If Human Life Begins At Conception, Can We Get Child Benefit Nine Months Earlier?



Campaigners from the Life Institute erect posters urging a No vote outside Leinster House yesterday

Frilly Keane writes:

I really thought I was going to be doing a full length Frill the viii feature for the May issue; but d’ye know what – I just got fed up with it, and for a while there I thought I was just worn down by it all; like I’m a solid Tá anyway. I’ve long had my fill of the same ignorant prejudice and brimstone messaging.

The posters and other antics the no-siders say they know nothing about is just an eye-roller at this stage; which is what happened when I was administering a shandy curer that came with a beermat like this. On a beermat – with feckin’ eyelashes n’all. So it just made sense that I would be browned off.

Then, in the last week or so, an inkling began to fester; am I just existing and only here to serve them. The well-fed, the contented, the sorted, the sheltered sets of various Jobs-for-the-boys and their relations and the handshaking intertwined cabals they all share membership of.

The expression fake news props up our daily dialogue like it was always there but it’s not fake. There is nothing mock or pseudo about what they let us in on; it’s all deliberate, intentionally contrived and professionally controlled by these cabals.

What they can’t bury under confidentiality clauses and non-disclosure agreements, they inter in National Archives like sealed casks that can’t be opened until a century turns; the intention being that aging the truth will mellow out the aftertaste, while Integrity and ethical behaviour are treated like disposable tissues.

The establishment and its leading cabals are running this country as if there is a particular Statutory Instrument in existence dedicated to protecting their individual special interests, and that transparency and truth can be redacted to suit, only be shared on a need-to-know among the handpicked few; or when their injunction applications fail. But even then, it’s all been well spiked by the protection of this special Statutory Instrument.

Spiked News is what they give us when they want to have their own way, take the piss and ensure their own interests, the equivalent of a paint job, like at the Project Arts Centre. Throw a bitta paint over it there, lads.

And it’s their way of keeping the upper-hand over the likes of me. And d’ye know what lads, that’s ye too most likely. Us, the everyday people.

On May 25, once again I will be voting on the right to choose, and what has been happening besides time passing since the first time.

They told us three decades ago there would never be another Ann Lovett, yet here on this very site, a No-Sider pretty much referred to current day Ann Lovetts as “Savita’s with no money”. Also three decades ago, the Lynch Tribunal did such a savage paint job that Joanne Hayes only got her apology this year.

More health care scandals and more foster care Scandals. More homeless, Less houses. They said our banks would behave better, and our politicians would clear out corruption – who was the chair of what and where that held a fundraiser for and got the other lad his next gig.

If we thought we’d seen it all with RTÉ pay-packs, INM Data hacks or no-Side quacks; look at what we have learned in the last few weeks about the real goings on at decision making levels. It’s scary even if you are not one of those who needs regular cervical smears or will ever need a termination.

Repealing the 8th Amendment is the last chance we, the everyday people have, to deliver a significant message to the Cabal’esque set-Up of this Country before the next General Election, which, believe it or not, won’t be for a while. This Government and their confidence suppliers won’t venture near our doors until there’s a good 40 shades of paint weathering them from Us.

Them with their Jobs and Directorships for the boys and their connections. Them with their insider corrupted deals and pats-on-the-back, their no-comeback pensions and titles, and no-fault failures that they get to top-up and repeat again and again.

Jesus Christ, they wouldn’t nor couldn’t even decide about disclosing test results to terminally ill cancer patients; yet sorted out the OK to commence a paid Directorship. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreements my Rebel Arse.

I don’t care how deeply rooted No-Siders are about their position or how sincere their faith really is, they too are parties to the cabal structure; and vice versa. They all suit each other. Like if they all really believed human life begins at conception child benefit would be paid 9 months earlier.

Repealing the 8th Amendment is not a Women’s issue. This is now about us standing-up and taking back control of the decision making in this country, get the vote out and turn a landslide victory into a mudslide that takes all the rotten wood and vermin with it.

