Thisa fternoon.

Buswells Hotel, Dublin 2

People Before Profit TDs, from left: Richard Boyd Barrett, Bríd Smith and Gino Kenny as they launch their Yes campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment.

Eamonn Farrell/Rollingnews

Meanwhile…

 

This afternoon.

Leinster House, Dublin 2

The LoveBoth campaign hold an ‘awareness event’  marking the 50th year of the coming into force of the Abortion Act 1967, which introduced abortion into Britain.

One in every five is aborted, no?

Eamonn Farrell/RollingNews

Meanwhile…

Yesterday.

Westport, County Mayo

Sauvingon Blanc writes:

Renua are back again…!

118 thoughts on “Yes And No

    1. Sheik Yahbouti

      Yes, but hey – having your sexuality permanently warped by fanatics is worth a day off school – no?

      Reply
      1. Patrick

        Funny that. You do realise that it’s sexuality that leads to unwanted pregnancies? When that happens your answer is to abort the babies! And you would belittle THEM? I’d have more respect for any of them than someone who makes such a flippant and unthought out comment as yours.

        Reply
    2. rotide

      Normally I hate the immaturity of deliberatly corrupting names (Leo verucca, facetwit, prolie – oh the hilarity) but LoveBoats is a good one :)

      Reply
        1. painkiller

          In 2016, CSO reported 63,900 live births and in 2015, 3,451 women gave Irish addresses at UK abortion services.

          So if you assume the figures are stable year on year, for every 18.5 children born, 1 was aborted in the UK.

          Reply
      1. edalicious

        Sorry, you’re correct justin. Me no maths good. But that still doesn’t mean 1 in 5 babies is aborted.

        Reply
        1. Cian

          yes, it ignores miscarriages….

          …but it is valid if you are happy to equate a foetus with a baby.

          Or to put it another way, if there were no abortions in England last year, there would be an extra 1 baby for every 4 that were born.

          Reply
          1. Patrick

            How can you not equate a foetus with a baby? It’s the same thing different name. Think Magma vs. Lava!! Foetus pretty much means baby anyway, offspring.

        2. pedeyw

          Yes, it’s a massively misleading and disingenuous slogan and it also disregards the pro life stance that life (or babies) begins at conception.

          Reply
          1. newsjustin

            It’s not a “massively misleading and disingenuous slogan”. At worst, one could argue that it ignores miscarriages- but all such statistics do.

            If you’re arguing that only 1 in 6 or 1 in 8 or even 1 in 10 unborn babies are aborted vs live births, then you’re kind of missing the point. The point being abortion of healthy babies of healthy mothers is wholesale in the UK.

          2. Patrick

            Mildred I’ve listened to your posts for some time. You really are typos aren’t you. So what? The so what is, when you change laws you change behaviour. So if you think we have 4000 Irish abortions in the uk now, you just watch the numbers grow if we et it here. The so what is, do you want wholesale, late contraception late term abortion in Ireland?

          3. mildred st. meadowlark

            You’re right. Of course you are and soon, soon my friend it will be obligatory abortions for all, including men.

            Get a grip.

          4. SOQ

            The priests in Dundalk are mainly gay. Just throwing my personal experiences out there. As a twink then.

          5. david

            Life dose start at conception
            How else dose it grow into an embryo then foetus then a baby
            Or do they just gestate it in a jar

        3. david

          If 5 babies are sent to a hospital and 1 disappears that leaves 4
          To cut it short that is 1 in 5 or 5-1 = 4 but to the repeal mob lets say 1 in none just to sway the vote

          Reply
          1. david

            That’s exactly the point
            Its like the pro abortions refusal to accept one in five babies are aborted
            In the UK
            That’s exactly what abortion on demand is
            But politico you already know that grammar and all

          2. Nigel

            Really? Sounds to me like proof that it’s an important aspect of health care that at least 1 in 5 women who got pregnant there think they should have access to.

  1. Col

    I love how they are not angry, just disappointed in us.
    Oh well.
    Fix your grammar, I’m the one who are really disappointed.

    Reply
      1. Patrick

        Next time you think that, have a look at all the faces at the repeal the 8th marches. It’s most of THEM that look like they’re never get the ride.

        Reply
          1. Janet, I ate my Avatar

            he hasn’t fleshed out the character yet
            still holding a torch for the incarnation david

    1. david

      I know at a abortion conference
      They just needed a few foetuses in a jar for product placement
      I wonder will these aborted foetuses be disposed of in a dignified manner or sold off for stem cell research
      Remember a few years ago the scandal of organ harvesting in the hospitals before the dead were buried
      Many people never consented to organ removal but they did it anyway

      Reply
  2. newsjustin

    What about the Amnesty International press conference today? Why no coverage of that. Anything worthy of further investigation there?

