Upcoming Events

National | Gender and Sexuality

no events match your query!

User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

forward

Cedar Lounge
For lefties too stubborn to quit

offsite link SF, the IRA and another legacy of the conflict. 19:12 Tue Oct 21, 2014 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link A voice of orthodoxy and the Budget? 13:05 Tue Oct 21, 2014 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link The end of austerity and the reception the Budget was given? 07:52 Tue Oct 21, 2014 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link The end of the age of austerity and the end of the left-wing independents and SF? They wish. 07:51 Tue Oct 21, 2014 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Smart-alecky? 17:36 Mon Oct 20, 2014 | WorldbyStorm

Cedar Lounge >>

Irish Left Review
Joined up thinking for the Irish Left

offsite link Welcome to the New Tax Avoidance Scheme, Same as the Old Tax Avoidance Scheme Mon Oct 20, 2014 16:26 | Michael Taft

offsite link Revealed: EU science chief promised to be ?flexible? towards Israel?s war crimes Thu Oct 16, 2014 15:21 | David Cronin

offsite link Austerity is Over? Now Back to the Real World Wed Oct 15, 2014 17:21 | Michael Taft

offsite link A New Kind of Trade Unionism Emerging Wed Oct 15, 2014 16:24 | Irish Left Review

offsite link Open Letter on the Housing Crisis Tue Oct 14, 2014 15:50 | Irish Left Review

Irish Left Review >>

Human Rights in Ireland
www.humanrights.ie

offsite link A new Constitutional Settlement for Northern Ireland: Queries from International Law Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:27 | Aoife O'Donoghue

offsite link Why Budget 2015 must be that last of its kind Fri Oct 17, 2014 08:36 | Liam Thornton

offsite link Socio-Economic Rights & Budget Analysis: Some Notes on Available Resources, ?Progressivity? and Non... Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:55 | Liam Thornton

offsite link Legal pathways to reproductive justice and abortion rights #repealthe8th Mon Oct 13, 2014 15:00 | GuestPost

offsite link Options for Constitutional Reform #repealthe8th Mon Oct 13, 2014 14:30 | Fiona de Londras

Human Rights in Ireland >>

NAMA Wine Lake

offsite link Farewell from NWL Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Happy 70th Birthday, Michael Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Of the Week? Sat May 18, 2013 00:02 | namawinelake

offsite link Noonan denies IBRC legal fees loan approval to Paddy McKillen was in breach of E... Fri May 17, 2013 14:23 | namawinelake

offsite link Gayle Killilea Dunne asks to be added as notice party in Sean Dunne?s bankruptcy Fri May 17, 2013 12:30 | namawinelake

NAMA Wine Lake >>

The struggle for abortion rights in Ireland

category national | gender and sexuality | opinion/analysis author Sunday September 07, 2008 13:29author by Alan MacSimóin - Workers Soliarity Movement Report this post to the editors

An anarchist perspective

A review of the pro-choice struggle from a libertarian perspective

choice_ireland_1.jpg

Last year saw a pregnant woman carrying a foetus which could not survive. The state insisted that she carry it to term. That is what Ireland’s anti-abortion law meant for Miss “D”, a 17 year old in the care of the Health Services Executive. She was four months pregnant when her foetus was diagnosed with anencephaly.

The outlook for individuals with this is extremely poor; stillbirth or death a few hours after birth. As the Choice Ireland group said at the time “No woman should have to endure the trauma of carrying to full term a child who will not live more than a few hours. By preventing “Miss D” from travelling to Britain for an abortion the Irish government are defining women as uterine incubators rather than individuals entitled to basic human rights”.

Abortion has been illegal in Ireland since the passing of the British 1861 Offences against the Person Act. And in Holy Catholic Ireland, it was not just illegal but also not spoken about. The only time it was mentioned in the newspapers was when Mamie Cadden was sentenced to death by hanging (eventually commuted to penal servitude for life) in 1956 for carrying out backstreet abortions.

When the British 1967 Act made abortion legal and relatively easy to access (if you could afford the cost of travel, accommodation and the procedure) it was not extended to Northern Ireland. Thousands of women from both sides of the border could, and did, travel to England each year to end crisis pregnancies. Nobody talked about it, the vast majority of women went alone and in secret.

At the beginning of the 1980s the Catholic church and its activist wing (the Responsible Society, Knights of Columbanus, etc.) became afraid that public opinion might change in the coming decades and the courts might say that abortion is permissible in particular circumstances, or even that the Dáil might eventually bring in limited legislation. There was no possibility of anything like that happening in the 1980s but they decided to plan ahead.

In 1981 the Pro-Life Amendment Campaign (PLAC) was formed with the goal of getting a Constitutional amendment, which would guarantee “the absolute right to life of every unborn child from conception”. Just over a month after it was formed, PLAC had been given promises by the leaders of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party to hold a referendum. A referendum was called in 1983 and an amendment giving the “unborn” an equal right to life was proposed.

Having agreed to a referendum, Fine Gael and Labour subsequently had second thoughts and ran very muted and token Vote No campaigns. It was probably down to a mixture of fear of what might happen if they annoyed the bishops and a bit of ‘cute hoorism’ whereby both the Yes and No sides could be ‘supported’ in the hope of not losing their votes at future elections.

A small Women’s Right To Choose Campaign had been set up in 1980 by courageous women and men like Mary Gordon, Goretti Horgan and Pete Nash. This was tiny, but was taking the first steps towards opening up a debate about women’s rights rather than about whether the foetus had a soul. Along with liberals, feminists and the left they formed the Anti-Amendment Campaign.

Immediately, it was obvious that the AAC had a problem. While PLAC and their allies thundered against the “murder of babies”, the AAC were unwilling to argue their case on the basis of promoting women’s rights, and countering the lies about abortion. They were not unique in this, and it is difficult today to visualise the political atmosphere when the

Catholic Church was an almost unquestioned authority on moral issues in Ireland, and opposing them was not done lightly. Much of the anti-amendment case was stated in terms of rejecting “sectarian laws” and supporting “pluralism”, rather than arguing for abortion rights.

In its leaflet asking people to vote no in the referendum The Workers’ Party achieved the seemingly impossible – not only did the leaflet not mention abortion, it did not mention women! One put out by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions opposing the amendment similarly avoided mentioning abortion, although women did make an appearance in the final sentence.

A woman’s right to abortion, even in very limited circumstances, was rarely mentioned by AAC spokespeople. Anarchists and other socialists were accused of “playing into the hands of PLAC” for advocating a woman’s right to choose, while liberal celebrities who started their speeches with, “I am totally against abortion, but also against the amendment,” were praised. If the abortion issue had been faced honestly and openly, the Catholic right would still have won, but the debate would have been more advanced.