Frilly Keane’s column usually appears here on the first Friday of every month. Follow Frilly on Twitter: @frillykeane


Sponsored Link

113 thoughts on “If Human Life Begins At Conception, Can We Get Child Benefit Nine Months Earlier?

  1. Tom

    If we have abortion on demand at 12 weeks then why not 20? Why not 30? If you’re arguing about choice and that its not a human being then why does the time make any difference?

    1. Janet, I ate my Avatar

      if you wish to provoke at least make your comment intelligent enough to bother answering

      1. Anomanomanom

        After reading comments he’s made on other post I’ve realised he’s just a really bad troll. The best trolls don’t let people know their trolls, Tom is just a transparent idiot.

        1. Janet, I ate my Avatar

          his comment is ludicrous
          however you’re right I’m not interested in any of this incarnation of avatar’s odious claptrap

      2. david

        He has a point
        We are talking about killing the unborn ,so is it because what you want to be killed actually looks like a baby the later it develops
        This is abortion on demand
        I would say the repeal the eight mobs refusal to acknowledge the reality that a baby or a foetus developing to a baby will be killed
        Dress it up its still the same
        Of course the terminated life form will be used for stem cell research if not disposed of in a dignified manner which is another reality of abortion on demand

    2. Tom

      I wish people would just admit that its not a black and white issue. That its a complicated and morally ambiguous question. Everyone can have a stance but I don’t understand the naked hatred for people who have a different view than you. I’m pro choice but I can understand people with pro life views. Whats the point in sneering at them?

      1. Sheik Yahbouti

        Do you love? There there it’ll all be ok Tom, don’t get your combinations in a commotion.

      2. Daisy Chainsaw

        Who is saying that it is a black and white issue? And stop lying about being prochoice. That kind of bolleaux doesn’t wash, no matter how handwringing your concern trolling is!

        1. Tom

          A lot of people are making it a black and white issue. There’s the “murderer” crowd and then the my choice end of. I’m not on the fence at all and my mistress needed an abortion a few years back so yes I want that choice. But its the level of hate I can’t understand. Yes the pro life side has some horrible headbangers but the choice crowd are horrible sneers and bullies at some genuine people who’ve come to a different opinion.

          1. Tom

            Yes its quite common and accepted in France. I’m sure I’d be a pariah in Ireland if I tried it.

          2. Janet, I ate my Avatar

            Ah so this incarnation lives in France
            I don’t know if I ought to cringe with what you are going to come up with to make that convincing or to be delighted at the potential entertainment value

          3. realPolithicks

            If you were considered a “pariah” in Ireland it would more likely be because you seem like a nasty kind of a person.

          4. Frill the 8th

            My whole

            Would ya give over
            Yer missus probably isn’t giving ya any alright
            But mistress suggests sum’ting sexy and titillating, lingerie, flowers, romantic dinners,, crispy sheets, and daffodil scented candles
            When we all know if there’s any truth t’ it
            it’s purely commercial, and 2 maybe 3 star hotel…

            Nathin’ wrong with that
            Each t’ their own

            See that Tom?
            Each t’ their own?
            You should try it sometime
            Just saying like

          5. Janet, I ate my Avatar

            jaysus frilly
            you’ve made me want a mistress with that description!

          6. Karina

            Tom, they’re a crowd of hissing cats the lot of them, I wouldn’t bother even trying to engage with them.

      3. Paul

        It’s an ad hominem, it’s what you do when your argument is so non existent that you don’t even bother voicing it.

      4. Nigel

        Oh wow. Wait till you find out what pro-lifers say about and to pro-choicers! You’ll be running around lecturing them in no time!

      5. david

        I get this all the time to the point my posts are moderated before they are posted
        I agree totally with you
        Guess what the same rabid mob think you are me?