    Reply
    1. ReproBertie (SCU)

      You mean the press conference with the woman who was denied medical treatment when she was pregnant and said she loves her daughter but given the choice again would have had an abortion?

      Reply
      1. newsjustin

        The woman who wrote in her own blog posts about how happy she was to be pregnant, how delighted she is with her new baby, how she was well cared for by her team of doctors and how she was reassured that if her life was in real danger that her pregnancy would be aborted under Irish law. Yes. That woman.

        She seems to have had a remarkable change of heart. Luckily she’s being supported by Amnesty Ireland and campaigner, sorry I mean journalist, Kitty Holland. Remarkable turn around indeed.

        Reply
      2. Patrick

        Yes, this woman.

        “So… fingers crossed that it all goes well, although unplanned it was a happy blooper that we want very much. We are aware of the risks but also aware that it’s worth proceeding with. Whatever the outcome. We hope for a happy healthy baby by the end of it all, but no matter what, this little one is loved before it ever makes its entrance and has brought us all a new feeling of hope and positivity.”

        Reply
      3. Patrick

        More from this stable lady

        “I’ve spoken to all the specialists who are monitoring me through 4 hospitals at the moment every few weeks. 3 in Dublin and our local hospital in Wexford. I have been told that this pregnancy is high risk, but on evaluation I was advised I was “safe enough” to proceed.

        I was really happy with that outcome, but wishing the 9 months were up to avoid all the drama in between. I have asked so many questions the most pressing one was “will this kill me?”, I am given various degrees of answers, some positive enough and others with mixed views and trepidation. The reality is my illnesses aren’t common, the are unusual and the management of them is basically guess work. So I’m getting a lot of, we will see how things go…”

        Reply
      4. Patrick

        Hard to believe this is the same woman?

        “I left feeling uncertain as to whether this was something I could go through with but my heart wanted it, my brain was telling me to be sensible… if the pregnancy was too high risk then a termination was something I was entitled to under irish law as my life would be in danger… but we wouldn’t know this either way until Wednesday…”

        Reply
  3. Grace

    I love the way they always shove a few female teens into every Vote No picture – so easy to be pro life when you are in 5th year in a school run by nuns.

    Also 4 men (including a Priest!) out canvassing for Renua to control women’s bodies. Great stuff, would you ever mind yiser own business lads

    Reply
      1. david

        Who is controlling a woman body?
        What this is about is aborting life to save life not a method of contraception
        Give me one piece of evidence a woman body is being controlled apart from the abortion question?

        Reply
          1. david

            Again Mildred
            Name one woman who’s body is being controlled apart from the abortion refusal in Ireland
            Simple question?
            Your link refers to a woman refused an abortion which was not the question

    1. Daisy Chainsaw

      I was very heartened to learn a group of 6th years in an all girls catholic school had been debating the referendum and taking a vote after, most of them were for Yes. One of the girls Mothers was telling me because I had my Yes badge on today. The great thing is some of them are old enough to vote on the 25th.

      Reply
      1. david

        NOW EVEN DOCTOR BOYLAN STATES LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION
        fact one
        no one in Ireland controls a woman body FACT
        Laws are there to protect and without laws we have anarchy .
        The repealers by their shouting down, calling all that do not support their agenda ignorant,
        Backwards ,and inhuman, stupid ,superstitious, and religious fanatics, is just going to loose their referendum
        By presenting a image of Jesus ,with real the eight logo like advertising a product,which is sacrilegious and bordering on blasphemy on a site of the Irish holocaust shames them, the fact they can not see that shows how full of hatred they are, will do nothing to further their cause.
        And we will be back at stage one
        By introducing abortion on demand will sway people to vote no
        And then we will be back to many more savita’s
        This referendum was about the savita’s now hijacked by those who want abortion on demand
        If as I keep saying on the ballot paper the exact law that will replace the eight amendment was shown then even I might vote yes, but I get lambasted and ridiculed so I shut my bloody mouth and let possibly the worst act against children to become reality
        Which is abort on demand

        Reply
  4. rotide

    It’s really really becoming apparent the problem the yes campaign has with message.

    Stuff like Our Body, Our Choice and Trust Women probably polls really well with the faithful but it means nothing in the face of the 1 in 5 stat. It’s a difficult one though as most of the logical and good reasons that you can use to win over undecideds don’t fit easily on a poster. For me, they should be leaning more heavily on the rape, incest and FFA angle as well as concentrating funding on media away from posters.

