree to compromise – think about abortion. They are more concerned that our nation has lost its identity and sovereignty.
    So get real folks.

    The majority don’t care what a few fundamentalists (s think about abortion

    1. ABM's Bloodied Underwear.

      That’s all very well except a fundamentalist view, as you may call it – not too sure I agree, is enshrined in law.

    2. Sidewinder

      Pardon me while I fight for my right to not die of a miscarriage and you fight for your right to keep a house you shouldn’t have bought in the first place.

      You may have lost your identity, but don’t speak for the rest of us.

  20. Kevin Barrington

    These US dollar loving Iona sociopaths seem very quick to tell us “Mind the statistics”
    Although they distort and fabricate theirs.
    But let’s look at the statistics for dollar loving dog eat DOG right wing socially regressive Christian groups.
    And what do they tell us?
    What does precedent tell us about the liklihood of cheats, hypocrtites, perverts and molesters lurking in the ranks of self appointed moral guardians?
    Precedent seems to confirm the need to:
    If not for the love of mathematical or historical veracity, then, at least, for the well being of children.
    (Google Dr Five’s potent ‘House of Horrors’ piece in the current Rabble on how some of the groups in question care for the well being of children)
    Now let’s look at the equivalent figures to Broom Breda, Slime Quinn, Fogey Waghorne, Machiavellian McGuirk and Disaster Capitalist Ganley who peopled the pro life movement in the 80s.
    Go back and take a look at the last crowd of concerned betters.
    And what has time revealed there?
    Did we not see liars, cheats, hypocrites, swindlers, rapists and molesters.
    We did indeed.
    We saw them in spades.
    Do we have anything concrete on the Broom, Slime et al?
    Well when it comes to liars and swindlers – you just had to listen to Norris speaking to the senate the other day to know there’s a serious issue with liars and swindlers.
    At least the previous crew were brass neck slime.
    They did not even feel threatened enough to go twist and subvert science to their medieval needs.
    They were still just pure bully.
    They had yet to feel the full sting of rational decent honest human concern.

    But back to today.
    Jesus wept.
    I would imagine he keeps his integrity in his wallet with his plastic and morals.

    Sexual deviancy?
    I’m saying nothing cos I know nothing.
    And that is fair and wise.

    Just as it is fair and wise to…yep…you guessed it:

    1. Pedanto

      Kevin, it’s possible you need to step back from this and focus on something else for a while.

  21. Concerned

    We are all entitled to our personal opinions. My problem with the pro life people I hear on radio and TV is that regardless of professional background or expertise they attempt to ram their personal opinion down our throats . They are strident , hectoring bullies . Yes we should be aware of this. , but enough already….. We know what their like. ! From here on I will switch them off

    1. Kevin Barrington

      Instead I suggest turning down the sound and looking at the body language.
      And when there are any Iona witches or their ilk on a panel.
      Look in silence and ask yourself who, in an emergency, you would be happy to leave your children with.
      Who looks well adjusted?
      Who looks benign?
      Who looks humane?
      Who looks sinister?
      Who looks underhand?
      Who looks creepy?

      I tell you it works for me.

      Tried it on Prof Casey, Broom Breda, Caroline Sinister …. you know the crew.
      All the weirdos.
      The self-appointed womb police.

      And the men – poking their greedy avaricious fingers into orifices where they do not belong.

      Man there are a lot of evil people in this debate.

      Thankfully it is written all over the faces of the truly evil.

      We have their number.

      Their time is up.

      Throw them on a bonfire.

      Or beat them off the streets of civilisation.

      With derision.



      Anything else you want to throw at the witches is up to you.

      Entirely up to you.

  22. Paddy Haughey

    Dr. Peter Boylan didn’t give himself much credit by trying to rewrite the Halappanavar Report. Other posts try to straight-jacket themselves in their 5 senses and ignore their power to reason. Again others resort to vitriolic attacks on people who profess the Christian Faith. Reason and Revelation tell everyone that the greatest of all the natural and supernatural virtues is love, because without love there is no peace.

    1. Derval

      Well, wasn’t it perfectly convenient that the discussion didn’t go on long enough for the listener to be able to know for sure which person was lying?

      Every claim that Boylan made should have been carefully verified and confirmed (from documentation) by Finucane before letting O’Brien respond.
      But no, we just have this stupid fiasco where both people say the other one is lying or misunderstanding and then…

      “Sorry, we’re going to have to leave it there because we need a significant portion of our listeners to remain confused about who is telling the truth and who is lying.
      After the break, a review of the latest Hollywood blockbuster.”

      1. Kevin

        How exactly do imagine this real-time fact checking you’re looking for would be implemented? Also, why only suggest Boylan’s utterances should be scrutinised?

  23. John Bolton

    Good comments by most people but the one point I missed is any mention of the second patient, the unborn child, I fully understand the question of free choice but when do any of us have real freechoice. The unborn never so we have to decide for them. No to abortion

  24. People Korps

    Breda O’Brien and her Iona Institute bring medieval thought to our airwaves far too regularly. The reality is that she and her cohorts and the likes of Declan Ganley uphold and promote a belief system that in Islam would be called Taliban or Talibanisation.

    These Christotaliban fanatics should not be afforded such a central place in public affairs or comment.

    1. John Bolton

      Why not, you are a good example of someone using ridiculous and insulting language to cover the evil in your beliefs.

      1. People Korps

        Hi John Lovely to meet you here in cyberspace, I don’t see what could be construed as insulting in my comment. Merely a statement of fact. The women hating women and men in the Christo-taliban have no place in our society. However, Afghanistan is a land of opputunity for bigots, and zealots why don’t you move there and hook up with your own kind. You can stone to death young girls, adulterers and the like to your hearts content.

        1. John Bolton

          Those comments are exacly what I mean. prolife means looking after women in trouble whereas you would have them commit murder instead. You seem to know a lot about the Taliban, maybe other readers should be wary of your retoric and listen to some reasoned arguments instead

  25. Kevin Barrington

    Does anyone else think that it is suspicious that those who crow on and on about the evil oif abortion tend to be those most tainted by allegations of child abuse.

    You would start to think that they were worried that their supply of unloved and unwanted kids, whom they can abuse with immunity, was being threatened.

    There is without a doubt something very very very sinister about members of this crew of self-appointed moral guardians and besmirchers of the name Jesus Christ.

    My womb is not here to satisfy your abusive desires.

    On your brooms, the lot of you.

    Witches to a man.

Comments are closed.