      6. Brian Dead

        It is a black and white issue

        Do you support women to make the right choice or do you think they should live in a cave?

    3. david

      Silly tom
      Life dose begin at conception ,but abortion laws are defined in other countries up to 26 weeks
      This headline is pure arguing black is yellow and comparing savita to Ann Lovett is a bit low and arguments being put like this stretching truths untruths and comparing those who do not want abortion on demand to Nazi death camp doctors will loose this referendum
      People are not stupid and the no camp will be out in force

      1. Frill the 8th

        Don’t you begin to complain about going low bhoy
        Man da’ púc up
        And stand over your comments

      2. Sham Bob

        @david ‘Life begins at conception’ – such a simplistic statement sounds like it’s borrowed from the Catholic Church who took it upon themselves 150 years ago to decide that a new soul is created as soon as the lucky sperm hits home.

        What do you mean by life in that context? It’s certainly not independent life, incapable of existing unaided until much later on. What differentiates it from its previous condition of being an egg apart from the addition of said sperm?

        The line in the sand we as a society choose is arbitrary, and defined by our politics, philosophy, and culture. I know that for me, sentencing someone to an irreversible, potentially dangerous pregnancy cause of a rigid ideological decision made by a supposedly infallible pope is cruel, impractical, and completely lacking in reason.

    4. AssPants

      Abortion up to the day before birth……Why not :)

      It is none of my business or anybody else’s business what a consenting adult does with their bodies….. no amount of Jesus badges gives a person the right to decide what is best for others..

          1. Daisy Chainsaw

            Still called birth. Actually, it’s called a termination of pregnancy. The pregnancy is terminated with a birth.

          2. newsjustin

            Hold on Daisy.

            This is what the General Scheme of the Bill explicitly defines a termination of pregnancy as:

            “termination of pregnancy – means a medical procedure which is intended to end the life of
            the foetus;”

          3. newsjustin

            What you claimed “termination of pregnancy” was is not what the Bill says. The Bill explicitly states that termination of pregnancy = end of the life of the foetus. Nothing about live delivery.

          4. ReproBertie (SCU)

            While that definition of a termination in the general scheme of the bill is true newsjustin, it does also say
            “4. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a termination of pregnancy in accordance with this Head where 2 medical practitioners certify that, in their reasonable opinion formed in good faith –
            (a) there is a risk to the life of, or of serious harm to the health of, the pregnant woman,
            (b) the foetus has not reached viability”

            This clearly means if the foetus has reached viability then the pregnancy would be terminated with a birth as ending the life of the foetus is not permitted at that stage.

          5. newsjustin

            Thanks Repro.

            I wouldn’t bet my life ( or anyone elses) on that being a settled understanding of that.

          6. ReproBertie (SCU)

            Well it’s pretty clear that termination is only allowed if the foetus has not reached viability.

            Of course the legislation may be even more specific.

        1. david

          Daisy do you actually know biology and what an abortion is
          Better learn before voting birth is not abortion unless you purge life out of the baby
          Abortion is killing the embryo or foetus
          Giving birth is giving a new life a life
          Abortion is killing that life

          1. Starina

            squeeze a babóg out for us there david and tell us what it’s like, willya? ta.

        2. rotide

          Nit picking here but the word abortion, regardless of its actual dictionary definition, implies the mother ain’t going home with a wanted parcel of joy

          1. david

            Not nit picking just informing her that an abortion is not a birth
            Silly girl
            Maybe rotide biology was not your strong subject at school

          2. mildred st. meadowlark

            That’s a fave insult for you isn’t it dave?

            You like throwing it those who disagree with your… ahem, opinions. Despite the fact that your own knowledge of biology is probably only passable. Despite the fact that most of the women who post here have a far better understanding of pregnancy than you could ever hope to do.

            It doesn’t make you look intelligent. It makes you look like an angry little fool.

          3. Janet, I ate my Avatar

            Ah feck it
            I’m getting sucked in
            Don’t mind me, I’m in a bad mood
            tolerance levels for nonsense wind up merchants plummets

      1. Anon

        I get what you’re saying but it only makes sense is a limited context you need to think it through more if you actually want to convince anyone undecided.

        The pro lifers might say you can do what you like with your own body but it is more than one body.

        Not everything is a private matter between consenting adults. If a child is being mistreated they can be taken away from their parents and put into care.

        Society is a balance of rights and responsibilities. Argue the need for privacy or bodily autonomy, or simply the need to change from the current inadequate situation or any other convincing arguments you can think of but do think it through and don’t get caught out by the silly details.

        1. Tom

          Exactly. You own your body. You don’t own a child when its born. This debate is really about the level of rights for an unborn. Of course its going to be emotive. If a person decides that a 12 week old foetus is a living human being then they will probably consider it murder. I don’t agree with their logic (as I mentioned before the argument changes contiguously depending on the age of foetus) but I can understand it and I won’t castigate them for it.

          1. ReproBertie (SCU)

            Just to clarify, the 12 week limit means a maximum 10 week old foetus.

          2. Nigel

            If you don’t agree with their logic then stop making arguments they are perfectly capable of making themselves. That’s stupid.

    5. Martco

      hi david

      is tom your middle name or just your confirmation name?

      I went for bryan as in Bryan Robson cos he was my favourite manutd player like

        1. Janet, I ate my Avatar

          I’d say David hurts himself trying to make as many mistakes as he does
          I refuse to think anyone is that thick

        2. Anon

          > Nah, Tom has punctuation.

          and brevity.

          Their styles are noticably different.
          Tom seems to have better spelling too.

  2. Baz

    Prized conflation! crazed off topic rant about nothing, you should have dedicated at least another paragraph to Irish Water

    time to shorten the title from Broadsheet to BS

  3. Spud

    “Repealing the 8th Amendment is the last chance we, the everyday people have, to deliver a significant message to the Cabal’esque set-Up of this Country before the next General Election”.

    I can’t see this referendum as such. If anything, I feel it’s less about those decision makers and more about understanding the opinion of those around us.. fellow family, friends and workmates.
    There are people who I would have presumed would be ‘no voters’ who are the opposite and vica-versa.
    Many have their own stories to tell for their reasons… others have just their strong opinions.

  4. SOQ

    Spot on Frilly. Equal marriage proved that Ireland has already changed. Let the people have their say. If it is a No then so be it but I very much doubt we are that much out of sync with the rest of Europe.

    But, a plea to all sides. Please consider the women who already had a crisis pregnancy. These are real people with real feelings who have to silently absorb this hurtful and offensive language. If there is any of those women reading this, try not to take it personally. Talk to someone if need be and, look after yourselves. xx

    To everyone else, PLEASE temper your language accordingly.

  5. Sheik Yahbouti

    A very good question. Why not Child Benefit from conception? Perhaps because pro -life people are also anti “unmarried mothers” and grudge them any halfpenny they get in subsistence?

    1. newsjustin

      It’s a pretty good idea. A big chunk of the cost of having (particularly a first) baby is incurred before the child is born – e.g. cot, car seat, pram. Some help before the baby is born would be very welcome.

  6. axel

    if why not child benefit from inception, then why not just ban child benefit altogether for new children within a 12 week period from the passing of the referendum.

    then it’ll really be about choice

  7. Optimus Grime

    OK I’m on the fence here and I am finding some aspects of the referendum difficult. I totally agree with abortion in cases of distress and a threat to the life of the mother and in the case of fatal foetal medical condition. Part of me has a problem with the abortion up to 12 weeks with no rights for the unborn. What really bothers me is that all the government have offered us is a “Ye give us the mandate to make the laws” with no concrete on what those laws will be. For me it’s case of “Do I trust these lads not F*%k this up?” and can we as a people not have a clear voice in the laws around this?