    Reply
      1. rotide

        I think it’s fantastic, but like the above reasons I’m not sure it will convince the man or woman on the street whos undecided about whether it’s ‘killin a babby’

        Reply
    1. Janet, I ate my Avatar

      agree the yes posters are not speaking to the people they need to convince
      they are too nuanced

      Reply
        1. SOQ

          The problem is that Yes are selling something which most people would rather not think about. But abortions already happen and not only is the 8th very Catholic but so is sweeping the subject under the carpet. The very idea of women being forced to put their health at risk by buying dodgy pills on the internet is obscene.

          Reply
        2. Janet, I ate my Avatar

          not sure Cian
          something that gets across the disastrous consequences an unwanted pregnancy can have ( or wanted and non viable)

          Reply
          1. newsjustin

            Did ye see the late late show debate last night. I genuinely thought it was good and fair all round. To be fair to Ryan, he navigated a tough role well.

            I was delighted to see that Dr Boylan once and for all put an end to the ridiculous notion that some Repealers have that life does not begin at conception. To his credit, he was very clear and scientific about that fact. Life begins at conception he said.

          2. mildred st. meadowlark

            Missed it actually. I’ll take a look. I’d always be interested in a well managed debate.

            I saw one on tv3 a few weeks ago and was very impressed. Both sides were respectful and it informative, with good questions asked. Possibly the tonight show, I can’t remember for sure.

          3. Brother Barnabas

            ah, justin, please…

            “I was delighted to see that Dr Boylan once and for all put an end to the ridiculous notion that some Repealers have that life does not begin at conception. To his credit, he was very clear and scientific about that fact. Life begins at conception he said.”

            there is no scientific consensus about that. and it’s absolutely not a fact. i didn’t watch it but boylan must be some man to finally resolve an argument that dates back to aristotle. and on the LLS with ryan tubridy, no less.

          4. newsjustin

            Brother. He left everyone in no doubt that the only scientifically justifiable viewpoint on when life starts is – conception.

            Sure he’s a medical expert – isn’t he?

          5. Brother Barnabas

            i’ll take “He left everyone in no doubt” as hyperbole for dramatic effect, shall i?

          6. Brother Barnabas

            i haven’t listened to the interview so i don’t know exactly what he said (and it doesn’t seem to be on the rte player yet so i can’t)

            i’m taking issue though with your claim that “he was very clear and scientific about that fact”. it’s not a fact. it’s an opinion. and for ever medical expert and scientist that agrees with that opinion, there’s another that disagrees. personally, i’m not agreeing or disagreeing because i recognise i’m not qualified to make a call on it.

            if it is, though,it opens up an impossible issue around the definition of life. and if it’s an undeniable fact based in reason and science, which it seems you’re claiming, then you’re going to find yourself arguing without too much of a stretch that embryos created for IVF must also be regarded as people with all the rights and legal protections that implies.

          7. newsjustin

            Who’s more qualified than Peter Boylan to tell Us, as he’s done, that human life begins at conception.

            And re IVF, embryos are of course, unborn humans. This is another dodgy area that needs tackling.

          8. SOQ

            What is ‘life’? If someone is brain dead then there is no reason to keep the body alive. Even the word is loaded.

        1. Janet, I ate my Avatar

          no because it’s a delicate complicated PERSONAL decision based on unique factors and circumstances to the individual
          It’s a lot harder to run up rational arguments in flashy hard hitting gore lies

          Reply
          1. mildred st. meadowlark

            The neighbours certainly enjoyed the show, that’s all I’ll say.

            They actually tried to use my own child as emotional blackmail against me.

          2. david

            BB if life dose not start at conception we would not have an embryo, followed by a foetus then birth of a baby
            They are stages of a baby being formed
            Its quite simple
            But you guys know that but will not admit it because if you did your argument is lost
            You remind me of the moving statue mob that waited and waited to hope a statue moved
            But it did not but eventually the brain said oh the statue moved but it clearly did not
            And you mock them but look in the mirror
            And no matter how you insult me you cannot prove me wrong ,and you would love me to STF up

          3. Brother Barnabas

            no, david, i wouldn’t love for you to “STF up”

            genuinely, i have no view or preference when it comes to whether you comment or not

            i’m cool like that

      1. Janet, I ate my Avatar

        Sure didn’t the fecker give us freewill ? We don’t need policed when our every breath is policed by a big angry vengeful Father.
        Why these people have the arrogance to think the all powerful needs thier help is beyond me.
        surely thier sin of vanity deserves an equally fiery hell…

        Reply
      1. SOQ

        What strikes me after reading that is how much luck is involved. It could happen to any woman and yet, the doctor’s are unable to do anything until it becomes a life threatening situation. So maybe the choice angle is not the way to go because those women have no choice?

        Reply
    1. newsjustin

      It would be interesting if someone asked Prof Kenny when she understands that a human life begins. Does she agree with her colleague Dr Boylan?