Instead public discussion was dominated by lawyers and doctors whose case was that the proposed amendment was not really about abortion but about legal and medical issues ordinary people could not possibly understand. The PLAC message, on the other hand, was very simple: “abortion kills babies – vote yes”. On 8 September 1983 the eighth amendment to the Constitution of the Republic was approved in referendum by two thirds of the votby

The WSM & the long struggle for abortion rights in Ireland

Last year saw a pregnant woman carrying a foetus which could not survive. The state insisted that she carry it to term. That is what Ireland’s anti-abortion law meant for Miss “D”, a 17 year old in the care of the Health Services Executive. She was four months pregnant when her foetus was diagnosed with anencephaly. The outlook for individuals with this is extremely poor; stillbirth or death a few hours after birth. As the Choice Ireland group said at the time “No woman should have to endure the trauma of carrying to full term a child who will not live more than a few hours. By preventing “Miss D” from travelling to Britain for an abortion the Irish government are defining women as uterine incubators rather than individuals entitled to basic human rights”.

ers. Article 40.3.3 of the constitution now read: “The state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

In Holy Catholic Ireland things went on pretty much as before. Just four months after the vote 15 year old Anne Lovett died giving birth alone by an outdoor grotto to the Virgin Mary in Granard, Co. Longford. Her baby died with her.

While looking for votes PLAC was anxious to assure voters that it was interested only in stopping the legalisation of abortion in Ireland. It had no intention to stop Irish women travelling to England for abortions. PLAC also said it would not oppose ending the stigma attached to single mothers. It was lying on all fronts and its hypocrisy was seen in the middle of 1984 when Eileen Flynn was sacked from her teaching job in a New Ross convent school for having a baby outside marriage. PLAC’s response was silence.

Defending her dismissal, a Jesuit priest wrote: “Ms Flynn’s pregnancy is significant only as being incontrovertible evidence that her relations with the man in whose house she resided were in fact immoral. Had her immorality remained genuinely private, it might have been overlooked”. In other words, had she gone to England and had a quiet abortion, she would not have been sacked. The wheels of reaction kept turning. 1986 saw us lose, by 2:1, a referendum to get rid of the ban on divorce. Defying the ‘advice’ of the Catholic bishops was not seen as an option by most voters.

There was also much scaremongering by antidivorce campaigners about women being left penniless. This was easy for them, as the government had not indicated what type of law they would introduce if the referendum was passed. It was to be 1995 before we finally, and very narrowly, won, and the ban was scrapped. Interestingly, the only people to the left of the Labour Party who were elected to the executive of the Divorce Action Group were two WSM members.

This reflected the respect that anarchists had gained through a strategy of uniting as many people as possible to remove the Constitutional ban, while reserving the right to put forward our own specifically anarchist positions (see ‘Divorce: Undermining the Family?’, WSM 1986).

The WSM produced a poster with a picture of the notorious paedophile priest, Fr Brendan Smyth, who had been protected by the church authorities for decades. The slogan said ‘The Bishops: they hid priests who raped children; now they lecture us about morals and children’s rights. Vote YES’.

Media analysts reckoned that this poster contributed to the victory by reminding people of the barefaced hypocrisy of the anti-divorce crowd. Once the ball started rolling there was no stopping it. Exposure followed exposure. Annie Murphy, who had had a love affair with the most populist bishop in Ireland, Eamon Casey, wrote a book revealing that he had a teenage son with her. Then we found out that Fr Michael Cleary, “the singing priest”, had had two sons by his “housekeeper”.

The massive and ongoing spate of scandals involving heartbreaking brutality in the Magdalen laundries, savage beatings of imprisoned children in Artane and Letterfrack, secret affairs by clerics who preached chastity and literally hundreds of child rapes by priests and Christian Brothers, were to destroy the moral authority of the Catholic Church.

A decade earlier it was a different story. Two years after the Eighth Amendment, in 1985, the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) went to court to try to close down the two pregnancy counselling centres which provided information about how to get an abortion in Britain–Open Line Counselling and the Dublin Well Woman Centre. The Supreme Court ruled that providing such information was now unconstitutional.

Books, including “Our Bodies Ourselves” and Everywoman which contained information about abortion, were removed from Dublin libraries. Magazines like Cosmopolitan had to be printed with blank pages for Ireland when advertisements appeared for abortion services. One issue of the Guardian was seized from the Belfast-Dublin train and taken to Store St. Garda station because it contained an advert for a clinic which performed abortions.

Next SPUC went after the national students’ union, USI, and the students’ unions in UCD and Trinity College. Their members had voted, in college referenda, to defy a High Court injunction and continue to give details of abortion services, as well as adoption agencies and single parent groups, in their welfare guidebooks. Students were taken before the High Court but none were jailed for their ‘contempt of court’.

The fact that hundreds of students accompanied their representatives to each court appearance, blocking the street outside, was an indication that something was changing. Throughout the country the general mood seemed to be that censorship of information was not a good thing.

One might be against abortion but banning information on the grounds that women couldn’t be trusted with it was a bit too much. Perhaps the judges decided it wouldn’t be a good idea to turn brazen lawbreakers into martyrs? At this time some of the students saw a need to move beyond the colleges, and link up with other pro-choice supporters. Thus were born the Cork and Dublin Abortion Information Campaigns. These brought together students, feminists and left wing community and union activists.

The ban on information was defied, openly and publicly. They also made “choice” a central part of their platform by saying that the choice to have children must also be fought for. No woman should suffer poverty, problems at work, poor housing or any other disability because she chooses to continue a pregnancy.

Leaflets with the phone number of the injunction-busting Women’s Information Network were given out in their tens of thousands in city and town centres. Posters appeared on walls and hoardings, stickers in women’s toilets. Live TV reporters had to watch out or someone holding a poster with the WIN number could suddenly appear in the background. WSM members were very involved in all this. Our argument was that defiance of the ban was both possible and desirable, and would hopefully make that law unenforceable.

Workers Solidarity carried the WIN number in every issue, challenging the state to bring us to court. Maybe the fact that some of our members can eat two Weetabix at a single sitting scared them off, but they never accepted our challenge. The state did not look invincible, and that gave confidence to the new pro-choice movement that was emerging.

On February 6th 1992 news broke about a 14 year old girl, pregnant as a result of rape by a neighbour and reportedly suicidal. To protect her identity she was named as ‘X’ in the courts and the media. Her parents brought her to England for an abortion. While there they phoned the gardaí, asking about what DNA evidence the clinic should retain for a possible prosecution of the rapist. Instead they were told that they must return home immediately.

Attorney General Harry Whelehan had obtained an interim injunction on the basis of the Eighth Amendment restraining her from obtaining an abortion in Britain. The injunction was confirmed by the High Court 11 days later, when it ruled that the girl and her parents were prohibited from leaving Ireland “for a period of nine months from the date thereof”.

Up and down the country there was an explosion of anger. Thousands of mainly young women and men poured onto the streets to say “Let her go.” School students from several convent schools, particularly in Waterford and Cork, walked out in protest. Protesters took to the streets of Galway, Limerick, Waterford, Cork, Dublin, Tralee and smaller towns as well. Overseas the case received huge coverage, with more foreign news crews arriving every day.

Nobody had expected anything of this magnitude. At a lunchtime meeting before a Dublin demonstration the following Saturday the organisers were debating what to do if less than a few hundred turned up. An hour later at least 8,000 were in O’Connell St. Some reports said 10,000. That few expected anything like these numbers was evidenced by there only being five banners present (including the big red & black one of the WSM), but a sea of home-made posters.

This was not a moany tramp through the city centre; it was angry and energetic. People were shocked at the way ‘X’ was being effectively interned and forced to continue a pregnancy against her will. They also clearly felt enthused to be among so many others prepared to say abortion should be a choice available to every woman who needs it. I remember us bringing 1,000 WSM leaflets titled ‘it’s every woman’s right to choose’.

Within a five minutes they were all gone, people we had never seen before were giving it a quick read and then taking handfuls and passing them out. This writer was the rally chairperson, and remembers that for weeks afterwards he was being approached in the street by strangers, often older women, who wanted to thank the “young people” for finally breaking the silence.

For the first time a lot of people were seeing abortion in terms of a real living young woman, rather than emotive sloganising and theological debates. Thinking about what should be done if it was to be your own mother, or sister, or daughter, or aunt, or friend, changed a lot of people’s views. At the very least it left them willing to listen to a rational case for abortion rights.

Faced with growing anger the government took the unprecedented steps of offering to pay the costs of an appeal to the Supreme Court, enabling Ms X to travel to England. In doing so it interpreted the Constitution in a new way and changed Irish law in regard to abortion.

The Supreme Court judges who heard the appeal were not known to be harbouring any liberal or feminist thoughts. One of them, Hugh O’Flaherty, had represented SPUC in earlier cases against abortion information providers. It was an open secret that the government was putting pressure on the judges to make this case go away. They got their wish when the majority ruling turned the constitutional amendment on its head.

It decreed that abortion was lawful in Ireland in the event of there being “a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother” as in the case of threatened suicide. The judges stood the law on its head and agreed that ‘X’ had a right to abortion. However in any other case, it would still be possible to obtain injunctions in order to prevent a women travelling. The “pro-life” movement was up in arms about abortion on hallowed Irish soil. The government did not want to face the embarrassment of further injunctions.

It was faced with two possible solutions to the thorny problem it faced: Either to resolve it through legislation, which would entail introducing abortion in some form into Ireland. Or to hold a referendum, thus avoiding the necessity of stating their own position on the issue. As politicians they did not want to alienate the pro-life” movement, which is influential in rural areas. Neither did the party want to isolate the mass of new liberal working class voters that they were wooing as their traditional rural base dwindled. Their attempt to sit on the fence resulted in a referendum wording which neither side liked very much. The X case resulted in three proposed constitutional amendments, which we could all vote for or against in three separate referenda on November 25th 1992.

The Twelfth Amendment – the so-called substantive issue – proposed that the prohibition on abortions would apply even in cases where the mother was suicidal. The wording allowed for abortion in this country where “the life as opposed to the health” of the women was threatened “excluding the threat of suicide”.

The remaining two amendments were more straightforward: The Thirteenth Amendment would give a legal right to pregnant women to travel out of the country while the Fourteenth Amendment would allow (under conditions) the publication of information about abortion services in foreign countries. Soon after the “X” case DAIC adopted a Right to Choose position and made this the main focus of their arguments around the case.

People with divergent political ideas from the Workers Solidarity Movement, students, members of the Labour Party, the Irish Workers Group, the Greens, Red Action and other activists came together to distribute information, canvass, put leaflets in letterboxes, and organise meetings and marches. In the months that followed there were various different attempts to set up more broad based campaigns. DIAC continued its separate existence, co-operating with other groups on the ground where possible. Before the referendum, DAIC targeted different areas of the city for door-to-door leafleting and postering.

A Repeal the Eight Amendment Campaign (REAC) was formed in March 1992 on the basis of campaigning for a removal of the 1983 Amendment, for the provision of non-restrictive information and for the right to travel. It drew its membership from people who had been involved in the 1983 campaign and had been dormant since that defeat, from the existing abortion information campaigns and from members of the feminist movement with an orientation towards community politics (who also organised as the Women’s Coalition). It intended to be a broad based national campaign.

Meanwhile the more conservative elements of the feminist movement set about setting up a group, ‘Frontline’, based around the service organisations (Well Women Centres, Doctors For Information, etc.). They saw their role almost solely as a lobby group around the major political parties.

REAC was primarily based in Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Galway. From the beginning the campaign was split between the feminists who favoured lobbying and the left who emphasised campaigning on the ground. Of course it was said that the two approaches were not incompatible, but in practice REAC activity was centred on press conferences and letters to the Irish Times, at the expense of workplace and door-to-door leafleting and local organising.

One of the Women’s Coalition’s main spokespeople, Joan O’Connor, produced a discussion paper at a Dublin activists meeting on 1st September 1992, which said “To adopt a policy of abortion on de mand is not only politically incorrect if we wish to advance women’s rights in Ireland, but it is also a term which is extremely offensive to many women”.

This was coming from within the group which controlled REAC, which caused many activists to wonder what the point of the campaign was. Further tension was generated by the fact that most of the ‘leaders’ did not attend local meetings or engage in any of the ‘donkey work’ of leafleting and postering.

Public meetings and marches were not supported and not built for and, surprise surprise, not successful. A good example of this is that a REAC public meeting held in Dublin’s Liberty Hall, on the 20th October, just over a month from the vote was attended by just over 70 people.

As often happens, the divisiveness within the campaign was blamed on personal differences rather than politics. Eventually it became a waste of time and effort for activists to remain in REAC. The Dublin group collapsed, with most activists joining DAIC. The Galway REAC changed its name and went its own way.

In the months before the November 1992 referendums, a broader Alliance for Choice was set up. The role of the Alliance was to make available posters and leaflets, and to co-ordinate press conferences. At last we had an umbrella structure to facilitate co-operation by pro-choice forces, but not a great one!

The Alliance however was hugely top heavy with a lot of affiliates who sent representatives to committee meetings but didn’t do much work. Most of the postering, leafleting and canvassing in Dublin was still done by DAIC and, to a lesser extent, the Women’s Coalition. This was only a few weeks before the vote. With the exception of Cork, Galway and Waterford few active groups existed around the country. The main problem affecting REAC, Frontline and the Alliance was their faith in the power of ‘leaders of opinion’ to win the battle for us
.
Letters were written to the IrishTimes who came out in our favour Press conferences were repeatedly held, none getting more than a few minor mentions. The committee produced detailed briefing documents, holding meetings with organisations varying from the Council For the Status of Women to Fianna Fáil’s women’s committees. Yet in the end, the target audience, the progressives with power, refused to be pushed.

For the most part the voice of the pro-choice movement in Ireland was not heard by the Irish people. REAC acted as a flea on the back of the liberals but the liberals weren’t scratching. Increasingly, a lesson was being learnt that if abortion rights advocates don’t bring their case directly to the people, nobody else was going to step in and do it for them. The weakness of the pro-choice movement was matched by the confusion within the “pro-life” movement. Not only were they abandoned by Fianna Fáil but they were split on a number of fronts.

Firstly between those who wanted to campaing for a No vote in all three referenda and those who preferred the more acceptable face of allowing a Yes vote on Travel (their argument being that as you couldn’t actually stop women from travelling the amendment was impractical). The Catholic bishops collectively released a statement saying that Catholics could legitimately vote either way to the substantive question. Although a few bishops then broke ranks and called for a No vote, the “pro-life” movements’ mainstay argument that they represented the true wishes of Irish people had been undermined. Even on the question of abortion Information on which all elements agreed in opposing, the “pro-life” campaign didn’t even come close to matching the intensity and ferocity of the 1983 campaign.

With the setting up of a new “prolife grouping proclaiming itself as the organisation of the “pro-life” working class youth, a further split occurred. Youth Defence was publicly launched on Fr Michel Cleary’s 98FM radio show. They modeled themselves on the tactics of Operation Rescue type groups in the U.S. On marches they chanted “we don’t need no birth control, hey Taoiseach leave the kids alone”.

They leafleted on Saturdays in the city centres with gruesome pictures of supposed abortions. They picketed TDs’ houses, including those of Nuala Fennell and Eamonn Gilmore, and even Brendan Howlin’s elderly mother. They rang in death threats to Radio Dublin when they wouldn’t carry interviews with them. In one incident on Dublin’s Thomas Street pro-choice campaigners, were attacked with pick axe handles and snooker cues, resulting in broken bones. Youth Defence marches were “stewarded” by hired goons, complete with rapped knuckles. The music paper Hot Press ran an exposé on Youth Defence, following which the editor, Niall Stokes, had a concrete block thrown through the back window of his car.

The “pro-life” movement which had been careful building up an acceptable middle class image were horrified and attempted to disown the organisation. However mud sticks and Youth Defence became a graphic example of the threat of Catholic fundamentalism. This was later compounded in 2002 when its leader Justin Barrett was exposed as speaking alongside Hitler worshippers at neo-Nazi rallies in Germany. The ATGWU and SIPTU ran a joint campaign within their own unions calling for a “Yes, Yes, No” vote. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions released press statements opposing the government wording on abortion and produced over 150,000 leaflets arguing their case.

Unfortunately years of centralized bargaining had left the unions with little activist core to draw on, many of these leaflets never made it out of their wrapping paper. However it was indicative of the change that had occurred when two of the biggest working class organizations could take a strong position without any resistance from their own members.

A victory that dare not speak its name
In the end the electorate voted Yes to Travel, Yes to Information and No to the substantive issue. What did this mean? Considering that no “pro-life” group called for a “Yes, Yes, No” vote and “Yes, Yes, No” won, it’s likely that the majority of the vote on the substantive issue was for liberal reasons.

However it was impossible for many commentators to say this. On one hand political parties such as FF and FG contained both sides of the argument within their ranks. A politician would run the risk of alienating half of his party if he claimed victory for one side over another.

On the other side many liberal commentators were unable to identify themselves as prochoice. Instead of calling a spade a spade they stumbled over awkward phraseology. Rather than accepting this as a win for the pro-choice side it was for ‘those forces with a pro-women perspective’. It was a victory that dared not speak its name.

Previous to the referendum the Irish Times was warning “if the politicians who so vociferously criticized the FF wording do not revert to the issue…it will pass”. Yet the politicians did ignore the referendum and the wording did not pass. It is the view of many liberals that politics is for high profile players only, politicians, judges, journalists, professionals and bishops. The Irish people are only capable of looking on.

Home Rule is Rome Rule
In the previous 12 months the Irish people had changed politically. They voted for a woman’s right to information on abortion, they voted against a distinction between a woman’s life and a woman’s health. Yet just one year before the popularly held opinion among those fighting for abortion rights in Ireland was that we’d be lucky not to lose abortion information never mind a referendum on abortion itself. We were on the run.

So what caused the change? In general, the make up of Irish society had changed. Emigration had slowed down, with many young people returning to Ireland believing it better to be unemployed at home rather than in London or Manchester. An IMS poll for the Sunday Independent on February 23rd 1993 showed clear differences in attitudes to issues such as abortion and divorce along age lines. While 74% of those aged 18-34 thought the Eighth Amendment should be scrapped, the figures were 60% for those between 50-64 and 50% for those over 65. Many emigrants were returning from more secular countries and their attitudes on these issues reflected their experiences abroad.

With fewer US visas and rising unemployment in Britain in the early 1990s, emigration was no longer an easy option. Ireland was no longer exporting its most energetic and idealist youth. Young people who thought they could get out when they finished school or college found themselves staying at home in a country where there was still some truth to the unionist cry of “Home rule is Rome rule”. But they had a new sense of what they should be entitled to. They took to the streets in support of X, and to show they would not meekly accept the clerical domination suffered by their parents’ generation.

A second difference in Ireland was the movement of people from rural communities to urban areas. Within cities and larger towns, there are more opportunities to meet people with different experiences and a greater variety of ideas. People were not as bound by the ties of tradition.

The third and very important factor was the “X” case. This not only horrified many people but also for the first time identified a pregnant woman as more than just an incubator for a foetus. The reality of what it meant to deny women the right to abortion was made clear.

X put a human face to what had seemed an abstract issue. 2001 saw a dramatic initiative announced. The Dublin Abortion Rights Group (the new name of DAIC, which reflected the win on information and a new confidence about the possibility of winning the argument for abortion rights) and the Cork Women’s Right to Choose Group invited the “abortion ship” to visit Ireland. Moored outside the three mile limit, it would provide abortions for Irish women.

Women On Waves was a Dutch based group of doctors, nurses and women’s rights activists who had hired a ship and installed a medical facility. Dutch law would apply to the ship while it was in international waters. And the result of the travel referendum would make it hard for the state to prevent women going out to the ship.

This was a big story. Newspapers gave it the front page. Spokesperson, Dr. Rebecca Gomperts was on the Late Late Show. The whole country was talking about abortion. On the pro-choice side there were those who felt that this would be like waving a red rag at a bull and the likes of Youth Defence could seize the ship or beat us off the streets.

Others, the majority, saw it as moving from the defensive to a proactive outgoing type of campaigning. Only when the ship pulled into Dublin and tied up by the Ferryman pub on the south quays, did the Irish organisers learn that a permit required under Dutch law had not been secured. Without this, insurance for patients would be cancelled and there could be no question of providing any medical services.

It was a big let down, and everyone was angry at the Dutch for not telling us about the lack of a permit. It made the ship look like a publicity stunt rather than a real challenge to the government. Much more seriously, desperate women who had turned to the ship for help because they could not afford a journey to England had to be turned away.

Because of the public nature of the ship we had not expected many women to contact us seeking abortions but over 300 people contacted us. This astonishing number graphically illustrated how many women with crisis pregnancies have huge difficulty raising the money to travel abroad. Only tiny protests by Catholic fundamentalists and lone nutters materialised in Cork and Dublin. There were no bomb attacks, no marches, nothing of any note from the anti-choice side. They hadn’t gone away but they were a pale shadow of what they had been ten years earlier.

The pro-choice side, on the other hand, had put abortion rights back on the agenda, got 10 days of pro-choice articles into the media, shown the particular issues affecting working class women and demonstrated that much of the violent fanaticism of the anti-choice extremists had withered.

Fifth referendum in less than twenty years
The anti-choice brigade was demanding yet another referendum to overturn the X-case ruling, lest any suicidal woman might seek an abortion. In 2002 the government gave them their fifth referendum in less than twenty years. The people who had worked together during the ship’s visit managed to bring together a wide range of liberal and left groups in an ‘Alliance for a NO Vote’ to oppose this.

Opposing us were Fianna Fáil and the Catholic Church, historically the two strongest forces in Irish society. With a general election due a couple of months after the referendum the other political parties kept a very low profile, not wanting to alienate any potential voters. Practically all the canvassing, leafleting and postering around the country was done by the Alliance.

With a budget of just £15,000 from fundraising, the ANV ran a very visible campaign, and one that did not shy away from the ‘substantive issue’ of abortion. The vote was extremely close, just over 10,500 votes separated the two sides, 50.42 per cent voted No, while 49.58 per cent voting Yes. A strong urban and rural divide was evident, with the urban areas strongly rejecting the proposals. Constituencies which rejected Fianna Fáil’s proposal included those of Bertie Ahern and then Health Minister Micheal Martin.

We had stopped them turning back the clock but, as a WSM statement for that year’s International Women’s Day celebrations said “Nothing will change for women who are not judged suicidal unless there is a real movement demanding the provision of abortion facilities for any woman who wants one in Irish hospitals. Irish Anarchists will continue to be at the forefront in building this movement”. 2007 saw the struggle joined by a new grouping which united a new group of younger people with those who had been active since the 1980s.

A meeting hosted by Labour Youth, and addressed by speakers from the Labour Party, Workers Solidarity Movement and the Revolutionary Anarcha-Feminist Group, saw a new pro-choice group come into being. Choice Ireland set itself the initial task of exposing the bogus pregnancy advice service calling itself the Women’s Research Centre, and also organized the daily solidarity protests outside the High Court during the Miss D case (as described in the introduction to this article).

The WRC, which operates from 50 Upper Dorset Street in Dublin, is run by Christian Solidarity Party members but advertises itself as if it provides abortion information. Instead, they try to stop vulnerable women considering abortion by telling lies such as “having an abortion would increase their risk of developing breast cancer, becoming an alcoholic and abusing children”.

Choice Ireland produced hundreds of stickers for use in the immediate area with warnings about the WRC’s real purpose. They have also drawn attention to the WRC’s lies with protests, leaflets and media coverage. It is unlikely that there is going to be a sudden political will to change Irish abortion laws. Commitments made by political parties to legislate along the lines of the X case usually evaporate as they get closer to general election time.

As Dr Mary Favier has written in this magazine (Red and Black Revolution) “any change to allow for suicide risk and foetal malformation would involve only a very small change in the law and would not substantively affect the lives of Irish women seeking abortion. The Labour Party has supported such a change in the law, if they were returned to government. They argue that this is all that can be achieved now and is thus better than nothing. It serves their private expressions of a pro-choice position while publicly sitting on the fence.

“Pro-choice activists need to be cautious about being drawn in to any broad alliance of support for such a limited legal change. Doctors for Choice would argue that this is a mistake as it continues to deny the reality of the 7,000 women travelling to England every year. At all times this issue should remain the focus of any campaign to change the law. Scarce energy and resources are better spent on creating an acceptance of abortion as a reality in Ireland. Any campaign should start with where it means to end – Irish women have a right to access abortion services in Ireland and the law needs to be changed accordingly”.

Ireland still is a conservative country; the Catholic Church has been historically intertwined with the southern state. The majority of its citizens belong to the Catholic Church. Catholic ethos was enshrined in the constitution, in the laws, and in the education system. Catholic tentacles made their way into most areas of public policy. A sea change had occurred on the emotionally charged issue of abortion. As anarchists we are committed to changing the present system. This will only occur when the working class no longer accept the legitimacy of capitalism.

It is frequently argued, usually by those with a blinkered knowledge of the past that, it is impossible for society to change in such a fundamental way. Yet societies do change. People do break from the fixed ideas of the past. The human race is not inevitably stuck in a rut. What happened in Ireland in the 1990s is proof of that.

From Red and Black Revolution 14
March 2008

Related Link: http://www.wsm.ie/index.php

<small>Naralogo</small>
Naralogo

author by Choicepublication date Sun Sep 07, 2008 14:10Report this post to the editors

Nice to see a written piece on the issues, it would also be nice to fully acknowledge the
work of Choice Ireland who have struggled long and hard on the issues.

Choice is made up of women and men from different disciplines and political affiliations; and
includes some members of WSM too.

For regular updates on the issues : http://www.choiceireland.blogspot.com

There are other groups involved in the struggle too including Alliance For Choice.
Safe and legal in Ireland and a new Northern Rights Group.

I am quite saddened not to see more women writing on issues which take in the full
spectrum of women's rights issues and the political context of our invisibility in media,
politics and decision-making.

Thanks Andrew.

author by lulupublication date Sun Sep 07, 2008 14:26Report this post to the editors

There are many people who are still Catholic, not obedient to the Pope, finding strength in Catholic spirituality, (not necessarily regular Church-goers) who use contraception, and have chosen to have terminations as a lesser evil than an unwanted child.
For most of us, it's against common sense for an organism resembling a tadpole to have greater rights than a grown woman. If we have had the benefit of abortion, we need to speak out for the rights of other women and families.

author by freedom for fetuspublication date Sun Sep 07, 2008 15:58Report this post to the editors

Lulu, if your mother had regarded you as worthy of the dignity of a tadpole you would never have had the chance to become a grown woman.

author by lulupublication date Sun Sep 07, 2008 17:48Report this post to the editors

You know nothing of my mother and her life. Not all women have the vocation for motherhood. For some and those around them it's a life-long disaster. If I'd not been born, would I give a tadpole's?
Someone I know was raped at age 11, and Social Services insisted that she have the child, so at 12, she had the offspring of the man who'd abused her. She wasn't believed ('children in care are untrustworthy, bad blood, etc.,') and he was never charged. This story has happened many times with variations.
Maybe abortion is 'a sin', but it's often the lesser evil.

author by free thinkerpublication date Sun Sep 07, 2008 22:42Report this post to the editors



I don't think the Church (the only country in the world made up of single men who do not officially have children) has the right to pontificate about women - whether it's women's relationships with men or with their own bodies. An abortion law will give people the freedom to choose not only about whether to have a child or not but whether to accept Church teaching or not - which is why it is not wanted.
In any case Church and State should be separated.

PS I don't know what a sin is or what I can expect in a putative afterlife beyond a fairy story about hell fires, a hypothetical purgatory or a recently abolished limbo. Wil they abolish the other two soon?

author by Choicerpublication date Mon Sep 08, 2008 06:32Report this post to the editors

"if your mother had regarded you as worthy of the dignity of a tadpole you would never have had the chance to become a grown woman"

If her mother had used birth control she would never have had the chance either.
Therefore, she should oppose birth control?
I think not.

author by freedom for fetuspublication date Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:28Report this post to the editors

The analogy does not hold. Contraception by pill = preventing conception by interfering with fertility process; whereas abortion (in Irish called ginmhilleadh) = killing a fertilised fetus after conception has taken place.

author by Lilypublication date Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:13Report this post to the editors

In both cases Lulu's birth would have been prevented. Whether it was prevented before or after her conception, the end result would still have been no Lulu. According to your argument therefore she should oppose abortion and contraception equally.

author by anarcho pacifistpublication date Mon Sep 08, 2008 13:19Report this post to the editors

The discussion seems to be about when and what to kill.

Some anarchists won't kill animals to eat or wear and take direct action against the profiteering industry that does. Some anarchists won't abort/kill unborn children, offer solidarity with those who refuse to abort (conscientiously object) and courageously carry their children to term in a society that is anti-children, some take direct action against the industry that profiteers from the killing of unborn children.

Some anarchists believe it is ok to kill the unborn in the perceived enhancement of the autonomy of women. Some think that abortion is ok , but it's not to ethically correct to target unborn children on the basis of their sex or disabilty (see India but also the U.S. and elsewhere).

Some anarchists refuses to serve in state militaries but will join militias. Some believe in assassination as a valid political praxis in the correct circumstances. Some anarchists are pacifists, some are not. Anarchist pacifists are unlikely to use the violent power of the state to stop abortion and are unlikely to vote. They will probably conscientiously object to abortion if involved in clinics, nonviolently blockade clinics, disable abortion equipment and offer solidarity to those carrying their children to term in the context of building a better and brighter society where people would not consider killing their unborn child.

The article is an "an" anarchist position, there are many anarchists positions on abortion.

author by Gitpublication date Mon Sep 08, 2008 13:20Report this post to the editors

I would say a wanton derailing of the thread by a professional huckster!

http://www.choiceireland.blogspot.com

For those interested in the creationist evangelical dismissal of the right to abortion; and it's
attendant hatred of women's sexuality please visit either Youth Defence or Rachel's Vineyard.
where your tears will turn to gold and money for the unscrupulous.

Please look at the issues of Rogue agencies and vulnerables who choose to agonise online
as a matter of editorial action!

author by lulupublication date Mon Sep 08, 2008 13:26Report this post to the editors

If you don't approve of abortion (or Sunday trading, or what have you) - don't participate, but let other people get on with their choices.
If you are fierce 'pro-life', there is plenty of work to be done opposing the death penalty and immoral wars, resisting the cutting of health services, helping all those who were born with physical or mental difficulties or social problems. Access to abortion is a problem for the least affluent women in society.
By a 'sin', I'm meaning that abortion is less desirable and more personally traumatic to women than contraception, but some pro-life campaigners make the experience even more traumatic for those who wish to exercise choice.

author by free thinkerpublication date Mon Sep 08, 2008 14:40Report this post to the editors

The trauma of abortion? One never mentions many women feel relief . Let's be honest here. An unwanted pregnency is a problem. With legalised abortion, to put it bluntly - a problem is solved. I think much of the hype about "trauma" is based on paying lip service to conventions and saying women have to feel guilty if they have a termination. In my view, miscarriage of a wanted child is much more traumatic
As far as regards timing: Legally, a child exists once it has been born. Until then it is not a person. As we are confuting Catholic theological arguments, I presume we are interested when the unborn acquires a soul. Definition of when life starts (or indeed ends) is moveable in Catholic theology. In the middle ages Catholics believed the soul didn't develop until after birth. Nowadays, development has been moved back to the moment of conception. . In the future it may be moved back to first sight of a potential sexual partner. Who knows?