    1. Nigel

      This attitude somehow seems to preclude the fact that the 8th amendment itself was and is a massive feck-up. If the politicians feck up laws, laws can be changed. Changing the constitution is a lot harder.

    2. ReproBertie (SCU)

      They can’t debate the law in the Dáil until the referendum is passed. In the meantime they have published the heads of the proposed bill. While this may be watered down a little in the debates this will still form the basis of the new legislation. Even if it is watered down, legislation is a lot easier to change than the constitution so vote to Repeal. If these ministers mess it up we can get new ones.


      1. Cian

        Remember: This applies both ways.
        If the proposed 12-week ‘on demand’ is put into law and you think it should be at least 16 weeks – go talk to your TDs and see if there is sufficient demand to extend it.
        If the proposed 12-week ‘on demand’ is put into law and you think it should only be 8 weeks – go talk to your TDs and see if there is sufficient demand to contract it.

        It how the legal system should work.

        1. Anon

          There are medical reasons to support the 10-12 weeks timeline (see other comments today already) and although it makes a snappy headline it is a relatively small detail and I think there are others things worth looking at more closely and that might help address some of the concerns of undecided voters.

          I’m disappointed the government proposals – as far as I know, i could have missed details – they do not do much to address the crisis aspect of crisis pregnancy (poverty for starters), or to protect against coercion (unsupportive famiies, bad boyfriends, deadbeat dads) and the other issues that might push a woman towards abortion she wouldnt choose if she had better options and support available. No matter what your opinion we be trying to reduce the pressures on all pregnant woman, those who choose not to continue their pregnancy and those and their families who do and need more support.

          I read some of the reports from the commission and they discussed Dutch law which had specific wording that at least tried to make extra efforts so that women were not in any way coerced to get an abortion if that wasn’t what they really wanted. Any choice should be a real and free choice.

          People used to talk about abortion needing to be available safe, legal, and rare, but I don’t often hear about that last part. The numbers from the UK don’t sound like abortion being rare, and the proposed legislation inspire confidence either. Maybe some people don’t have any problem with abortion not being, but I think the middle ground Irish voter would be appreciate greater assurances that abortion here will at least be more rare than the UK (where the application of the law was much less limited than it seemed at the time it was proposed).

          1. Listrade

            I’m not sure how you legislate for any of that though, that’s the problem.

            First, 12 weeks isn’t that long and once it is past 12 weeks it is restrictive.

            Coercion has a very specific legal definition, I don’t believe any of the examples you provide would meet that.

            Also how do you assess or prove those? I’m not being argumentative, but how do you refuse an abortion if you suspect it’s because of poverty? Means test?

            Do you require a letter from a family confirming they are unsupportive?

            There are good reasons why the 12 weeks is unconditional, the main ones being rape and incest. to me the need for it to be unconditional for those circumstances outweighs reasons for restrictions.

            Also I’d say it’s at the point where we include restrictions (based on your examples) where the politicians will make a balls of it.

          2. Anon

            I guess I wasnt clear enough and didn’t separate unrelated points

            Other countries legislation includes specifics that try to avoid coercion. Our legislation should at least try to do that too. I don’t have the specifics to hand but I did read it as an example in the commission reports and I’m fairly sure it was Dutch law. I searched but didnt find a suitable link.
            (I resonated with me because I read in the Indo about an Irish case where a father asked to the courts to ensure that the woman was making a free choice to travel for an abortion, because he felt her parents were forcing her into it.)

            Then a different question of choice, when I mentioned poverty and I should have more clearly made it a separate point. When you’re poor you’ve a lot less real choices. As a society and as a matter of government policy we shouldn’t end up with a situation where people feel like they don’t really have the choice to have a child. That doesn’t mean poverty as a block to abortion as you seemed to interpret it but that we need to keep fighting issues such as homelessness and poverty so that people really do have real free choices.

          3. Listrade

            Thanks for that. Yeah looks like merged your two points.

            I 100% agree with the latter on poverty and support.

            I need to check for how other countries handle coercion. It seems a very difficult one to legislate for, but interested to see how they’ve managed it.

          4. Bob

            I think maybe Anon was referring to this:
            “the physician must see to it that her request is made and maintained freely and without undue pressure from other persons, and that she insists on that request only after careful consideration.”
            and goes on to mention a 5 day waiting period

            Section 7.2 of the proposed Irish legislation includes a 72 hour waiting period but does detail the intent behind that waiting period

    3. Listrade

      Optimus, they key is to look at all the information that went into the decision on the current heads of bill and why we have the proposal for 12 weeks.

      It seems that the 12 weeks is the only thing you have an issue with, but that wasn’t picked randomly or without consideration. The context behind why they are allowing abortion up to 12 weeks is primarily due to the submissions regarding rape (and incest, but mostly rape).

      Be a politician for a second. Consider the circumstances for abortion that tend to “poll” well. There seems to be support for FFA, where there mother’s health is at risk (and not just life as is the current standard), rape and incest. FFA and health are covered under the heads of bill. But where is rape and incest?

      That’s the 12 weeks.

      The committee heard a lot of submissions and advice on rape and incest. The critical issue is both are under reported for a variety of reasons. Both involve complex, invasive, traumatic and, let’s be honest, humiliating reporting and investigation processes. Processes that are also long (it’s a crime, it needs the criminal standard of proof to be recorded as such).

      There wasn’t (and isn’t) a huge political will for open access to abortion, but you couldn’t allow abortion for rape and incest without it being as is proposed. It could take years for a conviction for rape or incest to proceed, so you couldn’t wait for that to finish to allow for abortion, the child would be born. There are numerous reasons why both rape and incest wouldn’t be officially reported (covered in extensive detail elsewhere, but also discussed openly at the committee hearings), so again, it wouldn’t be possible or fair to insist that the crime is reported first before abortion is permitted.

      The only solution was to allow access to abortion up to 12 weeks. Yes that does mean that open access to all and if you are in anyway iffy on open access to abortion, I can see why that is a concern. But in the circumstances it is the only workable and humane means of providing abortion for victims of rape and incest.

      12 weeks is quite restrictive, certainly compared to other jurisdictions. But without meaning to be glib, it was settled on with the view that the exact date of conception is probably easier to identify in the case of rape and incest and the procedure can be performed early and without causing any further distress or trauma such as having to have gardai reports, permission from the rapist, or any of that.

      Let’s be honest, it’s not unreasonable to have little or no trust in a politician’s ability to not make a mess of legislation, but on this one it genuinely seems like they have weighed up what is necessary and come to the right decision. Even though that decision has consequences that not everyone will be comfortable or happy with.

      In the circumstances, it is the only way to allow for abortions in the event of rape or incest. There honestly isn’t any other way.

      1. Cian

        @Listrade: This is why you keep being bought virtual pints. Keep up the good work!

      2. Optimus Grime

        Fair play man that’s a great response. I need to go away and think about all this. You’ve given me plenty of food for thought on it.

  8. Anon

    Equal rights for the mother and unborn seems to be unbalanced for most people, but no rights for the unborn and vague legislation that could very easily change later is too much for others.

    We’ll see.

    1. SOQ

      Agreed but at the moment a woman could be having serious damage done to her health and there is frig all the doctors can do about it. That is unacceptable. Likewise, women taking pills who cannot seek help if something goes wrong, because of fear of prosecution.

      1. Tom

        What would happen if in the current regime ( or maybe slightly older) a doctor carried out an illegal abortion to save a womans life say in the Savita case. Would they have been prosecuted and or fired? I’m surprised that hasn’t happened before.

        1. Starina

          They would be struck off the register, even if it saved the woman’s life. Their career would be ruined.