      Reply
        1. newsjustin

          “…the potential for life is on a gradient scale?”

          What a mealy mouthed statement. Either a human is alive or it is not. And Boylan said nothing about “potential for life”. He said human life begins at conception. “Potential for life” is a nonsense, meaningless phrase.

          Reply
          1. mildred st. meadowlark

            It really isn’t.

            Did you know that at 30 weeks a foetus has no instinct to suckle? It has no instinct to ingest food without medical intervention. Did you know that it has no immune system? None. It doesn’t develop an immune system until the last four weeks of pregnancy.

            Did you know at this stage of pregnancy a foetus is rarely able to breathe unassisted – again, without medical intervention. Or that it will have a hole in it’s heart due to lack of proper neonatal development?

            Even at an advanced stage of pregnancy, and I say this with experience, the foetus cannot exist without it’s mother until a certain stage of pregnancy.

          2. newsjustin

            But Mildred. C’mon. You’re not trying to tell me that such a human isn’t alive are you???

          3. mildred st. meadowlark

            Without it’s mother, it isn’t. That’s just it, at the end of the day. It has the potential for life. That does not mean that life – the act of being alive – is a given.

          4. Brother Barnabas

            just playing devil’s advocate for a moment

            @mildred

            couldn’t you also say that about a 1 year-old child… without someone providing it with food, feeding it, keeping it warm, keeping it from harm… it’s not going to survive either

            so just as “the foetus cannot exist without it’s mother until a certain stage of pregnancy”, you could say “a person cannot exist without a carer-provider until a certain stage of development”

            (you could probably say that about some adults, too)

          5. Janet, I ate my Avatar

            well as pack animals there is usually the extended family or mate to be a caregiver at that stage, and it’s not as complicated to feed a one year old

          6. mildred st. meadowlark

            I see your point brother.

            But there is a difference between a heart, lungs, and the instinct to feed independently and being dependent on another person for care. My own daughter couldn’t breathe unassisted, she had to be tube fed for weeks, she had no immune system and her heart regularly stopped breathing – among other issues. She was born at 30 weeks. Without medical intervention at that stage she would never have survived.

            A healthy baby requires care, but not medical intervention for the simple act of, say, breathing or a beating heart.

          7. SOQ

            The problem here is that we are having a discussion on the same topic in numerous thread at the one time.

            What is life? If someone is brain dead is it still life? In such circumstances, switching off a support machine is accepted medical practice worldwide. ‘Life’ is therefore not black and white either on entry or exit.

          8. SOQ

            Vagueness is a virtue

            As we’ve seen, there are difficulties with choosing a precise point when the unborn gets the right to live.

            Although it’s uncomfortable to be so imprecise, the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, and the foetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops.

            This answer has the value of reflecting the way many people feel about things when they consider abortion: the more developed the foetus, the more unhappy they are about aborting it, and the more weight they give the rights of the foetus in comparison with the rights of the mother.

            This view is sometimes called ‘gradualism’.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

            I call it common sense myself.

          9. david

            Its getting better and netter the ludicrous statements
            I had to laugh a gradient scale
            I think its tome for yer one Vanessa foran to write another long winded reply stating her expertise on being at the coal face of delivering children
            I would love her description of life on a gradient scale
            Again these abortion on demand lie twist and use everything they can to demonise anyone who dares to disagree
            I am waiting for the ads Mary has to row across the Irish sea to terminate her baby in a dingy pursued by flotilla’s of priests and demons to save her life

          10. SOQ

            Gradualism is already the guiding principle in Ireland because the morning after pill is widely available. An 8 hour foetus should not hold the same rights as an 8 month one, that is common sense. It is also the reason why there is a time limit on abortions elsewhere and it will be the same here.

            Furthermore, if you read the religion section of the link above, you will see that the only one which argues this absolute position is Catholic. Unless you are going to say the BBC are wrong too, which you probably are.

        2. david

          Great one the potential for life
          So if the egg is lifeless and the sperm active or inactive they egg might be fertilised
          And that might only might start life after 12 weeks
          You know exactly how stupid that is
          Maybe the lancet might do an article regarding the potential for life on a gradient scale

          Reply
        3. david

          So in a later post about gradualism you state vagueness its a virtue
          Your comment
          Are you serious
          We are talking about legislation and too want vague laws to be introduced
          SOQ how old are you?
          Can you imagine if this happened
          My point for wanting to know exactly what is the law that I would be voting for in place of the eight amendment
          And a law will have to be introduced
          And if this is the repeals mentality well it sums you all up

          Reply
          1. SOQ

            You didn’t read the link now did you? That was not my words, it was copy and paste from the final section.

            I appreciate that this is an emotive subject but please, educate yourself. This is as far from a black and white topic as you are ever likely to get.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *