A Post 8th Amendment world - Culture of Death


The “Culture of Death” was recently added to the title of the thread and wasn’t there from the outset.
the phrase represents someone’s opinion. I think the thread title should be neutral otherwise the thread becomes a repository for only one side of the issue. By we I mean pinsters and I’m appealing to a mod or the OP who can change the title back to the way it was to change it back.

Otherwise this thread with just become an echo chamber for very one sided views, and quite frankly I dont see the point in that.

Calling legal abortion service a “Culture of Death” is not a fact, it is an interpretation and value judgement may would see it as life saving healthcare and part of the normal range of services that encompass the full range of women’s healthcare. Because those two opinions obviously co-exist it cannot be a “fact”. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.


abortion = a death
You say that’s just an opinion.
You are wrong.
That is a clear fact. (known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.)

“I think the thread title should be neutral otherwise the thread becomes a repository for only one side of the issue.”
That is your opinion.
You say you want “neutrality”, but I think you want to eliminate this crucial and unpleasant fact from the discussion.

Stop the spin, you’re making us all dizzy.
Be a grown up. There’s a death.


One of the reasons I read this forum is there is a greater tolerance for alternate points of view than on other places online, its all a bit grown up. If you don’t like the title (i suspect it makes you uncomfortable) don’t read the thread or go to boards.ie where pc police tightly moderate any thing approaching edgy.
Disclosure, I voted against and absolutely agree with the title.


Agreed, it’s silly and petty.




The Pin has a tradition of provocative thread titles. They encourage discussion, imho. Phrases like “knuckle-dragging gombeen”, used earlier on the thread, would be examples of trying to shut discussion down.

I don’t know who chose the thread title, or if they were aware of the historical allusion. The phrase was coined a quarter of a century ago in a letter of Pope JPII (Evangelium Vitae, if you want to look it up). It talks about aborting babies because they are inconvenient, and using abortion as a backup for contraceptive failure. That’s what we have just introduced in Ireland. It’s a serious discussion of a very serious matter, not silly and petty.

People should put their own views forward forthrightly, not obsess about controlling the narrative or telling other people what to think.

That is chilling. It says you can extinguish any truth by introducing a second opinion. I thought the term for that was “fake news”. It also flies in the face of logic. No sensible person could imagine that the 98% of the UK’s 200k annual abortions done on alleged mental health grounds are “life saving health care”.


theburkean.ie/articles/2019 … in-ireland


Very sad story

German man who survived abortion dies aged 21
Tim, who had Down syndrome, was adopted by foster parents who became campaigners
irishtimes.com/news/world/e … -1.3752247


Not specifically related to Ireland, more of a global overview with a focus on Asia.

A lack of women in Asia | DW Documentary

Documentary discusses the role of the following foundations…

Some of the criticisms in the documentary are from Columbia University professor.
Author of “Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population”


ah sure the restriction on providing funds for abortion abroad have recently been lifted.


Irish ban on funding abortion services in developing world to be lifted

Challenges aplenty for Govt to deliver on its ‘Better World’ policy

Considering our ballooning national debt and noting that the government can only spend what it takes in in taxes, in light of what we’re being asked to pay for here; it should come as no surprise that there are Challenges aplenty.


Given that the outcome of the Savita case along with the need to avoid such a scenario ever being repeated in the future formed part of the argument to repeal the 8th, surely the the same logic applied in the wake of the above case at Holles Street would provide a strong arguments against fatal foetal abnormality being included as a ground for abortions being carried out later than 12 weeks? Otherwise surely the State is, by it’s actions, leaving itself open to the possibility of it being responsible for a form of manslaughter through negligence (not unlike a death caused by drink driving for example) as appears to have occurred in the above?



Given that Savita’s death was widely said to have been caused directly by Ireland’s restrictive abortion laws (and by implication, those who voted for those laws were complicit in her death.)

Therefore, it surely follows that those who voted for the current law are to blame for the manslaughter of this child?

The child would not have been aborted a year or two ago.


The above would suggest further that the information provided to voters by the Repeal movement in advance of last years referendum with regard to the projected numbers of abortions that would be carried out post-repeal, was false. Indeed, it may be the case that the numbers were (deliberately?) under-estimated by a few hundred percent.

Its worth noting that the presentation of misinformation has been used by Remainers in the UK (and indeed some on this site) to call for a second Brexit referendum…


It seems unlikely that there would be a significant overlap between voters for whom a statistic of 800-900 abortions a month would be a deciding factor and voters who would rely on the Repeal campaign as their source of information when deciding how to vote.


We discussed this on the abortion thread. The doctor who posted said there wouldn’t be an increase post-repeal. He thought it would actually decrease. Or to put it more accurately, he convinced himself that he wasn’t voting to increase the number of abortions.

I said at the time that when the increase happens it will be mostly ignored as inconvenient. And rationalisations would be made that we weren’t really estimating abortions correctly and we’d need to wait 3 years and set that as the base year. That would make the baby holocaust figures look better. PS said the same, and backed it up with statistics.

The lesson from 1967 in the UK was that post legalisation women didn’t use abortion as a contraceptive. The number of pregnancies stayed the same. But less babies suddenly got born

Will less babies get born ?
You will of course have Baby Holocaust Deniers.


Is anyone suprised? A woman died of sepsis last Christmas day after giving birth in the Coombe, having been told she might have sciatica, and no blood tests were done. Did we have candle lit vigils and a twelve month campaign of front page articles in the Irish Times? Nope, we have our abortion now, thanks very much.

A baby was killed because a placental cell test for Edwards Syndrome was botched, while a second test was clear. We know the crime of being “unwanted” now carries a death sentence – unfortunately the sentence cannot be commuted when the person goes back to being “wanted” again.

As for the stats … Tommy Tiernan once defined Irishness as “not f*ckin’ English” but did anyone really believe we were so different from our neighbours that we’d kill less of our offspring without the protections of the 8th Amendment and the national conscience that it once reflected? I predict, as I always have, that the rate will settle at something similar to the England and Wales figure, around a fourfold increase.

EDIT: Mind you, I’m fairly sure the rate in England and Wales didn’t take off quite so quickly after the 1967 act, maybe we are taking to it more enthusiastically than they did.


I am continually struck by examples of how even thinking out of line with the illiberal status quo is a sin in today’s world.

I went on the website of the alleged “deceitful” clinic and it clearly says “pro-life pregnancy centers” offering services to “abortion-vulnerable women”. But it seems the “pro-choice” NARAL crowd only favour a particular choice.


I actually saw a woman in her 30s with a repeal sweatshirt and her male partner in town today. It was the provocative head case move that sort seem to love. I actually found it hard to look at her. It felt like looking at satan.


It’s interesting that you won’t see Sinn Féin’s abortion position cited as a reason for their electoral turnaround. Fianna Fail tolerated dissent and allowed pro-life TD’s to speak openly and muddled their way through it as a party. Managing to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Sinn Féin could not tolerate dissent and expelled 2 TDs. Essentially making it illegal to be a Sinn Féin TD or voter while opposing Ireland’s very liberal abortion regime . They couldn’t tolerate that this was an issue that people had lifetime long principled positions on. IMO opinion they allowed their thirst for media and liberal approval to cloud their judgement.

Of course many leading republican’s ike Pearse were very catholic. So Pearse would most likely get thrown out of Sinn Féin if he were around today !