          1. Cian

            It depends.

            If nobody else knew, and the doctor said nothing, then nothing would have happened to the doctor.

            If there were others involved (the parents, other doctors, nursing staff) and nobody said anything, then nothing would have happened to the doctor.

            If there were others involved (the parents, other doctors, nursing staff) and somebody said something – made a complaint, then see what Starina said.

      2. Anon

        It confuses me that a few doctors say they can do what is needed and others say they can’t, and it is not like it is easy to get a straight answer out of a lawyer either. You mention fear, doctors being cautious about doing anything they were legally unsure might explain this, but conversely a few overconfident but incorrect doctors might also explain it.

        The law has lots of things you could theoretically be prosecuted for but Ireland isnt big on actually enforcing the laws we already have, so do we have any examples of people being prosecuted? Has anyone been prosecuted for importing abortion pills for example?

        1. SOQ

          By their own admissions, it is luck as to which doctor a woman gets and I expect pill side effects presented are covered up. Like the blasphemy law, it is an Irish solution to an Irish problem but that doesn’t mean some women do not suffer as a result or the 8th. They do.

          It needs to go, if only to give everyone the same access to healthcare. If it was any other field in medicine, there would be uproar.

          1. Anon

            As recent smear test news shows there’s no shortage of women suffering under bad policy.

            Nonetheless, there is a risk to any Yes No vote, with only 2 options. All or nothing.

            Some voters will be voting No and risking no progress because voting Yes and the proposed legislation is a step too far and a level of uncertainty for them and there is no 3rd option.
            Having any kind of 3rd option would have been a risk too, a risk of settling for less but Ireland doesnt do referendums like that.

            I do think think Repeal will pass but I think it will be very close.
            Then there will arguments about the legislation, getting the legislation passed, and then seeing how it is actually implemented.

          2. SOQ

            The core question is if such should be in the constitution in the first place. I do find it a bit odd that so many people are expressing such distrust of our leaders on this issue but are quite happy to vote them in again and again on wider. Either you trust their judgement or you don’t?

            Unless there are major social changes within Ireland, I personally think that there will never be a government who will argue for the further liberalisation of abortion. The very fact of even bringing forth the referendum has had a blow back and as a nation we will always be behind, or in front, depending on your perspective.

  9. johnny

    great post Frilly,spiked news..

    Heather Humphries TD had a big weekend out in New York including a visit to NBC studios-all very Sex in the City,did she stop by Magnolia bakery !

    The purpose of her visit was to..”Very positive meeting with @NBCUniversal. Great excitement about upcoming series Nightflyers written by George RR Martin and filmed @troy_studios which has created close to 500 jobs in Limerick. It will showcase Ireland as a leader in film and TV production @josephamadigan”

    500 JOBS-thats just so wrong on many levels.

    It’s maybe 400 jobs as wait for it-extras on a daily rate (10 hours) of 75-now why would a minister state such complete and absolute rubbish !

    1. rotide

      It’s maybe 400 jobs as extras

      No it’s not. You are wrong.

      There’s a ton of Irish people being employed as crew on that show.

  10. nellyb

    The real position and purpose of No-to-Repeal is Punishing females for intercourse for pleasure. In No-games fetuses, females and Jesus are patsies and men simply do not exist, lol :-)

  11. Dinny Do Well?

    “Repealing the 8th Amendment is the last chance we, the everyday people have, to deliver a significant message to the Cabal’esque set-Up of this Country before the next General Election,”

    Such tosh. Pathetic and wrong. The Government and establishment is promoting the repeal. Like it will solve homelessness, poverty, the HSE, emigration.

  12. Shane Duffy

    If I stab a 12 week pregnant woman and only kill the feotus, is that murder?

    1. Enn

      Show some respect and maturity. There are women here who have had crisis pregnancies and miscarriages. This referendum is really bringing out the vulgar thicks of this country.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link