I agree with Lulu that contraception is preferable to abortion.
I also agree on the issue of choice - live and let live!!

author by mutterpublication date Mon Sep 08, 2008 15:30Report this post to the editors

the article began with "Miss “D”, a 17 year old in the care of the Health Services Executive. She was four months pregnant when her foetus was diagnosed with anencephaly." The ensuing discussion has just touched on Roman Catholic teaching on when "life begins or ends". Very encompassing. Oddly enough in the last week the RC crew decided to touch brain death. It's been a while since they've touched the rabbi abba jesus when is it ok to turn off a life support machine question which has remained a thorny issue since for unfathomable reasons neither brain death nor artificial life support systems got into scripture or the humanist amongst you - the medical ethics of Hippocrates. But Miss D's foetus which people happily argue about on the "right to life" front really should be thought about in the "brain death" question too. Coz anencephaly means no brain. Now we all know that none of the Irish media wanted to use the words "no brain" or the closely related binomal "no head" last year, such shocking illustrations were not included in the usual suspect's anti-abortion posters either. Rather they showed healthy looking foetuses with heads and presumedly brains attached every day outside the court. They presumedly felt that one illustration and one poster and one argument fits all cases. They seem to have stuck to that position too. "entrenched are they". So maybe it would be an idea to give 'em something else to argue about. The Right to die with dignity is always a jolly number. Get another set of posters out.

author by lulupublication date Mon Sep 08, 2008 15:50Report this post to the editors

Sure, it is a relief, but the body's chemistry isn't so simple, because the body gets derailed from what hormones it was running on; even miscarriage of an unwanted pregnancy can be surprisingly upsetting. And I think we should have access to safe abortion, but it's not a simple as getiing a haircut because hormones are involved. You need some kind of preparation for an emotional/hormonal backlash, which can be made much worse by those pro-lifers who give out about abortion being evil, etc.,

author by Curiouspublication date Mon Sep 08, 2008 19:34Report this post to the editors

I notice the post regarding different anarchist positions has been somewhat intolerantly attacked. I had an argument not so long ago with a woman (claiming to be an anarchist) who was in favour of direct action to prevent EVERYONE eating meat but vehemently in favour of abortion. You really cannot argue with such skewed logic. Killing babies good, killing baby cow bad. Very odd indeed.

author by Chrispublication date Mon Sep 08, 2008 21:43Report this post to the editors

The organism is a foetus before birth, a baby afterwards.

author by Mark Cpublication date Tue Sep 09, 2008 17:23Report this post to the editors

In a poll conducted by UTV recently 85% of respodants said they would not favour abortion being introduced in Northern Ireland.

See Link:
http://www4.u.tv/polls/results.asp?Ans_id=307&achived=1

author by pat cpublication date Tue Sep 09, 2008 18:14Report this post to the editors

These UTV polls are in no way scientific and are easily manipulated.

EG The Catholic CyberForum encouaged people to vote No.
http://s10.zetaboards.com/Catholic_CyberForum/topic/701...51/1/

author by pat cpublication date Tue Sep 09, 2008 18:22Report this post to the editors

Each year, there are between 70 to 80 abortions performed legally in Northern Ireland, and about 2,000 women travel to England or Wales for an abortion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/jul/08/health.no...eland

author by aunty nostalgiapublication date Wed Sep 10, 2008 15:43Report this post to the editors

The only new information in the trip down memory lane above was from anarcho pacifist. It is nice to know that they are not all robotic morons who subscribe to a single line and that there are a number of anarchist positions on issues such as these. One almost despairs that the Irish conservatives and liberals above are still fighting this abortion battle, do they not realise that the rest of Europe has moved on from this a long time ago?

author by -publication date Wed Sep 10, 2008 16:50Report this post to the editors

Ireland is the only country in the EU (both North and South btw) to criiminalise women for
abortion. This situation suits many people who think it a really good idea to not talk about
the problems that face young girls and women here. They generally blah about statistics
and lean upon the statements of popes and hierarchies who support criminalisation
and indeed work at many levels to ensure that we are not allowed speak. That includes
Media, Political office, NGO's and Focus groups.

We criminalise women for their sexuality rather than talk about the issues of right
to privacy and right to adequate maternity care and sex education for girls.

Thats because we have a proud history of utter sexual repression which flowered over
forty years which includes the Magdalean homes, the selling of babies to proper catholic
families and the domestic abuse of women who did not accept the roles provided
by a narrowly inclined legislature which defines the foetus as co-equal with the mother,
even if the mother happens to be a victim of rape or just pubescent.

The Irish Government are in breach of EU and UN Rights laws on the issue of criminalisation,
its almost as if they encourage the ongoing repression of the female sex.

author by lulupublication date Wed Sep 10, 2008 19:18Report this post to the editors

Women & girls will always seek to terminate their unwanted pregnancies, & this can be done safely & legally, or unsafely & illegally. Lack of access to medical termination drives women abroad, if they can afford it, or to desperate measures.
Both Catholic & Protestant prelates are keen to keep 'our side's' numbers up, & women as breeders.

author by freedom of fetuspublication date Wed Sep 10, 2008 23:29Report this post to the editors

So Ireland is the only EU country 'to criiminalise women for abortion".
I thought the 1861 Act criminalised the actions of doctors who performed abortions.
Irish society doesn't want to discuss the problems of women and girls with difficult pregnancies? Discussions have been all over the mass media these past thirty or more years. Voluntary and quango organisations have been discussing such issues and taking practical behind-the-scenes measures all the time. There has been no shortage of public or private discussion, except that much of it hasn't been on a tack or reached the conclusions that vanguard activists agree with.
The rest of Europe has moved on? The demographic implications of widespread abortion on demand are still unfolding and increasing numbers of citizens are beginning to wonder.

Being out of step with the ideology of the times is not in itself a sign of mental aberration. Campaigners in the UK against the slave trade were a moral minority towards the end of the 18th century - the protestant abolitionist preachers were ridiculed as oddballs. Campaigners for universal franchise were a UK minority in the days of the chartist movement.

author by Lalapublication date Thu Sep 11, 2008 06:37Report this post to the editors

Article 58
"Every woman being with child, who with intent to procure her own miscarriage shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing.....and whomsoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman whether she be or be not with child shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing....with the like intent shall be guilty of a felon, and being convicted thereof shall be liable......to be kept in penal servitude for life."

In May of this year an inquest was held into an abortion carried out by a Filipino woman on herself. She fled the country. Gardaí have indicated she will be detained if she returns.

author by co-equalpublication date Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:13Report this post to the editors

'D' was a 16 year old girl , pregnant with an ancephaleptic foetus. the Irish state , who blindingly
introduced the co-equality clause, ensuring the criminalisation of women and girls who seek
abortions paid two sets of lawyers: -one for the kid one for her foetus.

She wanted a medical induction, so that she could grieve her loss.

She had to fight, whilst pregnant a courtcase, an attendant publicity, her trauma of loss and to leave the jurisdiction
to access an induction (something that is offered everyday to women who have signs of infant trauma such as
meconium in the liquors, after the waters break). but because the induction was going to result in a chosen
abortion she was forced to leave the state to access what is essentially full-spectrum medical services to
irish women.

The co-equality clause, allows for the criminalisation of irish women and girls. it denies Irish women and
girls the right to maternity care , including induction and abortion services. it is anti- the right of the woman
or girl to privacy and medical advisement. 16 years have passed since 'X and the current government and
Minister for health have ignored the issues of the human rights of women and girls to the point of
abusing their human rights to safety, privacy and adeqaute medical care. The issues involved in that
abuse of human rights puts Ireland in the category of criminalisation of women and girls such as we
witness in Nicaragua. the refusal to grant Children's rights to privacy and bodily integrity puts us below
many developing nations. the argument is hived off by loudmouths who insist that abortion is always
wrong and refuse argument through whatever influence they control or direct - be it taking a neutral
stance on the Amnesty Irleand issue or through media influence and editorial.

It therefore appears that those who support Criminalisation with their vacuous statements backed up
with statistics support the ideology of the State's expediency which states that we are gender neutral,
allowing essential services to women and girls to be under-funded and subject to profit-driven politicisation
of issues.

http://www.choiceireland.blogspot.com
http://www.safeandlegalinireland.blogspot.com

Other groups are The IFPA (whose funding by HSE was cut last week, reducing services to inner-city women,
under the cover of the roll-out of the National Smear-testing campaign and cervical cancer shots: http://ww.dohc.ie.
Huge amounts of funds are dedicated to CPA whose remit is education but stops short of discussing
the legal issues of rights. Irish women and girls are criminalised by current and previous government
health policy which also mitigates against women in relation to provision of services in crisis funding for rape
and other necessary services. I can only assume that this is consistently off the radar due to media
cowardice and editorial whitewashing.

author by make the world betterpublication date Tue Oct 14, 2008 13:47Report this post to the editors

the dictionary definition of a foetus may pertain to before and after birth however in reality most women refer to 'the baby' during pregnancy which is common use speech even by doctors-typical expressions like the patter of little feet and so on.
If you really want to understand how Irish women feel about their abortions I would suggest a visit to the Angel baby garden in Glasnevin cemetry where each headstone contains long lists of baby's or foetus's names, many of those lost through abortion have names such as Toni or francis that can be for a boy or a girl as women get so little information they generally are not infomed of the gender.

author by Real Sciencepublication date Tue Oct 14, 2008 14:18Report this post to the editors

Is lulu talking about the foetus or the embryo when calling it a tadpole? It is tragic that any woman could be so ignorant of biology. Up to 7 weeks the abortion pill can be used which is hugely different to surgical or medical abortion.
foetology is a truly fasinating science. The scanning machine was only invented in 1976 and the latest improvments in that technology show remarkable things such as the foetus walking at 12 weeks.
The other amazing new technology is invitero video footage- up until recently it was textbook that the eyes open at 26 weeks now it's clearly visible eyes opening and thumb sucking at 18 weeks. this technology can only get better and better and hopefully resolve some of the ignorance on both sides of the debate.

author by Lacerda23publication date Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:43Report this post to the editors

Hi,

I am not a mysogynist, nor a bible thumping luntaic, I am however an Anarchist, in the truest form.
I understand that people are so entrenched in their own views on this, the most sensitive of issues.
However i do feel that the monicker "pro-choice" is a misnomer.
Where does the unborn child have an opportunity to make the choice? What choice did the unborn child have in the womb in which it was placed.
I understand that pregnancy can be a crisis and an unsettling experience, but if a man was expressing suicidal tendencies, he would very probably find himself a resident in a pschyiatric unit in a hospital.
Surely if a woman expresses an intent to end her own life, surely she should be cared for in a similar setting.
Life, is such a fragile thing that it should be cherished and nurtured.
I too, was once a pro-abortion supporter, and once I approached a protesting group of Pro-Life supporters when they were outside the GPO in Dublin.
I was all set to ask them how they would feel if it was a rape victim who was pregnant.
Well, the response was a life changing experience.
I was then introduced to a Dutch Girl, I am sorry but here name escapes me now.
This beautiful, and brave young woman, was a product of rape. That is such an awful way to describe her, but that is exacty how she was created, A man raped her mother, and a child, she was conceived.
If her mother had had the courage to do that, why can't other women?
I mean. There are literally millions of people out there who cannot conceive and to destroy the gift of life in the face of this is a crime against humanity.

I think, ( and i need to be careful here, as i may find myself in trouble here, labled as some sort of repressed, masturbating woman hater) that any women who expresses a self destructive intent to end a pregnancy should be, (for her own good) cared for in a secure environment, until she can deliver the child, after which the child could be cared for by a childless couple.

I find it hard to understand, how many anarchists would object to the killing of an animal for sustenance, or the executution of a dangerous killer, but would without a moments hesitation accept and sanction the destruction of a life that has not even begun yet.

Abortion is the single most barbaric thing we as a species do, and to try to legitimise it under the banner of feminism/equality is a travesty and an act of unforgivable hypocrasy.

author by fredpublication date Tue Feb 26, 2013 18:35Report this post to the editors

Lacerda23 is saying a raped women should be forced by the state to have their rapists baby.
Presumably their incestuous rapist fathers baby too.

Some anarchist! Supporting state enforced birth!

author by Lacerda23publication date Wed Feb 27, 2013 09:35Report this post to the editors

@ fred.

I did not say that. I said if someone is threatening to end their own life, then wouldn't the most prudent course of action be to protect her from herself? And while they are at it, protect the innocent child too.
Sure who is to say that after having an abortion the lady wouldn't attempt that any way

All I am trying to say is that to call it pro-choice is a misnomer. As i already stated the unborn child did not have a choice in the womb it landed in, or in the mental strength of the woman it got as a mother.

And by the way, I have more anarchist in my big toe than you ever will, dole bludging scum.

author by fredpublication date Thu Feb 28, 2013 21:58Report this post to the editors

"dole bludging scum."

I don't know many anarchists that would call people that!

Or indeed any who would wish to force a raped girl to have the child of her rapist.

I think my original assessment was likely correct. A rabid (and bigoted!) pro lifer posing as an anarchist.

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2014 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy